Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/22/2005MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 22, 2005 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 Low led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Dan Nolan, Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka, Commissioners Ruth Low, Joe McManus and Steve Tye. Also present: James DeStefano, Assistant City Manager, Nancy Fong, Planning Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:, As Presented. 4. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 8, 2005. VC/Tanaka moved, C/McManus seconded to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February, 8, 2005, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Cali vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Tanaka, McManus, Low, Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nolan ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. 2005-02 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-02 - In accordance with Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48.020(A), 22.30.080(5) AND 22.56.010, this was a request to construct a two story, single family residence of approximately 9,800 gross square feet including balconies, porch and attached four car garage. The Minor Conditional Use Permit was for a driveway wider than the maximum 14 feet allowed at the street property line. PROJECT ADDRESS: 3158 Windmill Drive (Lot 12, Tract 50314) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Windmill Estates, LLC APPLICANT: 3480 Torrance Boulevard #1:300 Torrance, CO 90503 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2005-02 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Low asked if the 50 percent landscape requirement was calculated priorto the modification or after the modification? AssocP/Lungu responded that the percentage was calculated prior to the modification and that it would be included in the landscape plan. C/Low asked if an 80 mph wind factor was reasonable for this property and AssocP/Lungu responded that the number was a UBC requirement that all projects must meet. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/Tye moved, C/McManus seconded to approve Development Review No. 2005-02 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-02, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the appropriate changes included. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES NOES: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS Tye, McManus, Chair/Nolan None None Low, VC/Tanaka, 8:10 p.m. Kurt Nelson applicant, asked to speak after close of the Public Hearing. Chair/Nolan granted his request. Mr. Nelson said that the architect and the owner designed the house and that the architect deliberately designed a lot of strong vertical elements. He could not understand why anyone would want a horizontal bellyband on the house and did not know where it would stop because in his opinion it bordered on "busy" and harmed the design of the house. This house backs up to Tonner Canyon and there would not be anyone within site that would appreciate foam fascia that would be installed at a substantial cost to the owner. He felt that the recommendation would make the house look worse. Chair/Nolan explained that the project was approved 5-0 upon closing of the Public Hearing and that the approval would stand. Mr. Nelson was directed to contact staff to work out any further details of the project or reschedule the matter for a later hearing date before the Planning Commission. 7.2 Development Code Amendment No. 2005-02 - In accordance with Diamond Bar Municipal Cade Section 22.44 this was a request to amend the following Articles and Sections of the Development Code: Article 11 Section 22.08.030 Section 22.10.030 Article III Section 22.16.140 Section 22.30.040 Section 22.34.030 Section 22.34.040 Section 22.34.050 Section 22.34.060 Section 22.42.120 Section 22.42.060 Section 22.42.080 Residential Zoning District Land Uses and Permit Requirements — Table 2-3 Commercial/Industrial District Land Uses and Permit Requirements — Table 2-5 and Table 2-6 Second Kitchen Number of Parking Spaces Required -- Table 3-10 Property Maintenance Standards for Single -Family Property Maintenance Standards for Multi -Family Property Maintenance Standards for Commercial Property Maintenance Standards for Industrial Secondary Housing Units Guesthouses Outdoor Display and Sales Standards FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Article IV Section 22.48.040 Section 22.50.060 Section 22.52.040 Section 22.54.040 Section 22.56.040 Section 22.58.040 Article V Section 22.80.010 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Development Review Findings and Decision Temporary Use Permit — Action by the Director Minor Variance Findings and Decision Variance Findings and Decision Minor Conditional Use Permit Findings and Decision Conditional Use Permit Findings and Decision Definition of Specialized Terms and Phrases PROJECT ADDRESS APPLICANT: Citywide City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lunge presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission adoption of a resolution recommending City Council approval of Development Code Amendment No. 2005-02. VC/Tanaka asked what the Code Enforcement team was currently using to cite the section pertaining to holiday lights. PM/Fong responded permits required under the Building Code for electrical permits. CA/Jenkins advised staff to amend the code accordingly to provide proper regulation of holiday lighting. C/Low asked the difference between a second kitchen and a "dirty" kitchen. PM/Fong said that this section addressed ethnic culture where certain groups have a separate area for certain types of cooking in custom homes and mansions. C/Low asked if Section 22.30 regarding "group quarters" was being eliminated to which PM/Fong responded yes. C/Low asked if this meant there could be no group homes in Diamond Bar and PM/Fong responded that this was elimination of a parking ratio only. AssocP/Lunge explained that the land use chart did not allow these uses so it made no sense to have a parking ratio and it was