Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/9/2004MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Tye led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS — ADMINISTERED BY LYNDA BURGESS, CITY CLERK. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Dan Nolan, Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka, and Commissioners Ruth M. Low, Joe McManus and Steve Tye. Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; - Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. 3. PRESENTATION OF CITY TILES TO OUTGOING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS STEVE NELSON AND OSMAN WEI. Outgoing Commissioner Steve Nelson spoke about his tenure on the Planning Commission and thanked his colleagues and staff for a pleasurable and professional association. Chair/Tye reported that in honor of and gratitude for Mr. Nelson's service to the Planning Commission and the City, a tree would be planted in his name at the Diamond Bar Center. Chair/Tye thanked Outgoing Commissioner Wei for his contribution to and service on the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wei expressed his gratitude to the Commission and Staff for their assistance. He hoped to be able to contribute to the City in other capacities. MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 4. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: 5. 7. DCM/DeStefano opened nominations for Chairman of the Planning Commission. C/Tanaka nominated Commissioner Dan Nolan. Commissioner Low seconded the nomination. There being no other nominations offered, Dan Nolan was unanimously selected Chairman of the Planning Commission. Chair/Nolan presented a commemorative plaque to outgoing Chairman Steve Tye in honor of his service and dedication to the Planning Commission as its Chairman. Chair/Nolan nominated Commissioner Jack Tanaka to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tye seconded the motion. There being no other nominations offered, Commissioner Tanaka was unanimously elected to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 Approval of February 24, 2004, Regular Meeting minutes. None Offered. C/Tye moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to approve the February 24, 2004, Regular Meeting minutes as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. NEW BUSINESS: 8. PUBLIC HEARING (S): None 8.1 Extension of Time Request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-02 1 for Development Review No. 2002-06and Variance No. 2002-010) (pursuant to Code Section 22.66.050.C.) is—a request for a one-year extension of time for a project approved by the Planning Commission on April 9, 2002. The Planning Commission approval allows the construction of an automated car wash with retail sales boutique, lube center, detail center with office, auto service center, gasoline station, and platforms to display vehicles for sale. MARCH 9, 2004 PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 515-525 Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mathew Tachdjian Col -Am Properties LLC P.O. Box 4655 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving the extension of time. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded, to grant the extension. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, Tye, Low, VC/Tanaka, Chair/Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.2 Development Review No. 2004-05 and Tree Permit No. 2004-03 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020.(a)(1), 22.38.070 and 22.38.130) is a request to demolish an existing two story single-family residence of approximately 4,000 square feet and construct a two story single-family residence with a basement, four car garage, patio cover, veranda and balcony totaling approximately 11,504 square feet. The request also includes a series of six retaining walls within the rear yard with a maximum exposed height of six feet for each wall. The Tree permit is related to the removal/replacement of two oak trees. PROJECT ADDRESS: 22807 Lazy Trail Drive (Tract 30091, Lot 149) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 MARCH 9, 2004 PROPERTY OWNER PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Ms. Rita Medirata 22807 Lazy Trail Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 615 N. Benson Avenue, Unit C Upland, CA 91764 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-05 and Tree Permit No. 2004-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Tanaka said he visited the site this afternoon. He saw that the public notice board was present. However, there was no notice on the board. Kent Smith, representing the architect, said he read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. Mark Montgomery, 22615 Lazy Meadow and General Manager of "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association, informed the Commission that the Association had a serious problem with the proposed development. He provided photographs to the Commission that were taken today. The Association requires that the Architectural Review Committee review all plans to determine whether they satisfy the conditions of size, shape, location, orientation, etc. On July 18, 2003, the applicant appeared before the Architectural Review Committee for the first time and presented a series of plans that were reviewed and redlined by the architect. The applicant returned to the Committee on October 7, 2003, with a new set of plans that were reviewed and again redlined to indicate the Committee's concerns. On December 25, 2003, the applicant returned to the Committee with yet another set of plans that were scrutinized and ultimately denied by the Committee. The Association has a responsibility to its members to make certain that any proposed development within the sphere of influence meets the requirements of the association. This property did not conform to the minimum