Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/14/2006PLANNING "`E`°°° COMMISSION AGENDA February 14, 2006 7:00 P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Government Center Building - Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Joe McManus Ruth M. Low Kwang Ho Lee Dan Nolan Tony Torng Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Dept. of Community & Development Services, located at 21825 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Department of Community & Development Services at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper drinking in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission MEETING RULES !Z�L'-i � Irl I ►` l lij l The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. A request to address the Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the Commission. As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community and Development Services Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. ADA REQUIREMENTS A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 839-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Friday. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030 General Agendas (909) 839-7030 email: info(W-ci.diamond-bar.ca.us CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 14, 2006 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Next Resolution No. 2006-07 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice - Chairman Ruth M. Low, Kwang Ho Lee, Dan Nolan, Tony Torng 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recordina Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntarv.) There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only. 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: January 10, 2006. 4.2 Minutes of Regular Meeting: January 24, 2006. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Develonment Review 2005-31 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 2006-03 - Pursuant to Chapters 22.48 and 22.56 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code the applicant has requested approval of plans to construct a new three- story single family dwelling of approximately 9,288 square feet (including porches, balconies, covered patios, swimming pool, tennis court and an FEBRUARY 13, 2006 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION attached six car garage) on an existing vacant 1.68 acre parcel in the R1 20,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential. The applicant also request 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) Property Owner: Mr. & Mrs. Wasif Siddique 11076 Venture Drive Mira Loma, CA 91752 Applicant: Mr. Bob Larivee 17 Rue Du Chateau Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this item to February 28, 2006, to allow the applicant time to submit revised drawings. 7.2 Development Review 2005-37, Minor Variance 2005-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 2006-02 - Pursuant to Chapters 22.48, 22.52, and 22.56 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code the applicant has 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 acres) 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 request 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. Project Address: 3121 Steeplechase - (Lot 3 of Parcel Map 23382 (APN 8713-017-112) Property Owner: Arun & Indira Jain 20825 Quail Run Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91789 FEBRUARY 13, 2006 E-3 R1 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Applicant: Pete Volbeda 615 N. Benson Avenue Upland, CA 91736 Environmental Determination: This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt under Article 19 Section 15303 Class 3 (a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structure) of the State CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental assessment is necessary. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission 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 draft resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future proiects. 9.2 Form Based Codes. 9.3 Art in Public Places. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: PRESIDENT'S HOLIDAY CITY COUNCIL MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION MEETING: Monday, February 20, 2006 — City offices will be closed in observance of the Holiday. City offices will re -open Tuesday, February 21, 2006 Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 6:30 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Thursday, February 23, 2006 SCAQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room — 21865 Copley Drive Thursday, March 9, 2006 — 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room — 21865 Copley Drive FEBRUARY 13, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: 11. ADJOURNMENT: PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, - March 14, 2006 — 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD1Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive DRAFT MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 10, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus 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 Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairperson Ruth Low and Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee and Tony Torng. Commissioner Dan Nolan was excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; John C. Cotti, Assistant City Attorney; Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda K. Smith, Development Services Associate, Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant and Tom Smith, BonTerra Consulting. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Study Session of December 13, 2005. VC/Low asked that on Page 2, last paragraph, that the end of the first sentence be corrected to read:..." ... to mitigate the traffic outside of "The Country Estates." VC/Low moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve the minutes of the December 13, 2005, study session as corrected. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Lee, Torng, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan 4.2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 13, 2005. