Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/14/2006MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 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, 21866 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Dan Nolan Tony Torng, Vice -Chairman Ruth Low and Chairman Joe McManus Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Bradley Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner, Milan Garrison, Contract Planner; Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner and Stella Marquez, Senior 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 January 10, 2006 — Approved as corrected with C1Nolan abstaining. 4.2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 24, 2006 — Approved as submitted with VC/Low and Chair/McManus abstaining. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-15 AND MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2006-03 — In accordance to Chapters 22.48 and 22.56 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story single family dwelling of approximately 9,288 FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION square feet (including porches, balconies, covered patios, swimming pool, tennis court and an attached six -car garage) on an existing vacant 1.68 acre parcel in the R-1 20,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential. The applicant also requested approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a driveway width greater than fourteen (14) feet at the street property line. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2502 Razzak Circle (Lot 181, Tract 30578; APN 8713-009-066) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. Wasif Siddique 11076 Venture Drive Mira Loma, CA 91752 APPLICANT: Bob Larivee 17 Rue Du Chateau Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 ICDD/Fong requested that the item be continued to February 28, 2006, to allow the applicant time to submit additional revised project drawings. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus continued the public hearing to February 28, 2006. 7,2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2005.37. MINOR VARIANCE 2005-10 AND MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-02 — In accordance to Chapters 22.48, 22.52 and 22.56 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new two-story dwelling of approximately 7,200 square feet (including porches, balconies, covered patios, swimming pool and an attached four car garage) on an existing vacant 34,848 (.89 acre) square foot parcel in the R-1 8,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Medium Density Residential (RLM). The applicant also requested approval of a Minor Variance to permit retaining walls with an exposed height of eight (8) feet; and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a driveway width greater than fourteen (14) feet at the street property line. FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 3121 Steeplechase Lot 3 of Parcel Map 23382 (APN 8713-017-112) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Arun and Indira Jain 20825 Quail Run Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91789 Pete Volbeda 615 N. Benson Avenue Upland, CA 91736 Milan Garrison, Contract Planner, presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review 2005-37, Minor Variance 2005-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 2006-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. CP/Garrison responded to VC/Low that the apparent discrepancy in the size of the driveway was because the site entry at the east and west entrances were 20 feet wide at the turn into a half -circle and staff recommended a reduction from 20 feet to 12 feet to provide additional landscaping to meet the 50 percent requirement. A width of 14 feet is the maximum allowed at the half -circle area and staff is recommending that it be reduced to 12 feet to reduce the amount of paving in the front yard area. C/Torng asked if it was normal to seek Planning Commission approval prior to the applicant receiving approval from `The Country Estates" Homeowners Association and ICDD/Fong responded that it was not unusual even though staff would prefer that the applicant get conceptual approval from the association before the Planning Commission's review of the project. CP/Garrison stated that in this case staff received confirmation that "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association approved the project. VC/Low said she was interested to know the height of the attic and the purpose of having an attic in this development. CP/Garrison asked VC/Low to address her question to the applicant. PC/Garrison explained to CILee that the 4800 cubic yards of fill was derived from the grading plan provided by the applicant. Staff inserted the larger amount because upon review by staff it was determined that slightly more fill would be required to create the graded pad to comply with current code FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION provisions. C/Lee wanted to know where the numbers came from and PC/Garrison responded that he thought the applicant was indicating the amount of cut and the amount of fill in the triangular portion — the distance between the end of the natural grade to the finished grade and estimates the area to be 815 square feet x 150 feet of depth for a total of the estimated cubic yards. C/Lee said it would be helpful to view a detailed plan of the proposed retaining wall because reference to a 7' or 8' retaining wall" did not mean anything to him. He wanted to know what kind of material would be used for the wall, how deep the footings, etc. and there was not enough information about the wall for him to make a decision and the wall was very important. ICDD/Fong explained that typically, staff conditions the project that the applicant must conform to code and use decorative materials such as split - faced block or slump stone block. The details are plan checked by the City's Building Official to make certain the wall is constructed to the City's safety standards. In this case, the retaining wall is not seen from the street because it is holding up a portion of the street. Someone driving on Steeplechase would not see the retaining wall only the homeowner would see the wall. Certainly the City wants to make sure that the retaining wall materials are compatible with the architectural style of the building. C/Lee said that the retaining wall and safetywere co -related and when an applicant applies fora Minor Variance he should provide a plan that the Commissioners can view and understand because if the Commissioners do not have the information they cannot vote yes or no. ICDD/Fong referred C/Lee to the illustration on Section 8 a. on Sheet ss. The scale is small but it shows that there is a retaining wall and that it slopes down into the driveway that leads to the garage. C/Lee asked staff for the structural detail of the retaining wall, what kind of footing, what kind of concrete, etc., because there is pressure on a retaining wall and if it is not constructed properly it could fall down. If staff provided these details and a cross-section of the wall, for example, then he could easily make a decision. Seven or eight feet mean nothing to him. There is no way he can reach a conclusion. TCDD/Fong reiterated that the Planning Commission's role is to grant entitlement. Technical matters involving construction and engineering of the walls is a staff function. Commissioners need to review whether or not the Minor Variance is a necessary item for the project to move forward. C/Lee said he understood that and that he did not want to invade functions of City departments but in order to decide he needed sufficient information and he asked the City Attorney for clarification about whether as a Commissioner he was entitled to the information in order to make a decision. ACA[Wohlenberg explained that a variance is requesting to exceed the retaining wall height allowed by code. FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION The engineering data and technical information should not be relevant to the decision because it is an aesthetic question if the City wants to allow the applicant to exceed the height limit. Based on the City's standards for granting a variance which are outlined in staffs report, the height limit is an aesthetic limit that affects the appearance of the neighborhood and one should assume that the project would be properly engineered according to the City's' Code. C/Lee said he was confused about what information he should use to make his decisions. C/Nolan said he had sufficient information to move forward and would like for the applicant to make his presentation. Chair/McManus said that if Commissioners wanted to review the technical aspects of a project they could ask staff for a copy of the plan check drawings. Pete Volbeda, applicant, said he had built several houses in "The Country Estates." This particular lot requires more fill due to the existing condition of the lot. The reason for the variance request is because the pad is lower and the intent is to hide the garage from street view that necessitates a driveway in front of the house and creates the need for a taller retaining wall at the corner. If the higher retaining wall were disallowed it would necessitate moving the house further down on the lot and create more fill. This is the first step in acquiring a number of approvals in order for the project to move forward. If the Planning Commission failed to approve the variance there would be no need to provide plans and specs for a seven -foot wall. In addition, the applicant intends to screen the walls in accordance with staff's conditions. Mr. Volbeda stated that with respect to the attic space, the owner may at some point wish to convert the attic to a living area. In that case, the applicant would submit the proper application and drawings through the Planning Department. At this point in the project the space will be an unfinished attic. Mr. Volbeda responded to C/Nolan that he had built more than 20 homes in "The Country Estates." VC/Low asked if Mr. Volbeda intended to leave the tree in place and build around it. She asked if the tree was on the applicants or neighbors property. Mr. Volbeda responded that the tree was on the neighbor's property and that part of the parcel conditions for splitting the three lots included maintenance of the oak tree. The tree appears to him to be thriving and he said there would be no construction near the tree. FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee said that he was seeking a basic plan or cross section of the wall and the depth so that he could understand what it would look like. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. ICDD/Fong recommended that the following condition be added: "Conversion of the attic space to livable space is subject to the City's review process." C/Nolan asked for confirmation that the specifications of the retaining wall were within the purview of staff and that it met all of the specifications of the City's Building Code. 1CDD/Fong said she believed so because the City's Engineering Department reviews the plans prior to Planning Commission review. This would be constructed to the specifications of a typical seven -foot retaining wall that is allowed within the Hillside Ordinance because of the topography of "The Country Estates." Prior to the issuance of the building permit the construction specifications would have to meet code. CILee said that it would be helpful to have the inside elevation (floor plan). ICDD/Fong explained that typically, staff does not have the elevation of the inside walls. The floor plan indicates how the space will be used. Staff asks for exterior elevations only because the City is concerned with the exterior design and aesthetics only. If the applicant decided to convert the attic to livable space he would need to provide information about the use of the space for staff to determine that the use was appropriate for the zone and that it met the City's standards and requirements. ICDDIFong confirmed to VC/Low that the permit to finish the attic space would be subject to staff review only. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Development Review 2005-37, Minor Variance 2005-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 2006-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the addition of Condition (mm) to wit: "Building plans for converting unfinished attic space to livable space shall be subject to staff review prior to issuance of building permits." FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Low stated that with some of the issues voiced during the discussion of this item page 6 of the Draft Resolution - subsections (n) and (o) clearly referenced the criteria for granting a Minor Variance. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Lee, Torng, VC/Low, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Low wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day. C/Torng said that many residents have asked him about the progress of the Country Hills Towne Center and asked staff for an update. He wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day. C/Lee thanked ICDD/Fong for her help and wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day. 9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future Projects. ICDD/Fong reported that she met with Mike McCarthy today to discuss the conditions of approval and plans for proceeding with the refurbishing of the Country Hills Towne Center. The applicant intends to submit plans in a timely fashion so that the supermarket could be fully functional by the end of the year. The new HMart is a Georgia based company and this location will be the first prototype in California. There will also be a Starbuck's drive-through. Mr. McCarthy said that he had signed many letters of interest and was working with existing tenants to retain their business as well. Mr. McCarthy plans to approach the Planning Commission with a request for modification to the Conditional Use Permit for the two-story building because he has acquired enough leases that he needs to build the new building to relocate some of the existing tenants while he renovates the existing buildings. The website for HMart is www.hmart.com. The owner of HMart is a Korean family and the market is a multi-ethnic "World Market" type of business. FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ICDD/Fong responded to C/Nolan that Dr. Doshi had indicated that he wanted to move to the second floor of the new two-story building. C/Nolan felt that his decision was a win-win for everyone. Chair/McManus said it was unfortunate that everyone could not make the Economic Workshop on February 6 because it was very enlightening. The moderatorwas very good at keeping everyone on point. ICDD/Fong reported that the City Council, Chair/McManus and staff participated in the Economic Workshop. Council set priorities for economic goals. For example, redevelopment of the Kmart center is a high priority project and Council wants staff to move forward. Building a golf course is a top priority project as well and is part of the annexation being pursued by the City. Council wanted to conduct a land use study for Site D and perhaps change the General Plan to make it clear that the site would be available for commercial development and not as residential in the future. Chair/McManus said the redevelopment of the Kmart area included the area from the SR60 to Golden Springs Drive to the condominiums to the west and to Diamond Bar Boulevard to the south. ICDD/Fong explained that the condominiums would not be demolished but rather included within the Specific Plan area for pedestrian connections. TCDD/Fong responded to VC/Low that the area including the Chevron and Shell stations across Diamond Bar Boulevard and excluding the condominiums was recently rezoned from C-2 to C-3. VC/Low suggested that the City Council and Planning Commission meet with individuals concerned about economic development during discussions involving the Form Based Code. 9.2 Form Based Codes At the request of Chair/McManus to investigate Formed Based Codes staff provided the Commission with information and sent a memorandum to Council indicating that the Planning Commission was interested in a mutual discussion of the subject. Because Diamond Bar is somewhat built out, there would be certain areas of the City that could fall under Formed Based Code and redevelopment. In order to facilitate the Formed Based Code the Planning Commission could forward a recommendation to the City Council that the General Plan could be amended to add policies and goals that