requirements. The Association has concerns that the developer may attempt to proceed with the development believing that with the Commission's approval they may proceed. The Association strongly objects to this project moving forward as proposed and would take the necessary MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION action to prevent the project from being constructed as proposed. Therefore, the Association requests that the Planning Commission defer further consideration of this proposed project until such time as the architectural committee approves the plan. C/McManus asked Mr. Montgomery to elaborate on the Committee's specific objections to the project. Mr. Montgomery explained that the Committee is concerned about the size, shape, orientation and location on the lot and whether it conforms in harmony to the surrounding properties. The Committee has determined that this project is not in harmony with the association. He asked that the Committee be allowed to continue working with the applicant to resolve these matters. C/McManus wondered why the association had not requested the Planning Commission to refer projects back to the Association prior to this time. Was this a new requirement or request? Mr. Montgomery said that unfortunately, this has not happened in the past and has caused the association great problems in the past. For instance, the association may not discover that a room was added until after -the -fact. If the association discovers that the structure was illegal built in the eyes of the association, under California law and caselaw, the association could require that the illegal portion of the structure be removed as has happened in the past. The association would prefer to work with the applicant to make certain that the project is in harmony. C/McManus felt it would be best for the architectural committee to work with the Planning Department to preclude the possibility of out -of -compliance projects coming before the Planning Commission prior to committee approval. Mr. Montgomery agreed. However, the committee is unable to prevent an individual from forwarding an unapproved project to the Planning Commission as has occurred with this project. VC/Tanaka asked what was redlined on this project and were the same items redlined all three times that the project was taken to the committee? MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Montgomery said they were not the same items. Because of the number of items that were redlined, the project was denied on its face. VC/Tanaka asked Mr. Montgomery if he could address the redlined items this evening. Mr. Montgomery responded that he did not bring the drawing with him and would be unable to comment. C/Tye asked Mr. Montgomery who makes up the architectural committee? Mr. Montgomery responded that the committee is established by "The Country Estates" CC&R's. It is a three-person committee including an architect selected and approved by the five -member Board of Directors. The committee acts on behalf of the association. The committee has final authority over projects unless their decision is appealed to the Board of Directors. C/Tye asked if the applicant appealed the denial to the Board of Directors to which Mr. Montgomery responded "no, sir." Chair/Nolan felt that the Commission had an obligation to move forward with the applicant's requests. That said, during his tenure on the Commission there had been a level of cooperation between the Commission and "The Country Estates" Homeowner's Association. In fact, the Commission looked to see if projects had received approval from the committee prior to consideration by the Commission. Mr. Montgomery said that the committee makes one of three decisions regarding projects: approve, deny or conditionally approve. When a project is conditionally approved, the committee is concerned that when it comes before the City's Planning Commission, this body may assume the project was approved. When a project is conditionally approved, the committee wants the project to come back before it to see what the Commission approved. He asked that the Commissioners look to see whether a project has been approved, denied or conditionally approved so that the two entities could work together. Chair/Nolan explained that the committee is welcome to participate in Commission meetings when "The Country Estates" projects are considered. MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Tye stated that anytime the Commission reviews a project within "The Country Estates" as a courtesy and not as a requirement, the Commission inquires as to whether the project has been approved by the architectural committee. C/Law was concerned about the availability of remedies for applicants who were being "categorically denied" by the committee. She asked what notice the committee had given the applicant regarding the appeals process? Mr. Montgomery said he was not present when the project was denied. What should have happened was that the applicant should have been informed in writing that he/she had been denied and the reasons for the denial. The applicant has an opportunity to resubmit those plans or appeal the decision to the board of directors. Mr. Montgomery said he suspected the applicant might not be fully aware of those options. Whether the options were communicated to the applicant or owner is unknown to him. Carlos Negrete, attorney, stated that "The Country Estates" had not approved this project or the pians for the project. As Mr. Montgomery states, the project does not meet even the minimum requirements. He felt the Commission should not overlook the committee's denial of this project. The fact that the project was not approved three times and that the applicant is submitting the project without the committee's approval speaks loudly to the Commission's consideration of "The Country Estates" concerns about the project. He was also concerned that proper notice was not posted in conformance with the City's Code 22.040.020(e) in that notice was not given to all property owners within 500 feet (of the project.) This is important because as it applies here there is a difference between 32 property owners and 37 property owners. As a result, five property owners did not receive notice and may have wished to appear before the Commission. Improper notice would beg the Commission to deny or, at the very least, defer the Hearing to another day in order to comply with the requirement notice. Another defect and material omission within the notice is that it failed to indicate that there would be 2000 cubic yards of fill on the property. In addition, the proposal called out a three-story home, not a two-story home. In his opinion, the applicant was attempting to obtain approval in violation of City Code Section 22.80.020(b) that defines a basement as a non -habitable space within a structure where less than '/r the distance from the floor to the ceiling is below grade. That is not the case in this instance nor does it comply with the notice. The notice also states that this project is exempt from CEQA requirements, a statement that is untrue because this proposal is not for MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION minor modifications to a structure. Also of concern is the natural wildlife trail behind the property that would be destroyed or substantially impacted by the proposed project, a fact that has not been addressed and falls visibly in violation of City Code Section 22.16.040. The applicant proposes a kitchen in the basement in what is being called a prayer room, a study room, or a sitting room. He found it difficult to believe that a prayer room in a three-story house would contain a kitchen. He felt the applicant was attempting to disguise an additional living quarter. Mr. Negrete further stated that the retaining walls were also in violation of the City's Code Section 22.08.04 in that the tier gets around the six-foot limitation since the retaining wall was really proposed to be 12 feet high. In addition, the cascading is in violation of the lateral setback requirements, the ornamental requirements and the structures appurtenant to a property requirement in combination with the earth that would be moved into and out of the property which has significant impact on the proposed project as well as the adjoining properties. There would also be significant and serious impacts to the "harmony" in the general area and community i.e. non -preservation of views, created obstructions, light interruption and a mountain of fill dirt that would change the topography of the area. He suggested the application should not be approved because it contained several serious infirmities and defects. C/McManus asked if Mr. Negrete's reference to natural wildlife trail and open space habitat referred to a wildlife corridor? C/McManus stated that he believed it to be a habitat sink and not a wildlife corridor. Mr. Negrete responded that he did not know but believed that it could be both and would be required to be protected. VC/Tanaka said the path was outside the project area and well beyond the water runoff. Paul Horcher, 22803 Lazy Trail Road, (adjacent property owner) felt that Mr. Negrete had also expressed his point of view. He pointed out that the retaining walls were illegal according to the Diamond Bar City Code. They faced outward and could not be allowed inside of the lateral setback. He did not understand why staff would ignore their own rules with respect to the basement and infill. This property was entirely inappropriate and would present a tremendous view impact on the neighbor residing on the opposite side of the project. It was a fine looking structure but it was inappropriately large for this property and presented a hazard in a landslide area. He was surprised that the staff report made no mention of the nature trail. MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Brandon Chi, 22815 Lazy Trail Road, stated that in accordance with the City's Goals and Objectives there was a longstanding goal among residents to maintain and protect distinct physical attributes of Diamond Bar that made it a desirable place to live. Significant privately and publicly owned vacant areas existed within the boundaries of Diamond Bar and within its sphere of influence. The preservation of these resources contributed to the goal of retaining the City's distinct character. Diamond Bar is included in SEA 15, a major significant ecological asset to the community. According to its General Plan, the City would play a proactive role in the preservation of this resource by assuring that extensive analysis and review precede any changes from its current uses and possibilities. A photograph he presented to the Commission clearly showed that the proposed project would significantly change and destroy the existing natural terrain, alter the natural drainage pattern and increase runoff. He said he was not opposed to the project, he was opposed to the scale of the development. He wished the applicant could be more sensitive to the surrounding environment and residents. Osman Wei, 24106 Lodge Pole Road, 'The Country Estates" secretary and board member said the issue of bypassing the board is new to him. He was aware of two prior cases that were still under consideration by the association. He explained how and why the architectural review committee was formed. Each applicant is given a set of board approved rules and regulations known as "The Architectural Guidelines." The most recent edition (September 2003) states each individual step in the process and materials required by the board. By court order, the horse trails will not and cannot be modified or changed. The horse trails pass through properties via easement. He was not certain whether the proposed project was involved in the horse trail. A basic rule of the association states that any resident will not change the easement to dig or to fill up and down more than two feet. 