eliminated. FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Low asked staffs reason for instituting rules with respect to holiday decorations for all sections of the code. PM/Fong responded that the changes regarding the holiday lights were recommended by the City Attorney. The City Code did not regulate holiday lights and they could be regulated only through the electrical permit portion of the code. If the lights were not plugged in and were left on the house it would not be a violation of the current code. CA/Jenkins recommended modification of the code to specify the putting up and taking down of holiday lights for purposes of enforcement. C/Low felt it was far too restrictive to allow decorations only three days prior to and three days after a holiday. C/Tye asked C/Low what number of days would be appropriate? C/Low responded two weeks prior to and two weeks after. Following discussion the Commission concurred to amend the code to two weeks prior to and two weeks following the holiday for holiday decoration and lighting. C/Low felt that the City's code should have backbone and not be used to bluff residents. Commissioners concurred to change all pertinent sections of the code to read: Excepting Christmas, no holiday decorations or lights shall be displayed on private property earlier than 14 days prior to a holiday or after 14 days following a holiday. PM/Fong responded to C/Low that Section 22.42.120 (3) a. established lot criteria for and increased the size of the second unit as long as it met the 40 percent requirement within the 8,000 square feet of buildable pad. The second unit must fulfill the setback requirements for the primary unit. C/Low asked if it were possible to have a lot in excess of 20,000 square feet? PM/Fong responded that lots in excess of 20,000 square feet_ were included in rural residential - Item b on the handout sheet. C/Low asked the difference between a guesthouse and a pool house? PM/Fong said that typically there would not be a bedroom setting in a pool house. A homeowner could have a main house, guesthouse and a pool house. FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION AssocP/Lungu responded to C/Low that a guesthouse could not have anything that would appear to be a kitchen or have to do with cooking. C/Low felt it was too restrictive to disallow a microwave and coffee pot for instance. Chair/Nolan believed that the City Attorney recommended the changes because he was concerned about safety issues. C/Low felt that page 14 should include a regulation pertaining to the maintenance of an outdoor dining area. PM/Fong referred the Commissioners to page 13 c. C/Tye asked if the approval for outdoor seating remained with the property or would it have to be approved for a new business use. ACM/DeStefano explained that if a new business came to the site that was substantially the same the CUP would continue. if the new business intensified the use a new CUP would be required. PM/Fong indicated to C/Low that the code already contained a separate definition and category for pre-school. With respect to Tutorial Services, the intent of the code was to limit the time. If the time were to extend beyond the two hours (Page 18) it would be considered "school" and not "tutorial services." C/Tye asked why the City would not address the parking shortfall (page 4) upon change of business ownership. ACM/DeStefano responded that if there were no change in the character of the business the rights of the previous owner would carry over to the new owner. If it were a different type of land use and essentially more intense, the City would be in a position to enforce the current standards. ACM/DeStefano responded to Commissioner's concerns about challenged parking by stating that the only opportunity the City has to change parking recommendations is when the land use changes and the parking demand changes. With respect to the 150 square foot recommendation, the number could be changed if the Commission felt the number should be changed. Following a brief discussion the Commission concurred to include the 150 square foot figure as recommended because a lesser number could be even more restrictive. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/McManus moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of Development Code Amendment No. 2005-02 subject to the following amendments: Holiday lights —14 days before the holiday and 14 days after the holiday; and add specific criteria for larger lots for second units in accordance with staff's proposed amendment. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Tanaka, Low, Tye, Chair/Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS: None Offered. 9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS: ACM/DeStefano responding to a previous question from Chair/Nolan regarding how the City would insure thatitand residents are protected from severe weather conditions. The City takes a very conservative approach. Some cities allow the development to be approved and then sort out the geotechnical solution to support the product. Conversely, staff requires that the projects are geotechnically sound before taking the project to the Planning Commission. For example, one project has been under consideration for more than a year. The primary problem is that the developer must prove that there is a geotechnical solution for development. Until the developer takes steps to prove that there is a geotechnical solution staff will not bring the project to the Commission. ACM/DeStefano stated that during the past two months the City has seen non- structural related landslide issues with sloughs of earth, a couple of slides and loss of block walls on the perimeter of individual properties due to severe weather conditions. ACM/DeStefano thanked C/Tye for his call on Saturday regarding Sycamore Canyon Park being overwhelmed with water. As a result the park was closed for the weekend and may be closed again depending on the. amount of rainfall. FEBRUARY 22, 2005 Page 8 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nolan adjourned the meeting at 8:22 p.m. pectfully, ubmitted, n Jarr es DeSte*o Assistant City Manager Attest: li)v Dan Nolan, Chairman