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 13, 2005, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: JANUARY 10, 2006 ffiDRAFT PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S): Torng, Lee, VC/Low, Chair/McManus None Nolan 7.1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53430, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2005-03, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-01, VARIANCE 2005-03 AND TREE PERMIT NO. 2005-10 - In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, City's Subdivision Ordinance — Title 21 and Development Code — Title 22, Sections 22.70, 22.58, 22.22, 22.54 and 22.38) this was a request to subdivide approximately 80 acres into 48 single-family residential lots forthe eventual development of single-family custom homes. The Zone Change was related to changing the existing zoning from R-1-20000 to Rural Residential (RR); the Conditional Use Permit was related to grading and development within a hillside area; the Variance was related to retaining walls that were proposed at a height greater than six feet, and the Tree Permit was related to the removal/replacement/protection of oak and walnut trees. (Continued from December 13, 2005) PROJECT ADDRESS: Directly south of Rocky Trail Road and Alamo Heights Drive, and west of Horizon Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ John Bostick APPLICANT: Millennium Enterprises 3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 Los Angeles, CA 90010 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and commented on responses made during public comments placed in evidence during the December 13, 2005, meeting. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the following to the City Council: Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003052202) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53430; Zone Change No. 2005-03; Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-01; Variance No. 2005-03; Tree Permit No. 2005-10, hE DRAFT JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Statement of Overriding Consideration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolutions. John Bostick, applicant, stated that he has continued to meet with the adjacent landowners and respond to their concerns. In the spirit of taking public input very seriously Millennium Enterprises spent considerable time and effort to come up with a design to lower Alamo Heights Road and respect the approval for the Jerry Yeh property. He said he believed Dr. Wu's proposal was not the best solution and that Millennium had been able to show that the lowering of Alamo Heights would most likely create more and not less of an impact. In short, the applicant has responded to the direction of the Planning Commission by responding to the adjacent landowners and lowered the wall height to a maximum height of 15 feet. Mr. Bostick assured the Commissioners that the applicant would continue to work with the adjacent landowners and staff to arrive at the best solution for the construction of Alamo Heights Road. VC/Low said she appreciated Mr. Bostick's consideration for the project and his attention to the concern of the adjacent landowners. She asked for clarification of Mr. Bostick's comments regarding the increased impact to lowering the road. Mr. Bostick said that because of the conditions of approval for Mr. Yeh's property, lowering the road puts a 10 -foot retaining wall adjacent to the street. Tonight's request for approval is for no walls over 15 - feet high. In the area there is only eight feet to mitigate the wall with tree plantings. As he explained to the landowners, he believed the better plan was to have the wall on the property owners' side, that he would be able to provide better mitigation and that the end result would be a better product that was less visible and properly mitigated. VC/Low asked if Mr. Bostick had addressed the cost of building and maintaining the walls and the matter of liability with the landowners. Mr. Bostick stated that he explained to the landowners that the project included conditions requiring the creation of a homeowner's association with CC&Rs and a budget. The budget would have to cover the maintenance of on-site and off-site landscaping as well as walls built on and off-site. City staff and the DRE (State Department of Real Estate) review the budget. VC/Low asked if the applicant had offered financial incentives to the landowners in exchange for the grading easement. Mr. Bostick responded affirmatively and explained that during the January 5 meeting the residents were told that they would be compensated for providing easements in the form of a wall and landscaping. VC/Low asked what remedy Mr. Bostick AR UO06RAFT. JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION would pursue in the event some landowners failed to grant the easement? Mr. Bostick explained that the road would not change. If a landowner refused to grant the easement the applicant would work with staff to accommodate that scenario. The ultimate goal was to minimize the number of walls. He said he felt certain that he could work with the individual homeowners to coordinate the plan. C/Torng asked how many homeowners had agreed to the easement and Mr. Bostick responded that one landowner had indicated full agreement and others were in limbo. C/Torng asked staff to respond as to the City's position. ICDD/Fong stated that with respect to Jerry Yeh's concern the condition was intended to seek the cooperation of adjacent residents. She offered that staff could meet with Mr. Yeh and discuss Condition 2 that intends to provide flexibility for the applicant to work with the residents to complete the extension of Alamo Heights. Mr. Bostick responded that Mr. Yeh was not opposed to the project until the applicant proposed to work through the concept of lowering Alamo Heights Road. Again, by attempting to lower Alamo Heights Road it calls for a wall that is difficult to mitigate and that was Mr. Yeh's concern as well as the applicant's concern. Mr. Yeh's letter was in response to his concern about the