'The Country Estates" prefers not to see too many retaining walls because they are contrary to the concept of maintaining rural living. Many requests for retaining walls have been denied. In 1999, when he applied to remodel his house it took about eight months to conclude the process. During that time he met with the architectural committee on seven occasions. Ha said he understood that the applicant was anxious to build his/her dream home. However, the plans needed to pass through the proper channels. He questioned the parking requirement and the need for two kitchens. He urged the Commission to deny approval and require the applicant to conform to the basic requirements. MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION A.C. Kaushal, 22927 Lazy Trail Road, felt the City's Planning Department had done an excellent job reviewing this project. The subject project was proposed to cover only seven percent of the total lot area. How would such a project be adverse to the environment? Staff's recommendation was to delete the upstairs kitchen. It was not his project, but he felt it was a good project for the City and believed the Commission should approve the project as requested. Not only would the proposed structure be aesthetically pleasing from the street, it would also bring the property into compliance with the current codes. Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. DCM/DeStefano explained that staff's recommendation was to approve the project subject to a number of conditions outlined by staff within a recommended resolution. The resolution included conditions that dealt with some of the issues described by prior speakers such as kitchens, landscaping, etc. The Planning Commission had a number of options: To agree with staff's recommendation, to disagree with the recommendation by approving the project and modifying the conditions, deny the project or continue the project for additional information to assist the Commission in rendering its decision. DCM/DeStefano responded to public comments: With respect to "The Country Estates" or any private homeowners association, the City does not enforce CC&R's. CC&R's are a private contract between a property owner and the association upon which they reside. The largest association in the City is "The Country Estates." Other associations such as Pulte Homes, Pathfinder and Diamond Crest as well as hundreds of condominiums are subject to CC&R's as private homeowner associations. The City does not make decisions and subject the decisions to further modification by a homeowners association, a practice common in most cities in California. It is not good public policy for cities to become involved in CC&R's of private homeowners associations. The City does, however, strongly encourage property owners and developers to gain association approval before they present their projects to the City. The City is not precluded from approving a project that has not received association approval. In fact, the City operates under completely different rules from a private association with respect to development permits and decision-making. The City is under strict guidelines to approve or deny a project within a very specific timeline. For example, this project must have a decision by the City by May 26 or 27 in accordance with the permit streamlining act. MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano addressed the concern about property posting and hearing notice. Staff believes that the proper posting and notification has taken place. The Code requires a 500 -foot radius notification for this project size. Accordingly, staff found 32 property owners should have been notified. With respect to the quantity of fill and whether that was an omission from the noticing, typically a project of this size will utilize more than 2000 cubic yards of fill, be it import or export' or onsite. Frankly, 2000 yards of fill in "The Country Estates" is not excessive. The notice is a general statement of the project. Regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff believes that this project is clearly exempt from the regulations of CEQA. To this point, staff could have utilized another section of CEQA known as 15301. This section speaks to reconstruction, additions and new construction that may exceed the size of this home as being categorically exempt. While this project is a grand total of 11,000 square feet the City's Development Code counts the square footage of the habitable area as well as the square footage of balconies, decks, verandas, etc. This house is actually closer to about 7,800 or 7,900 square feet of livable space. This size addition or new home is not at all unusual for "The Country Estates." Within these homes in "The Country Estates" there is typically a very large kitchen and a very large second kitchen sometimes referred to as a "dirty" kitchen. Some homes contain rooms for personal religious purposes. Where question of use arises, the City's Code Enforcement proactively responds to the matter and deals with it accordingly. DCWDeStefano explained that there are a variety of public and private entities that have interest in this immediate area with respect to "Wildlife Corridors." There is an area in the City of Diamond Bar and adjacent to the City of Diamond Bar known as SEA 15. There are 62 such areas in Los Angeles County. The proposed project is not near the SEA 15 and there are no wildlife corridors adjacent to this property. The site has been disked. The site has grassland and while it has trees it does not necessarily have "habitat" as it is known in environmental terms that would be