The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/23/2006MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 23, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Tony Torng, Vice - Chairman Steve Nelson and Chairman Joe McManus. Commissioner Ron Everett arrived at 7:10 p.m. Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; David Meyer, Planning Consultant, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 4. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 9, 2006. C/Torng moved, VC/Nelson seconded to approve the minutes of May 9, 2006, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None Torng, VC/Nelson, Lee Chair/McManus None Everett MAY 23, 2005 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Development Review DR 2005-31 - In accordance with 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 7,888 square feet of habitable area with an attached 1400 square foot garage. In addition, the applicant was requesting approval of a 7,200 square foot tennis court and a detached viewing gazebo. The subject parcel of land is zoned R1-20,000. The site is vacant and contains 1.68 acres of gross land area. The applicant also requested approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a driveway width greater than 14 feet at the street right-of-way. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2502 Razzak Circle (Lot 181, Tract 30587) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. Wasif Siddique 11076 Venture Drive Mira Loma, CA 91752 APPLICANT: Award Winning Designs 17 Rue Du Chateau Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 ICDDIFong reported that the applicant was not present for tonight's hearing. AssocP/Lungu spoke with the applicant to remind him that he must be present for tonight's 7:00 p.m. public hearing. Last Thursday ICDDIFong met with the applicant and property owner and specifically stated that for the record, they must be present for tonight's public hearing in order to request a continuance. Since the applicant is not present, the only action the Planning Commission may take this evening is to deny the request because the application was submitted in October and in accordance with the Permit Streamlining Act the City must take action within 180 days of the application. Accordingly, staff is recommending Planning Commission denial of Development Review DR 2005-31 because the applicant has failed to provide basic information with respect to whether it is safe to build a house within the restricted use area. She handed out copies of the revised Resolution to each of the Commissioners that showed the strikeout and changes recommended by the City's Attorney. She reviewed the changes as follows: 1) Page 1 A (3); Page 2, Item 13 was stricken; Page 3, B. (3); (remove "substantial" and replace with "based upon the evidence presented to the Planning Commission;" Page 4. 4, "the Planning Commission must MAY 23, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION make the findings listed below;" Page 5 and Page 6, edited language to each finding to wit: "there is insufficient evidence in the record to support this required finding." ICDD/Fong explained to C/Everett that if the applicant were present for the public hearing the Planning Commission would have three options: 1) the applicant could request a continuance to a time specific; 2) the Planning Commission could determine that the plans were inadequate and deny the request; or, 3) the Planning Commission could determine that the plans were adequate and recommend approval. If the Planning Commission were to determine the plans were adequate, staff would recommend the Planning Commission direct staff to bring back a Resolution of Approval with conditions. The Commissioners' packets contain a Resolution of Denial in accordance with Option 2. ACA/Kovacevic clarified that the Commission has two options this evening. First, if the Commission determined that there was substantial evidence in the record to make the requisite findings for the Development Review application the Commission could approve the discretionary application. The second option is to deny the application based on the lack of evidence and unless the applicant is present the Commission would need written confirmation of his being amenable to the one-time 90 -day extension allowed by the Streamline Permit Act. A denial without prejudice would allow the applicant the ability to immediately re -file his application. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. The applicant and owner were not present during the public hearing and there was no one present who offered testimony on this matter. Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. C/Torng moved, VC/Nelson seconded to support staffs recommendation to adopt Resolution No. 2006-20 denying Development Review DR 2005-31 without prejudice. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Torng, VC/Nelson, Everett, Lee, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None MAY 23, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION The applicant appeared after the vote and asked to speak. ACA/Kovacevic stated that the Commission finalized the vote and that there was no further testimony allowed. A denial without prejudice leaves the applicant free to pursue the application beginning tomorrow. 8. PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTSIINFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Lee said the resolution was approved without prejudice so the applicant can re- file immediately. Hopefully, the next time he files he will be more sincere and respectful of the process. He thanked staff for an excellent report. C/Everett said he was concerned about the definition of a "standard for a bona fide effort" when two HOA's were involved as discussed during the May 9 Commission meeting. He said he had the same concern about commercial activities where parcels would be sold within an existing subdivision and may have separate POA's. He asked for feedback from staff. ICDD/l=ong responded that if the condition of approval were clearthat the applicant had to be annexed into "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association, for example, the applicant would have to provide proof of the annexation. If the condition called for the applicant to make a "good faith effort" staff would ask the applicant for substantial proof such as written proof of negotiations and at what point the negotiations failed. If the condition called for a "good faith effort" the City could cause the property to be annexed into the homeowners' association. If the Planning Commission desired to do so it could direct staff to include stronger language in the conditions such as, "anyone who wishes to build custom homes inside "The Country Estates" must be annexed into The Country Estates Homeowners Association and absent a stronger language staff would presume to include a "good faith effort" only condition. ICDD/Fong stated that with respect to commercial, reciprocal access, parking and maintenance would be part of the Parcel Map and run with the land so that whoever purchased the parcel would have to agree to the commercial CC&Rs. C/Everett referred to discussions about swales during the last Commission meeting and asked if staff was doing the necessary follow up. ICDD/Fong responded that the City's Public Works Department would follow up on the matter. C/Everett thanked staff for its excellent work on tonight's public hearing matter. Chair/McManus stated that with respect to the swale issue Mr. Chung said that there would be runoff no matter what. In point of fact, if the applicant were to construct a tennis court or patio the water would not have an opportunity to percolate down so the runoff would be significantly magnified. He agreed that MAY 23, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION keeping a watchful idea on the area would be advisable. He thanked staff for their good work. 9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. ICDDIFong reported on her attendance at the Las Vegas International Counsel of Shopping Centers during which she attempted to market the City to bring restaurants to Diamond Bar. The attendance was 46,000 and it was difficult for her to make contact. ICDDIFong said that the real estate brokers representing Target were marketing the two pads for restaurants and she planned to contact them for an update next week after they return from the conference. The general feeling was that it could be difficult to attract a sit-down restaurant for the smaller pad and the emphasis would likely shift to a quick service type of restaurant like a Corner Bakery. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Joe IMcMarfus, Chairman