possibility of another wall being placed on his property. Mr. Bostick appealed to the Planning Commission to acknowledge staff's support of the project and stated that although he is at Tract approval and does not have the exact solution for Alamo Heights Road he has a set of conditions that staff has indicated would create a good project for the City of Diamond Bar. He asked for Commission approval that included a substantially reduced variance. C/Lee believed that Dr. Wu's concern about the possibility of the wall collapsing due to water retention was legitimate and asked Mr. Bostick to respond. Mr. Bostick explained that there was always a possibility and that the engineers had done everything possible to make this project as safe as possible. The technology for real estate land development has dramatically improved in recent years. He stated that retaining walls will be designed to meet the criteria set forth by the City. C/Lee felt Dr. Wu's concerns should be given credibility because Dr. Wu worked in this field. TCDD/Fong explained that retaining walls must meet the City's Code. The Building Department intends to plan check the construction thoroughly to assure that it meets code and is safe. Mr. Bostick explained that his opinion of Dr. Wu's concern was that all of the walls were signed and stamped by a state certified civil engineer who does the math and calculations to say that those walls will stand up and meet the criteria of the City. He said he could not testify as to Dr. Wu's credentials and did not know if he was a state certified civil JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION engineer. If Dr. Wu is a state certified civil engineer the applicant would be pleased to provide him with the calculations. He assured C/Lee that staff's approval was for a structurally sound wall and believed that in accordance with code the applicant must rely on a state certified civil engineer to approve the project. C/Lee reiterated that Dr. Wu said that it was possible water could smear into the landfill and C/Lee said he wanted to know if that statement was accurate. Mr. Bostick explained that a drain channel is installed behind the retaining wall to relieve hydrostatic pressure. When retaining walls are built in today's marketplace a drainage channel must be provided. C/Lee said that Dr. Wu was concerned because he felt the retaining wall was too high. Charlie Liu, project engineer for applicant, said that it was true that in the past retaining walls had failed due to water build up behind and under the wall. He said he had been in business for 35 years and during that time engineers had learned from past problems. This project has a major fill and he and the soils engineer have worked together to provide a project that would meet the requirements set forth by the Code. Mr. Liu proceeded to described in detail as to how the retaining wall would be built. Chair/McManus explained that the Commission was charged with approving projects that were approved to code and that if C/Lee wanted to meet with the engineer on his own to get lessons on how to build retaining walls he could do so. ICDD/Fong explained staff's procedure for assuring the proper design of facilities to ensure safety. She further explained to C/Lee that if Dr. Wu was seeking assurance that the project was safe he should discuss the matter with staff and to date, Mr. Wu had not made any such inquiries. VC/Low felt C/Lee wanted to know how safe the wall would be and the engineer responded that based on industry standards and 35 years of experience the wall would be 99.99 percent safe because no one could guarantee ata level of 100 percent. In addition, he built a 35 -foot wall in San Francisco where there is more rainfall and there have been no incidents with the retaining wall in San Francisco. In addition, his license is on the line to make certain that the wall is built in a sound manner. VC/Low felt C/Lee wanted to know if staff had determined how underground water would affect massive earth movement in the project area. Tom Smith responded yes. Contained in the Environmental Report and backup studies M DRAFT JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION the City required the applicant's civil engineer to conduct a hydrology study to determine the existing runoff conditions from the site prior to development as well as runoff conditions post development. Generally speaking, ground water is not near the surface in hillside areas. The EIR speaks to regional water basins and the nearest major ground water basin with an aquifer is near the SR605 and SR60. Generally, local areas of perched ground water and local aquifers exist in the canyon bottoms. The on-site subsurface borings did not detect any ground water. The geologist did note that in the canyon bottom, because of all of the vegetation, there was no opportunity to do borings and was unable to determine whether there would be a perched groundwater condition. When the time comes to do the detailed grading design and during grading the City inspectors will be on-site daily to inspect the grading and related conditions. If perched water conditions arise the City will require engineering solutions as the fill is placed. VC/Low asked if these procedures were set forth in the draft resolution. ICDD/Fong responded that that procedure was part of the environmental mitigation referred to as part of the environmental condition. Chair/McManus asked if staff was working with Mr. Yeh to resolve his concerns. ICDD/Fong said she believed so and whether the wall was located on Mr. Yeh's side of the street would be determined during the final design phase for Alamo Heights. Chair/McManus reopened the public hearing. David Leong, 22372 Kicking Horse Drive, said he and his wife appreciated the Millennium representatives meeting with the homeowners. However, contrary to Mr. Bostick's statement, Mr. Leong said his understanding was that there was no agreement with the project. He said that on January 7, 2006, Charlie Lui stated that the modified plan provided that no walls would be greater than 10 -feet tall. And yet tonight he heard Mr. Bostick