disrupted by the proposed home or by the retaining walls that are designed to support the home. Additionally, staff believes that the proposed walls and tier design are consistent with the City's Code. In the past, the City has approved multiple walls to support a home in "The Country Estates." With respect to the comment that this project was in violation of a particular section of the City's Development Code, the comment would be true if this was a brand new lot. MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION This is not a new lot. The Development Code exempts lots of record that existed prior to a certain date. Lots like the applicants lot have more discretion to deal with construction than a new lot being created today. DCM/DeStefano reiterated staff's recommendation to approve the project. While it is not a requirement that the project be continued, based upon tonight's testimony, staff would reconsider its recommendation and instead recommend that the Planning Commission talk with the applicant's representative and consider a continuance of this matter so that the property owner and the architect could meet with "The Country Estates" and adjacent property owners in an effort to resolve outstanding issues. If as a result of those meetings certain modifications were proposed, staff would present those modifications to the Commission. If there were no modifications proposed, staff would so advise the Commission. He reminded the Commission about the timeline for approval. C/Tye asked DCM/DeStefano to address the retaining walls in the setback. DCM/DeStefano explained that staff was not sure what the speaker meant because retaining walls were permissible within the setbacks. There may be association requirements that are different from the City's requirements. The retaining walls that are proposed are not inconsistent with the City's Code. With respect to Mr. Negrete's reference to Code Section 22.16.040, this section of the Code states that all projects have to be evaluated in compliance with CEQA. Code Section 22.08.040 refers to the residential zoning district general development standards. C/Tye asked DCM/DeStefano to address Mr. Wei's reference to the number of covered garage spaces to the number of rooms. DCM/DeStefano said he felt there was a distinct difference between the City's Code and what "The Country Estates" strived to obtain. "The Country Estates" basically wanted projects to have more covered parking than was required by the City's Code. "The Country Estates" desire for five covered parking spaces for six bedrooms exceeds the City's Code requirement. The project meets City Code with six bedrooms and four parking spaces. C/Low asked DCM/DeStefano to address the basement issue. DCM/DeStefano responded that the project was a three-level home. The home had a proposed habitable area on each of the three levels. How it was described could probably be argued but the fact that it was a three-level home had been clearly indicated and the fact that it met the Code requirements had been articulated in staff's detailed report. Staff was MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION satisfied that it met the envelope of the building available as the Code addresses. Chair/Nolan said the matter of structural height was addressed in the resolution and that it would be periodically reviewed prior to completion. C/McManus moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to reopen the public hearing and continue the matter to April 27, 2004, to allow additional testimony regarding the project. C/Tye asked that it be made clear he appreciated staff's preparation. He believed the matter was properly noticed, that no material facts were omitted and the project met the City's Code. Chair/Nolan concurred with C/Tye. He wanted the parties to reach agreement so that the Commission could carry out its mandate. He believed that based on staff's report and recommendation, a decision could be made this evening. However, in deference to harmony, he hoped an amicable solution could be reached between all parties in the next 30 days. DCM/DeStefano suggested the Planning Commission direct the property owner and applicant to meet with "The Country Estates" and adjoining property owners to arbitrate their differences. C/McManus amended his motion to include staff's recommendation. VC/Tanaka accepted the amended motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, Chair/Nolan NOES. COMMISSIONERS: None ASSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None VC/Tanaka, Low, Tye, 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Tanaka welcomed Commissioners Low and McManus. C/Tye welcomed Commissioners Low and McManus. MARCH 9, 2004 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nolan said this is his first opportunity to Chair the Planning Commission and he will strive to improve with time. 10 STAFF COMM ENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano hoped that the Commissioners had received their invitations to the Diamond Bar Center Grand Opening on March 20 and Gala Reception on March 26. Staff is coordinating a Commissioners orientation meeting with the City's Attorney tentatively scheduled for April 7. Please advise staff regarding your availability. DCM/DeStefano explained that the Planning Commission had two projects in the pipeline and would provide information for the new Commissioners to review. He asked if anyone noticed that the Timber Ridge sign was up? Chair/Nolan responded that he and his wife noticed the sign and thanked staff for their persistence. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: Upon motion of C/McManus, seconded by VC/Tanaka and there being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nolan adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Submitted, DeStef4o, Deputy City Manager Attest: Dan Nolan, Chairman