referenced Form Based Code as a tool for use as part of the future Specific Plan. In response to VC/Low, ICDDIFong said that it would be a general recommendation to consider implementing the Formed Based Code FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION specific to the project areas. Adding the words "Formed Based Code" or "urbanism" would set the tone for developing the Specific Plan. VC/Low thanked staff for an excellent report. She felt that in spite of the City being pretty well built out the Formed Based Code could be useful. On the other hand, this concept was 25 years old and she would not want to push the Form Based Code if something better came along. ICDDIFong said that Diamond Bar would most likely use a hybrid form of the Form Based Code rather than a pure Form Based Code. She believed that cities should be able to regulate what types of uses would be compatible with each other as well as compatible to the surrounding area. ICDDIFong responded to C/Torng that from a public purpose (quality of life) standpoint Form Based Codes were established as a tool prescribed to a Specific Plan so that cities could describe what form and architectural style the buildings should take on, where the buildings should be placed, what kind of pedestrian connections should be included and what kind and size the plaza areas should be to attract pedestrians to remain and enjoy the environment. She pointed out that The Groves on Third Avenue in Los Angeles is a very vibrant area with lots of pedestrian traffic and it would be that type of atmosphere that Diamond Bar would seek to create for its residents and using the Form Based Code it would be feasible to prescribe that kind of environment. ICDDIFong indicated to C/Torng that the approval process would remain the same as it is today. 9.3 Art in Public Places ICDDIFong presented the Commission with a report including a chart that compared several cities from Brea and Claremont to Laguna Beach, Pasadena and Rancho Cucamonga. Art could be obtained through a prescribed program. For example, Brea requires that each project of a certain value would have to contribute a specific amount of money. Another way of acquiring art is through the entitlement process on a project -by -project basis. For example, if the City has something in its design guidelines or General Plan Goals and Objectives to encourage the placement of art, the City could, through entitlement - a Conditional Use Permit, condition the Country Hills Towne Center to place an art piece within the project site. The Brea concept is for any project that exceeds a certain value contributes one percent toward art in public places. The question is whether the City is attempting to achieve a "public purpose" and how does the City define that "public purpose." Obviously, the "public purpose" is for aesthetics and quality of life that the City wants to achieve. On the other hand, how would that fiscally affect the development community because they would have to set aside funds in advance for placement of FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION art. Staff would recommend that the City develop guidelines or General Plan goals that would encourage art in public places and explore the idea of creating an "art fund." Chair/McManus recalled that an artist obtained private funding for donation of the Cougar at Summitridge Park and wondered how that project came about. ICDDIFong felt that not too many private individuals would fund an art project unless they were compelled to do so. ClNolan commended staff on the report. He said he believed in this type of program and said that the onus was on the City to figure out how to fund the program and whether it should be funded primarily through commercial projects. C/Nolan felt the City's entryways were aesthetically pleasing. ICDDIFong thanked CP/Campbell for preparation of the report. C/Torng asked if staff planned to discuss this matter with the Council and VC/Low asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to amend the design guidelines. ICDDIFong said that staff's recommendation was for the Commission to send a recommendation to the City Council to initiate a General Plan amendment that would add language to facilitate art in public places as well as the Form Based Code. CINolan asked if the General Plan supported the notion of art in public places. ICDDIFong said she read through the General Plan and did not recall thattherewas any mention, policy or goal that spoke to art in public places. Chair/McManus stated that if the City went to Form Based Code it could dictate the parameters under which contractors were to build. VC/Low recalled Mr. DeStefano, former Assistant City Manager, indicating that art in public places would not conflict with the General Plan and that there was no such prohibition within the General Plan. ICDDIFong said that at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff would prepare a memorandum to the City Council. VC/Low felt there was a better word than "extract" and ICDDIFong said that staff would make the change. FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Low moved, C/Nolan seconded to forward a recommendation to the City Council that the City adopt Form Based Code for Specific Plans and that policies and goals be incorporated for an "art in public places" program. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. VC/Low, Nolan, Lee, Torng, Chair/McManus None None ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Interim Com L k' V � Ct'iL�L�ti'Y Joe McManus, Chairman Iopment Director