asked for approval of a variance for walls to a maximum of 15 feet. Another example of conflicting information was when VC/Low asked Mr. Bostick whether the developer had offered incentive or compensation to make it more palatable for homeowners to cooperate with this project and Mr. Bostick responded affirmatively. Mr. Leong said that he took from the December 5, 2005, meeting that Mr. Bostick categorically stated "no compensation." At the same time during a simultaneous meeting in a language that was not English those homeowners were given the impression that there would be financial compensation. Until the December 13, 2005, Planning Commission meeting neither the City nor the consultants acknowledged the existence of a creek running along his property. He said he had questioned Mr. Bostick about the JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION responsibility of maintaining the slope along the wall and the liability issues to the homeowners since the structures would lie on the homeowners' properties. To date he had not received any assurance to his satisfaction. It was presented to him that "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association would assume responsibility and liability for maintaining the structures. Yet, the homeowners association has indicated there has been no such agreement. Mr. Bostick indicated that it could be a separate homeowners association and how could Kicking Horse homeowners and Millennium enter into a binding agreement for a homeowners' association that was not yet in existence. He said he appreciated C/Lee's questions because the homeowners' have safety concerns and because there are so many unanswered questions, the homeowners have not been able to reach an agreement with Millennium. Paul Akin, 22505 Lazy Meadow Drive, said he was concerned about annexation of this property into "The Country Estates." He recommended that the developer meet with "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association and move forward with annexation as a single owner rather than wait until 48 homeowners were involved. ICDD/Fong said that a Condition of Approval requires the applicant to negotiate with "The Country Estates" for annexation of the property. Hofu Wu, 22368 Kicking Horse Drive, felt the design detail of the retaining wall was correct. The City ordinance requires a maximum height of six feet and felt that the engineering for a six-foot wall would be fairly easy to attain. In his opinion, when a wall exceeded a certain height no one could guarantee its success rate. He said he was also concerned about water in the canyon and how the water would affect the proposed fill. He wanted to know why the homeowners were being asked to favor the easement when there were no concessions provided by the developer. He felt his recommendations were much better for the project because the retaining wall would be set on solid existing ground instead of fill. Using the drawings he commented the red lines indicated that the pad sizes for the 48 proposed homes exceeded the 33 percent lot coverage. He said he was not against the development but he was against the way the developerwas proposing to fill the canyon that in his opinion was against the flow of nature's forces. He also favored an agreement between "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association and the developer. `- ®RA/ JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/McManus asked if Mr. Wu met with staff to discuss his concerns. Mr. Wu said that he had not because he felt that Millennium would address his concerns this evening. Kyoung Yi, 22376 Kicking Horse Drive, said she shared the concerns about the negative impacts that would be generated by this development as presented by Professor Wu on December 13 and this evening. She does not like the construction of a high wall, the cutting of old oak trees and loss of the creek on her property not to mention the noise, dust and loss of privacy in her backyard during construction. The homeowners met with Millennium and no agreement was reached and further negotiations are necessary to reach an agreement that is mutually satisfactory. Mr. Bostick agreed that there was no formal agreement with Mr. Leong and was merely expressing that current conditions on the Tentative Map were more restrictive than those contained within the original project based on public input. The other language spoken during the meeting was Korean. Millennium's President is fluent in Korean and a couple of the homeowners indicated they were more comfortable discussing the matter in Korean. With respect to the wall height Millennium proposed a 10 -foot high wall plan for study only and Mr. Bostick again stated that he did not believe it was a good plan. Mr. Bostick clarified that he did not believe there would be any compensation for existing easements but that there was a possibility of compensation for additional easements. With respect to acknowledging a creek along the property, the flow line of the creek is shown on all of the Tentative Map submittals. The water and drainage concerns are covered in the Drainage and Hydrology report and the creek is also discussed in the EIR. Mr. Bostick clarified that the developer's intent was to annex into "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association. Annexation requires a vote of the HOA members and that has not yet been done nor could he guarantee the vote outcome. As earlier stated by ICDD/Fong, the project approval contains a condition requiring that the developer negotiate with "The Country Estates" for annexation into their HOA. Millennium has met with HOA President Steve Solis and committed to meet with the Crystal Ridge Homeowners Association on January 23. Homeowners are bound by an HOA and its CC&R's to maintain landscaping and retaining walls and he must have a plan and approved project before he can put together a budget and assemble a HOA. Mr. Bostick assured the Commission that if he received their approval for the project he would continue to work with Mr. Leong on the issues he raised. JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION With respect to Mr. Akin's concern about annexation staff had conditioned the project accordingly. Mr. Bostick responded to Dr. Wu's comment that walls higher than six feet are not safe and that there are many walls that exceed six feet. For example, walls at the Target location exceed six feet in height and whether these types of walls are located behind a commercial project or a residential project they must be rendered safe. The project has limitations on how much drilling and exploratory research can be done without a Tentative Map approval such as the one being sought from the Commission this evening. Once an approval is achieved Millennium would be able to go into the areas to determine the feasibility of the proposal. Diamond Bar has an excellent soils engineer that would oversee the drilling and he believed that the project area boasted no unique features that had not already been developed in other ridgelines within "The Country Estates." With respect to pad heights, they remain the same but the proposal previously set forth lowered the road. The slope easement was not recommended for the development side because all of the area of the project with the exception of the pad areas has slope. He was mystified by Dr. Wu's assertion that the pad areas did not meet the required percentage. In fact, the pad areas meet the requirements and design of the City and its codes. If not, there would have been no hearing in December. Mr. Wu mentioned that he was opposed to filling the canyon and Mr. Bostick said he understood and appreciated Mr. Wu's concerns but in fact, the highest and best use of the property as called out in the City's approved General Plan was "one unit per acre development" and this project was actually at .6 units per acre which is a 40 -percent reduction below the General Plan requirement. This requires a fill of the canyon similar to projects adjacent to and in the area of this project. VC/Low asked for further explanation of the existing road easement from the Kicking Horse properties. Mr. Bostick stated that at the maximum an additional 50 feet would be required to eliminate all retaining walls. If Millennium could acquire an additional 15 feet for example, it would reduce the height of the retaining walls. The reason Millennium would not place retaining walls on the project side of Alamo Heights Road is because they would be more difficult to mitigate with only eight feet between the right-of- way and the asphalt. On the Kicking Horse side there is 50 feet within which to mitigate a wall. He explained the options and what he felt was the best solution. Mr. Bostick confirmed to VC/Low that if Millennium were unsuccessful in obtaining the additional easement from the Kicking Horse Drive homeowners the project would require a maximum 15 foot height for the retaining walls. 0m, JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Bostick responded to Chair/McManus that he was comfortable with the conditions of approval at this stage of the process. Mr. Bostick reiterated that the applicant has worked diligently with staff to provide a good project and he asked the Commission to believe that staff has presented the best possible project for approval. VC/Low asked what input the City had to the conditions of the CC&R's. ICDD/Fong responded that the City Attorney would respond to the proposed CC&R's and the CC&R's would reflect the conditions imposed upon the tract. Ultimately, the CC&R's are approved by the City Council. VC/Low asked if the developer's statements were binding to the project. ICDD/Fong stated that there was no condition binding the developer to pay compensation for the easement and in fact that matter was outside of the City's purview. ICDD/Fong said she believed that the wall would vary from seven feet to 15 feet at its highest point if walls were needed within the existing 40 -foot easement. The variance is required to meet the maximum height needed. There is a condition requiring the applicant to negotiate with "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association for annexation. In addition, the project must form another association so that ultimately the 48 homes would have two associations as reflected in the CC&R's. ICDD/Fong agreed with Chair/McManus that the 48 homeowners would have their own association for purposes of liability and maintenance of common areas whether or not they were annexed into "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association. Bill Liu, President, Crystal Ridge Association, disagreed with TCDD/Fong. Crystal Ridge is a separate association even though it pays money to "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association for limited security and gate enforcement. ICDD/Fong responded that in fact, Crystal Ridge was not annexed into "The Country Estates." The Millennium project requires that Millennium negotiate with "The Country Estates" for annexation. In addition, Millennium must form its separate association for maintenance of common areas. ACA/Cotti explained that the project was conditioned that it form its own association as well as conditioned to require Millennium to negotiate in good faith to annex into "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association. Should that not occur, there would be an association in place that was fully funded as per the state DRE requirements to assure the ongoing maintenance of common areas. JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Aiken agreed to a certain point. He said that if the project were annexed into "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association there would be no need for them to have a separate association. Chair/McManus explained that the City could not require the project to be annexed into "The Country Estates." ACA/Cotti responded to VC/Low that to the extent that the conditions were negotiated in good faith toward annexation it would not further bind the developer. All that the developer was required to do was to make a good faith attempt to negotiate and there was no requirement that those conditions be finalized. ICCD/Fong responded to Chair/McManus that