The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8/10/2004MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2004 STUDY SESSION: City Hall Conference Room B 6:00 p.m., 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765, Staff Presentation: Diamond Bar Village Residential Development. Lewis Operation Corporation and Brookfield Homes - Continued to August 24, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner McManus led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Dan Nolan, Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka and Commissioners Ruth Low, Joe McManus and Steve Tye. Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 27, 2004. C/McManus moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 27, 2004, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AUGUST 10, 2004 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: 7. Page 2 COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None PUBLIC HEARING(S): None PLANNING COMMISSION McManus, VC/Tanaka, Low, Chair/Nolan None Tye None 7.1 Development Review No. 2004-26 Pursuant to Code Section 22.48 was a request to remodel and construct an approximate 942 square foot second story addition to an existing 2,280 gross square foot one story single-family residence with a two -car garage and covered patio. DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommended that the project be re -advertised for the next regular Planning Commission meeting on August 24, 2004, to include a request for a Minor Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission unanimously concurred to re -advertise Development Review No. 2004-26 including a Minor Conditional Use Permit request for the regular Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 2004. 7.2 Development Review 2004-22 Pursuant to Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code the applicant requested approval to construct an approximate 4,968 square foot two-story single family dwelling with an attached 794 square foot garage on a vacant parcel. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2760 Steeplechase (Lot 57, Tract 30289) PROPERTY OWNER: Justin and Katherine Lui P.O. Box 4893 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Rupert Mok 829 S. Lemon Avenue #A11 -B Walnut, CA 91789 AUGUST 10, 2004 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review 2004-22, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Low asked which tree would require a permit. DSA/Smith confirmed that it was the tree within 12 feet of the proposed structure. DSA/Smith said she believed the additional trees were a grove of Walnut trees that could also require mitigation. Although the tree in question appeared to be far enough away from the proposed structure the project was conditioned for possible mitigation and the condition covered all of the trees. C/Tye asked if the applicant understood the permit would need to be issued prior to the commencement of work. DSA/Smith referred C/Tye to the Condition that required a permit for removal of Walnut trees, if necessary, at time of construction. C/Tye asked if it were normal to exclude the amount of cut and fill from the grading plan. DSA/Smith explained that on certain occasions the information was available at time of the review and that sometimes it ends up being more or less than anticipated. Without the information it would be staff's recommendation to approve the project because in this case the lot goes uphill and it appears that the project would consist of a balanced fill according to the proposed plan. Rupert Mok, applicant, said he read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval. He stated that his clients were very anxious to complete construction and occupy the dwelling. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/Tye moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Review 2004-22, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution and within the addendum presented this evening by staff. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AUGUST 10, 2004 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, VC/Tanaka, Low, McManus, Chair/Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.3 Development Review 200418 Pursuant to Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval to construct an approximately 991 square foot addition including a 126 square foot basement to an existing 1,260 square foot one-story single-family dwelling. PROJECT ADDRESS: 22702 Eaglespur Road (Lot 11, Tract 28092) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNERS/ Elizabeth Fields & Douglas Austin APPLICANT: (Austin Trust) 22702 Eaglespur Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review 2004-18, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. C/McManus asked if a grandfather clause applied to the wall that encroached on his neighbor's lot. DSA/Smith responded that in these cases the recorded tract map indicates the property "shall not be conveyed." C/Low asked the rationale for requiring a permit for the wall as opposed to requiring its removal. DSA/Smith indicated that either case would require a permit because something would need to be done. The City had also looked into conveying the land. The reason for the encroachment permit was to protect the City. C/Low asked if a City process would require the City to take measures with respect to this and future applicants to expedite the process as it occurred. DSA/Smith responded that staff expedites the process at the counter. The applicant is notified at the time they come into City Hall because the property sites are known. Unfortunately, people were not aware that six feet of their front yards belonged to the City, an imposition brought on by LA County to provide open space and the six-foot easements located behind the sidewalks contain utilities. AUGUST 10, 2004 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano explained the philosophy that resulted in subdivisions with shortened front yard setbacks. He stated that the City contains varying front yard setbacks and driveway depths. Adverse possession does not exist on public property. If an individual were to encroach on public property with a structure it would not give them a right to continue without proper permission. As property values increase and homeowners petition the City for major additions, the front yard setback issues have arisen. The City could cause removal of the improvement to allow for encroachment onto the City's property and consider a blanket re -conveyance of the property back to the property owner. In order to consider a greater public purpose staff was looking to implement a global process to get the property on the tax roll and eliminate it from the City's list of liabilities. Chair/Nolan asked how many more similar situations were in the City. DCM/DeStefano felt there could be hundreds of properties because they were generally related to specific tracts. The City could still maintain the utility easement without owning the land. Elizabeth Fields said she and Douglas Austin purchased the house in 1987 and the brick wall that holds back the front yard was constructed prior to that time. She owns a Suburban that does not fit in her garage and does not fit the driveway. DCM/DeStefano explained to the applicant that staff was attempting to accommodate the existing situation short-term via encroachment permit and long-term with a global solution to ultimately pass ownership on to the property owner. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/McManus moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Review 2004-18, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Tanaka, Low, Tye, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None/Nolan ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.4 Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-02 Pursuant to Development Code Sections 22.58 and 22.10.030 — Table 2-6, this application was a request to obtain the appropriate permit for an existing business operating as Jin's AUGUST 10, 2004 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Dance Studio without the required Conditional Use Permit. The business was located within a shopping center identified as Diamond Bar Village Shopping Center. PROJECT ADDRESS: 355 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Kensington Diamond Bar 17542 E. 17'x' Street, Suite 420 Tustin, CA 90503 APPLICANT: An Chen 355 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Tye asked if it was incumbent upon the property owner to advise a prospective tenant that permits could be required. DSA/Smith explained that there was a change in ownership about the time of this occupancy. Staff often finds that property owners and leasing agents lease space without approved uses. C/Low asked if the students were minors or adults and whether there was a potential that this business could become a hangout for students because of its proximity to schools. Jin Chen, applicant through her translator Lilly stated that her school accommodates both children and adults. The business was opened in September 2002 and when Ms. Chen came to the United States she was not aware that a business permit was required. She leased the unit through an agent who did not inform her that a business permit would be required. Most of the student's dance classes are scheduled in the evening and usually the parents accompany the students. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. With no one present wishing to speak on this item, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. AUGUST 10, 2004 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION DSA/Smith responded to C/Tye that the parking recommendations would depend on the new use of the unit previously occupied by Council Member Huff and she believed that it had been addressed prior to this matter coming before the Commission. C/Tye moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, McManus, Low, VC/Tanaka, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None/Nolan ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None Offered. 9. STAFF COMMENTSANFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano apologized for the late notification to the Commissioners regarding cancellation of the study session. He stated that with Council's approval of the budget funds were allocated for the position of Planning Manager. Applications were received and reviewed with interviews to take place tomorrow. Ten applicants were selected for initial review with pians to have the new hire on board about October 1, 2004. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nolan adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. on August 24, 2004, for a Study Session in the main City Hall Conference Room with the regular Planning Commission meeting to follow at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, l� James` DeStef, Deputy City M, AUGUST 10, 2004 Attest: Dan Nolan, Chairman Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION