Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/2008MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 14, 2008 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting. to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, Chairman Steve Nelson. Absent: Commissioners Kathleen Nolan, and Jack Shah were excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Acting Community Development Director; Natalie Tobon, Planning Intern; Katherine Laufenburger, Senior Planner; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting of September 23, 2008. VC/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Consent Calendar Item 4.1 as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: 7. PUBLIC HEARING: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS None. None. Lee, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None Nolan, Shah 7.1 Development Code Amendment No. 2008-01 — Under the authority of Chapter 22.70 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, this was a request to amend OCTOBER 14, 2008 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Table 2-6 of Section 22.10.030 to allow limited educational uses in the C-3 Regional Commercial Zoning District. APPLICANT: Eden Dongsan Investments, Inc. 3751 N. Hermosa Place Fullerton, CA 92835 SP/Laufenburger presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Code Amendment No. 2008-01, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson asked for confirmation that this change would affect office buildings more than retail. SP/Laufenburger responded affirmatively in that the proposed amendment only allows ancillary educational uses on the ground floor of buildings in the C-3 zone. A second floor is generally not a good draw for retail uses so the educational use would be a 100 percent allowable use for the second floor and accordingly, the use would be reduced to 15 percent for the first floor. Chair/Nelson said he was trying to understand what effect this change would have on the City's receipt of sales tax income from retail sales. If this change primarily affects the office structures within the C-3 zone why would there be any educational non -retail use allowed on the first floor? ACDD/Gubman explained that staffs intent is to first be mindful of the intent of the C-3 zone which is to provide space for regional tenants or tenants that will draw regional traffic in order to generate more tax revenue and also find a way to accommodate limited education uses because there are examples such as a music store or an art supply retailer that use tutoring/lessons as a platform to generate sales thus providing some synergy. Chair/Nelson asked if it was possible to restrict the uses in the zoning to something like music lessons as opposed to a tutoring operation. ACDD/Gubman said that he felt by definition it would because an educational use is being required on the first floor to only be ancillary to a permitted use. Chair/Nelson said he meant a retail use, hopefully. ACDD/Gubman responded that it would primarily apply to retail uses, but could also apply to real estate offices, which are permitted in the C-3 zone, which provide real estate license instruction. The proposed amendment would exclude a Sylvan Learning Center, for example, or some other exclusively educational use because it is a primary use and by definition would not fit the C-3 zoning. C/Lee said staffs report did not provide information about the building and its proximity to other residences and commercial structures to his satisfaction. He asked if staff had a site plan or specific information about the building. ACDD/Gubman responded that staff was not proposing a zone change for a OCTOBER 14, 2008 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION specific building or consideration of a use for a specific building. This proposal is to change regulations for all C-3 zoned properties. If this ordinance is adopted a potential applicant would be able to apply for a Conditional Use Permit to establish an educational use. Therefore, the Commission would not be obligated to approve an educational use in a location that was unsuitable. This ordinance would not specify that an educational use would be permitted in any particular location. VC/Torng referred to Table 2-6, Page 2 and clarified that the Conditional User Permit would be shown on Page 2. He believed the fourth column should be Zone "I" for Industry. He said he wanted consistency so that on Page 2 the first table would be 1 and he did not understand "I" was not shown on Pages 3 and 4. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Nelson opened the Public Hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the Public Hearing. VC/Torng motioned, C/Lee seconded, to approve Development Code Amendment No. 2008-01. Chair/Nelson said he felt the balance considerations were to provide opportunities for this kind of use and that there was obviously a demand for the uses. He really appreciated ACDD/Gubman's comments about the synergy and ancillary uses. On the other hand, he wants to make sure that individuals are not afraid to invest in Diamond Bar because the City's ordinances and zoning codes are too strict and prevent lease out of the spaces. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Lee, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Shah 7.2 Development Review No. 2008-16 — Under the authority of Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, this was a request to construct three new decks/balconies totaling 3060 square feet on the rear of an existing 5881 square foot single family residence located in the Rural Residential (RR) zone. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 2637 Blaze Trail Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dipak and Harshila Doshi 2637 Blaze Trail Diamond Bar, CA 91765 OCTOBER 14, 2008 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Simon Shum S&W Development 20272 Carrey Road Walnut, CA 91789 SP/Laufenburger presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2008-16, based on Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson wanted to know to know what the construction faced and from what sites in the City this project would or could be visible. SP/Laufenburger said it was not visible from Diamond Bar Boulevard. SP/Laufenburger explained that the project faces a vacant canyon and there is all vacant land behind the structure. C/Lee asked if staff had a conceptual landscape plan so that he could see more of the finished product. He felt staffs report was lacking information and detail and said that the next time there was an addition or project he would like to see detailed plans with conceptual landscape drawings and other details. Chair/Nelson explained that the primary focus of the Planning Commission is to address land uses and codes. The detail of the building is not something that is within the Commissions purview. He was not suggesting that C/Lee could not take an interest in those details but was not sure that staff should be held responsible for providing that level of detail. He felt those kinds of questions were best addressed to the applicant's representative. C/Lee commented that he understood that the Planning Commission did not thoroughly analyze the plans but as Planning Commissioners he felt they should evaluate and decide outside appearance as a part of the project. Just two sheets of 11 x17 plans is not enough information for him so he wanted staff to prepare more detailed information next time. Chair/Nelson asked C/Lee what he specifically wanted and C/Lee wanted to see the conceptual landscape plan so that the Commissioners could consider the appearance of the house. Also, he cannot discern the appearance of the deck and there is no description about the finished elevation. SP/Laufenburger explained that a conceptual landscape plan was not required for this project because it is an existing house that has landscaping. The landscape plan would be required at the time the applicant submitted the building plans. ACDD/Gubman said that if the Commission wanted full sized plans staff would be happy to provide them in the future if the 11 x17 size is not acceptable. All of the details are provided in the plans presented by staff this evening. They may be difficult to view due to the size of the reprint. The plan itself is a bit complicated and it was difficult for staff to decipher the details and look of the project. As a result, the architect prepared the isometric rendering to OCTOBER 14, 2008 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION help illustrate how the proposed addition would appear and staff attempted to highlight the different components through the PowerPoint presentation. C/Lee said the Commissioners' function was to evaluate and decide based on land use, appearance and safety, and that is why he requested to see the full plans including a cross section of the retaining walls. He again asked that staff submit a full set of comprehensive plans. ACCD/Gubman asked that C/Lee forgive him for disagreeing with him but it is not within the Planning Commission's purview to make decisions based on the Building Code so staff will not be providing the Commission with structural plans. Chair/Nelson asked that this subject be deferred to discussion under Item 8. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Nelson opened the Public Hearing. Simon Shum, Architect, explained the proposed project and delicate design to incorporate all of the functionality of the outdoor space on the hillside using the Isometric. Based on his past experience, once the project is approved it goes to the City's Engineering Department to determine Caisson depth, etc., for structural safety. Chair/Nelson closed the Public Hearing. C/Lee moved, Chair/Nelson seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2008- 16, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Lee, Chair/Nelson, VC/Torng None Nolan, Shah 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTSIINFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Chair/Nelson said his understanding of the Planning Commission's role is that it deals with land use issues including visual impacts, visual consistency, community consistency as well as whether or not the Commission feels the project's merits outweighs some variance from the existing codes, etc. ACDD/Gubman agreed with Chair/Nelson that for any land use the role of the Commission is to ensure that the use is appropriate to the location, whether the size and height of the home is appropriate and whether it is too close to the street and whether it is out of character for a home to be at the minimum setback on a particular street. If it is a conditional use that depends on a case-by-case OCTOBER 14, 2008 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION basis there are other factors that come into play to determine whether the use is appropriate. Chair/Nelson said that he has from time to time commented on the use of certain items within the landscape plan. He asked ACDD/Gubman if that was going outside of the bounds of the Commission's assignment and ACDD/Gubman responded no, that it was not because it can be related to compatibility. For example, an invasive plant species is clearly incompatible with the ecology of the area. Chair/Nelson said that C/Lee has perfectly valid concerns. He asked C/Lee to describe what he would like to have his role be within the Commission. C/Lee said he wanted more information and said that he needed to see landscape plans to be able to determine whether it was compatible and acceptable within the community to adjacent properties. He does not want to encroach on other department's function he just wants to see the general appearance of the house plans. Compared to other cities Diamond Bar is very flexible and business oriented and tries to entice individuals to invest in the City. He did not believe one or two pages were enough to allow him to decide about a project. He wants to have more information to decide the merits of a project so he can make a proven decision. Today he was surprised to get two pieces of paper and one elevation and asked to approve this unusual project. ACDD/Gubman responded that staff would provide the Commission with the level of detail that was commensurate with the scale and complexity of the project. If the project in question was an entire new house the staff report would be much more detailed and plans would be provided accordingly. This is an addition of a multi -tiered deck, a very simple and basic project that barely reached the threshold for Planning Commission review. There is not a lot to explain about this project and the best staff can do is to use graphic examples to help explain what the project looks like. C/Lee said he believed every project and plan should be treated in the same manner. If staff will provide more information in the future he would appreciate it. VC/Torng said he agreed that if the project followed the rules he would trust staff and engineering to make safety determinations because it is not the Commissioners' job to do so. He felt today's presentation was very good and professional and that the project complied with the Hillside Management considerations. He asked staff to just try to accommodate C/Lee as much as possible and the Commission would understand. Chair/Nelson commended C/Lee for his persistence. In the future, the Commission needs to know the visual impacts. Just because it is contained within "The Country Estates" does not mean the Commissioners are not concerned. OCTOBER 14, 2008 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee said that he wanted to see more detail in order to have a greater comfort level on all projects. Of course he leaves the safety aspects to staff and the appropriate departments. He wants a greater comfort levet about a project based on the safety concept. ACDD/Gubman said that it may take time for staff to get on the same page with C/Lee but that he would take C/Lee's comments into account and look at how concepts might more thoroughly be presented. Perhaps a larger set of plans would better answer C/Lee's concems. If Commissioners have, questions or issues they should feel free to call ACDD/Gubman at the office prior to the meeting in order to better prepare to answer questions and resolve concerns and better prepare for the meeting. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects. ACDD/Gubman stated that the Chevron Station at Palomino and Diamond Bar Boulevard has abandoned its original project and instead has proposed a minor refresh of the current facility which falls within the purview of staff for approval. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 8:03 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 25th day of November, 2008. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Acting Community Development Director �� �, "-I Steve Nelson, Chairman