Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/22/2005MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 22, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairperson Ruth Low, and Commissioners Dan Nolan, Jack Tanaka and Steve Tye. Also present: James DeStefano, Assistant City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 5. 6. 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 8, 2005. C/Tye moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 8, 2005 as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Tye, Tanaka, VC/Low, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: None MARCH 22, 2005 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.2 Development Review No. 2005-09 — In accordance with Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48 this was a second request within the same year and when added together totaled more than 50 percent of the existing livable square footage. This request was to construct an approximate 468 square foot one story addition and 97 square foot covered patio at the rear and to remodel the existing 1,380 livable square foot, one story single-family residence with a two -car garage. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 21602 Birch Hill Drive (Lot 75, Tract 25987) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Erick and Lakesha Carpenter 21602 Birch Hill Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2005-09, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Erick Carpenter explained to Chair/McManus that the above ground pool was removed and that the roof was replaced and the house painted. The opening in the fence was to allow access for first phase construction and it will be closed upon completion of construction. Mr. Carpenter indicated to C/Nolan that he concurred with staff's report and conditions of approval. C/Tonaka said he visited the project this afternoon and noticed that construction was moving forward. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, VC/Low seconded to approve Development Review No. 2005-09, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: MARCH 22, 2005 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Tanaka, Tye, VC/Low, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.3 Development Review No. 2005-03 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-03 - In accordance with Code Sections 22.48.020(x)(1), 22.56 and 22.68 this was a request to construct a one-story addition of approximately 1,106 square feet of livable area to an existing one story single-family residence of approximately 1,288 square feet of livable area plus a two -car garage. The existing single-family residence was considered legal non -conforming due to existing five-foot side yard setbacks. The Minor Conditional Use Permit was a request to maintain the existing five-foot side yard setbacks for the proposed addition instead of the required five and 10 -foot side yard setbacks. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2611 Crooked Creek Drive (Tract 25990, Lot 44) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Mr. and Mrs. Timothy Keck APPLICANT: 2611 Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2005-03 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. AssocP/Lungu responded to VC/Low that she would correct the property address on page 2 under Item 4 (a). AssocP/Lungu responded to C/Tye that the portable storage container in the driveway was not related to construction. The purpose for the addition was to provide living space for the property owner's mother and the storage space contained items owned by the mother and AssocP/Lungu said she had been assured by the property owner that the storage unit would be moved off site once construction was completed and the items were moved to the inside of the new space. Tim Keck wanted to know if he would have to add fencing. AssocP/Lungu responded to Mr. Keck that in accordance with the condition if the Building Official felt that the current fencing was sufficient the property owner would not be required MARCH 22, 2005 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION to construct additional fencing. Mr. Keck asked if he could have a sink in the wet bar. AssocP/Lungu said Mr. Keck could not have a kitchen related sink but that a small sink would be permitted. Mr. Keck asked if he had to change the kitchen can lights to fluorescent and provide bathroom fluorescent lighting as well. AssocPlLungu responded that according to the Building and Safety Official and pursuant to the Code the bathrooms and kitchens needed to have fluorescent lighting. She said she would research the matter further and advise Mr. Keck. Mr. Keck believed that the distance between the pool and the house was a minimum of three feet. He understood from the planning department that the depth of the swimming pool was the distance that the residence needed to be from the pool. The area close to the pool is a tanning shelf and the depth at that point is six inches deep. Therefore, is he allowed to be closer than five or six feet? Chair/McManus explained that the Code indicates that the edge of the pool can be only that close to the wall of the house, not including a patio or cover. AssocPlLungu stated that Condition (u) on Page 11 states that a pool can be against the house. However, what matters is the surcharge that the pool would place on the ground between it and the addition. She believed that Building and Safety wanted a three-foot separation between the pool and the house. C/Nolan asked the applicant if he was willing to live within the rules of the draft resolution if the terms and conditions imposed by the Building and Safety division were contrary to his desires. Mr. Keck responded affirmatively and said he would make changes accordingly. ACM/DeStefano recommended that Condition (t) incorporate the following language "if required by the Building Official." With respect to Condition (u) regarding the pool the first condition is to verify the distance and the second piece of the condition has to do with maintaining adequate distance and staff is not certain of the distance and would recommend that the same language be added to wit: "if required by the Building Official." Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. VC/Low questioned whether the City Code was up to date in requiring fluorescent lighting. ACM/DeStefano said that staff intended to look into why the condition was in the Code. MARCH 22, 2005 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan asked for clarification regarding the distance of the pool from the house. ACM/DeStefano felt that the condition pertaining to this project seemed to address the surcharge that the room addition would place on the ground adjacent to the pool under construction. C/Tye moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Development Review No. 2005-03 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-03 with the addition of condition language as stated by ACM/DeStefano in the previous paragraph. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, Nolan, Tanaka, VC/Low, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.1 Development Review No. 2005-04 - In accordance with Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48 this was a request to construct an approximate 1,436 square foot two-story addition and 539 square foot patio cover/deck and trellis at the rear of the existing 1,380 livable square foot, two-story, single family residence with a two - car garage. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 1020 Farel Avenue (Lot 21, Tract 27264) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Jose and Veronica Medina 1020 Farel Avenue Diamond Barg CA 91765 DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2005-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the following addition to Condition (m) having to do with the fluorescent lighting in the kitchen to wit: "if required by the Building Official." Chair/McManus opened the public hearing, With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. C/Tye said he had an opportunity to visit with Mr. Medina on Sunday and learned that Mr. Medina was also providing additional living space for his mother-in-law and MARCH 22, 2005 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION he appreciated that the Medina's wished to stay in Diamond Bar and improve their home. C/Tye moved, VC/Low seconded to approve Development Review No. 2005-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution and amended by staff. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, VC/Low, Nolan, Tanaka, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS: VC/Low said that through her travels she has noticed a number of very unique and different pieces of public art in Brea that she felt contributed to the overall desirability and livability of the community. She asked if the General Plan provided for developing art either structurally or otherwise. If not, was it possible to move such an idea through the system wherein the City could require a commercial project to include it as a part of the development standard to enhance the aesthetic quality of the City. She wondered if the residential builders could be instructed to set aside a portion of their building fund to provide art or to provide for something in the City parks. ACM/DeStefano responded that as a member of the Brea Community Development staff several years ago a system of percentage for art was devised and based upon the size and value of the project a percent for art was set aside. Diamond Bar was asked to take a look at providing public art about 10 years ago and it was set aside. The issue has not been raised since but certainly could be brought forward to the City. VC/Low said she was raising the issue because she felt it would enhance Diamond Bar. ACM/DeStefano believed there was a brief statement within the General Plan that addressed consideration of an art in public places program. VC/Low asked that if there was consensus that the idea be incorporated into the current projects. C/Nolan suggested that the idea could be incorporated in the builder's requirement to provide park space. He said he would be discussing this matter as an agenda item in the near future. Chair/McManus said that he too would like to pursue the matter. C/Tanaka agreed. 10. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: ACM/DeStefano reported that the Target project was moving through plan check and would most likely come before the Commission late April/early May with Target commencing construction in July and opening slated for July 2006. The Brookfield project was scheduled to commence construction late summer/early fall and the Commission would likely review that project around May/June. The Country Hills MARCH 22, 2005 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Towne Center project was proposed to commence construction by the end of 2005 with the new grocery store slated to open for the 2006 Chinese New Year. ACM/DeStefano responded to C/Nolan that the owner is a distributor — J&A Importers. He said he understood that they would branch out into the retail grocery business and that this would be their first retail store. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nolan adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m. ctfullyAbmitted, Jarltels DeSte no Assistant City Manager Attest: Joe McManus, Chairman