staff had imposed a considerable number of conditions on the project for the good of the City. Mr. Leong said that it was incorrectly implied that the homeowners had accepted the 10 -foot wall. If the Commissioners approve the proposed plan it would put the homeowners in a difficult situation of having to choose between a 15 -foot high wall and an easement. Chair/McManus said that negotiations were still open. Mr. Leong felt that there should be a memorandum of understanding of annexation before the homeowners could make a decision because the homeowners might be in a position of having to maintain the wall. Chair/McManus asked if Mr. Leong understood that if there was no successful negotiation a separate and binding homeowners association would be established that would be responsible for maintaining the wall. Mr. Leong asked if that was binding and TCDD/Fong responded that it was. ACA/Cotti responded to Mr. Leong that he could not respond to Mr Leong's statement that he could state there would be no possibility that the homeowners could be left "holding the bag" and in all likelihood the homeowners would have to take that into consideration during the negotiations for granting of the easement. C/Torng asked Mr. Leong if the residents could come together to reach a decision. Mr. Leong said that the real process of the developer explaining and disclosing took place after the December 13 Commission meeting and JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION he felt it was necessary for the homeowners and Millennium to continue negotiating so that the homeowners would not be left "holding the bag." ICDD/Fong responded to C/Torng that staff held a meeting in August for the homeowners. C/Leong reiterated that during the meetings prior to December 13, there was no advice to the homeowners as to their rights and there was no full disclosure of possible problems such as liability, etc. C/Torng said he participated in a hearing for South Point West and the detailed plan was submitted at that time. He believed that about 30 homeowners participated in that meeting. According to the City's code of procedure it must invite residents to participate in such hearings prior to the matter coming before the Planning Commission. C/Leong said that in his opinion, much more information came to light after the December 13 Planning Commission meeting. Some homeowners may have believed they agreed and might have done so because of a misunderstanding of the facts presented. He said that some of his neighbors believed they had no choice but to agree to a 26 -foot wall or an easement with no alternative. He felt it was incumbent upon Millennium to continue talking with the homeowners before they were stuck in an adverse situation. ICDD/Fong stated that a 40 -foot easement already exists and Millennium could grade and build the walls within the 40 -foot easement. The only question before the Planning Commission was how high Millennium could build the walls. The first time, Millennium proposed walls up to 26 feet high. Since the Commission's recommendation for the applicant to work with the adjacent property owners Mr. Bostick decided that if he had to work within the 40 foot easement he would be able to build two walls with the wall on one side of the street being five feet and the wall on other side being 10 to 15 feet. C/Leong asked if it was correct that if Millennium wanted an additional 50 - foot easement they would have to negotiate with the homeowners and ICDD/Fong responded "correct." C/Leong said the homeowners were told that the applicant would not have to negotiate because they already had a total of 90 feet for the easement. TCDD/Fong said she did not believe Mr. Leong was correct. Mr. Leong felt that staff needed to provide the homeowners with accurate information because Millennium told the homeowners they had no choice but to grant the 90 -foot easement. ICDD/Fong recalled that at the last neighborhood meeting staff attended it was made clear that there was an existing 40 -foot easement and that Millennium was asking for a 50 -foot easement. D DRAFT JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/McManus advised Mr. Leong that this was a request for a tentative approval, not a final approval and in order for Millennium to move forward they needed a tentative approval to proceed with certain items that they had to complete. Staff has repeatedly and categorically stated that there is room for negotiation between the homeowners, Mr. Yeh and Millennium. Mr. Leong believed the homeowners were asking that because the homeowners were not provided accurate information and he felt that the Commission should grant additional time for Millennium to talk with the homeowners because once approved, the homeowners would be between a rock and a hard place. Chair/McManus asked Mr. Leong if he understood that this was not a final approval and that there were a lot of additional hoops that Millennium had to jump through before receiving final approval and that the project has already been continued for one month. Mr. Bostick said that at the very first meeting in May at the HOA, the HOA's legal counsel was present and explained that the easements were existing on all of these properties according to the current recorded tract map for the lots on Kicking Horse Drive. From the centerline of the street there is 40 feet for the street and a 50 -foot slope easement resulting in a total of 90 feet of easement on all of the heights to build Alamo Heights Road, a fact that has never been in dispute. He felt he had made every good effort to explain the situation and work with the homeowners in good faith for several months. Mr. Bostick further stated that the developer has another 9 to 12 months of preliminary engineering and design work before one scoop of dirt could be moved and during that time the applicant will continue to work with staff and the homeowners in good faith. The easements are in place and are not in dispute. Chair/McManus invited Mr. Wu to contact the City with his concerns and assured Mr. Wu that the City would not be contacting him for his expertise. Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. VC/Low detailed the review process and said that it seemed to her that Millennium had made considerable effort and progress toward discussing and resolving various issues with concerned citizens as directed by the Planning Commission on December 13. Therefore, it appeared there would be no benefit to further continuance of this matter as suggested by some of the comments. The applicant has a right to the use and development of his land according to code and the City cannot deny that right. The easement JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION currently exists and the applicant is entitled to build in the easement area. The question is whether the Commission wants to grant a variance allowing a wall to be constructed up to a maximum height of 15 feet and the City has allowed construction of such walls in the past. VC/Low moved, C/Lee seconded, to recommend the following to City Council: Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2003052202) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 53430, Zone Change No. 2005-03, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-01, Variance 2005-03 and Tree Permit No. 2005-10, Statement of overriding Consideration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolutions including additional conditions provided by staff today. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Lee, Torng, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04 and Development Review No. 2005-23 — In accordance with Code Sections 22.42, 22.58 and 22.48, this was a request to install a wireless telecommunications facility with antennas mounted on the roof -top concealed by the fagade and mansard roof and equipment cabinets in a retail suite. The Development Review related to architectural/design review forthe replacement of faux stucco and roofing materials. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 1155 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Town Center, LLC Pacific West Asset Management 3191-D Airport Loop Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Chair/McManus recused himself and left the dais. JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 15 X l PLANNING COMMISSION DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04 and Development Review No. 2005-23, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Danielle Brandenburg, representing Cingular Wireless, MMI Titan, responded to C/Torng that this project would improve the wireless phone reception in Diamond Bar. She responded to VC/Low that she concurred with staff's recommendations and conditions of approval. VC/Low opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04 and Development Review No. 2005-23, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as -listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/McManus returned to the dais. Torng, Lee, VC/Low None Chair/McManus Nolan 9. PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Torng felt that concerned residents should participate more fully in the projects that come before the City. He believed that the applicant would work with the residents to come to a satisfactory resolution of their concerns and wished Millennium a good project. C/Lee said he expected Millennium to follow through with their promises to the residents and thanked them for their patience. VC/Low echoed C/Lee's comments and thanked staff for working hard with the applicant to bring together a good project. She thanked Millennium for their last minute improvements and wished them good luck in winning over the homeowners and moving forward with a good project. IAW911121 JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/McManus wished everyone a Happy New Year and congratulated Millennium on moving their project through the Planning Commission. He asked Commissioners to get a copy of Roberts Rules of Order to refresh themselves on meeting conduct. Before coming on the Planning Commission he spent the better part of a day going through orientation and reviewing the responsibilities of Planning Commissioners and recommended that for those that had not done so it would be especially useful for them to take the time to review Planning Commission and Commissioner's procedures and responsibilities. 10. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. ICDD/Fong said she had not forgotten about Form Based Code and Art in Public Places. Staff intends to present information in the near future so that the Commission can discuss the matter and forward its recommendation to the City Council. 11. 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 9:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Interim Community Development Director Attest: Joe McManus, Chairman MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 24, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: SAA/Marquez called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Dan Nolan and Tony Torng. Chairman Joe McManus, and Vice Chairperson Ruth Low were excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Bradley Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner, Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Associate and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. C/Torng nominated C/Nolan to serve as temporary presiding officer. C/Lee seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. Roll Call: C/Lee Yes C/Torng Yes C/Nolan Yes C/Nolan assumed the gavel. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Study Session of January 10, 2006. Continued to February 14, 2006. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None JANUARY 24, 2006 PAGE 2 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): o 7,�Umlla I PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-02, Development Review No. 2005-15 and Minor Variance No. 2005-03 - In accordance to Code Sections 22.42, 22.58, 22.48 and 22.54, this was a request to install a wireless telecommunications facility with antenna mounted on a monopole camouflaged as a broadleaf tree and equipment cabinets. The Development Review relates to architectural/design review. The Minor Variance relates to the height of the broadleaf tree monopole that exceeds the maximum allowable 35 -foot height. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: Eastgate Water Reservoir 24995 Eastgate Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Walnut Valley Water District 271 S. Brea Canyon Road Walnut, CA 91789 APPLICANT: Cingular Wireless 129005 th FI — Park Plaza Drive Cerritos, CA 90703 APPLICANT'S AGENT: Infranext, Inc., Jim Fitzsimmons 2200 Orangewood Avenue#228 Orange, CA 92868 DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit 2005-02, Development Review No. 2005-15 and Minor Variance No. 2005-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. AC/Nolan asked for a definition of "co -location." DSA/Smith stated that the vendor requested co -location because their grid was lower than the existing grids and it was common to group such facilities. Acting Chair/Nolan asked if any noise would emit from the use and DSA/Smith explained that there might be an on-site generator, however, there would otherwise be very little noise. Kenny Zwick, applicant's representative, explained that the application made sense because the applicant had complied with the City's requirement to locate the facility at a preferred facility for wireless applications. It was JANUARY 24, 2006 PAGE 3 NW,n-2p- PLANNING COMMISSION customary for such facilities to be placed on or near water tanks since it offered a symbiotic use and afforded the City an opportunity to gain revenue. In this case, the site was being built for coverage and not capacity and as systems mature antenna centerlines tend to be lowered. He stated that the applicant read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval. Mr. Zwick responded to C/Lee that the total weight of the antenna was approximately 50 pounds. C/Torng asked if the applicant intended to request additional sites. Mr. Zwick indicated that Cingular was going to a higher frequency in order to provide better signal. These sites tend to expand and contract depending on usage. For example, with the current system the 30th person attempting to make a call on a sector would not have good reception and with the installation the usage capability should about double. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-02, Development Review No. 2005-15 and Minor Variance No. 2005-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Torng, AC/Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Chair/McManus PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Torng wished his colleagues a Happy Lunar New Year, the Year of the Dog. 9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 9.2 Form Based Codes (Continued to February 14, 2006) 9.3 Art in Public Places (Continued to February 14, 2006) ICDD/Fong stated that at the February 14, 2006, meeting she would forward a staff report that discussed what was meant by "public convenience and "necessity" as well as the process for determining the duties. ICDD/Fong commented that the date for the Planners Institute should be March instead of May. She asked the Commissioners to read the publication on the JANUARY 24, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Monterey conference and indicate to SAA/Marquez whether they would like to attend. AC/Nolan said he highly recommended that his colleagues attend the conference. AC/Nolan asked if ACA/Wohlenberg would comment on a recent Supreme Court case involving aesthetics for cell sites. ACA/Wohlenberg explained that the 9t' Circuit Court decision dealtwith cell facilities that were installed in the public right-of- way. The Court decided that aesthetic concerns a city may have was not something that was allowed to be regulated under state law. However, 7901.1 allows some "time, place and manner" regulation but the court decided that aesthetics did not fall within those parameters. He felt that the City of La Canada Flintridge may very well appeal the decision because there was a substantial body of law that discusses how local government does have an aesthetic interest in the public rights-of-way. AC/Nolan stated that a home on Golden Springs Drive north just past Sycamore Canyon Park and Golden Prados has a smashed retaining wall between the house and the sidewalk and since the wall had remained in bad condition for several weeks he wondered if the City could step in to facilitate repairs. ICDD/Fong said she would report the matter to Code Enforcement. AC/Nolan offered that the Neighborhood Improvement Association or a local service club might be able to assist the property owner if necessary. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, AC/Nolan adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Interim Community Development Director Dan Nolan, Acting Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT 21825 COPLEY DRIVE—DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765—TEL (909) 839-7030—FAX (909) 861-3117—www.Cityofdiamondbar.com AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: *i - ), MEETING DATE: February 14, 2006 REPORT DATE: February 7, 2006 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review No. 2005-37/Minor Variance No. 2005-10/Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-02 PROJECT LOCATION: 3121 Steeplechase Lane (Lot 3 of Parcel Map 23382) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICATION REQUEST: Approval to construct a two-story single-family residence off approximately 7,200 square feet of living area and porches, balconies, attached four car garage covered patios and swimming pool. The request also includes a Minor Variance to permit retaining walls with an exposed height of seven feet and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a driveway width greater than fourteen (14) feet at the street property line. PROPERTY OWNERS: Arun & Indira Jain, 20825 Quail Run Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda, 615 N. Benson Avenue, Unit D, Upland, CA 91786 STAFF Approve Development Review No. 2005-37, Minor RECOMMENDATION: Variance No. 2005-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-02 DR 2005-37, MV 2005-10, MCUP 2006-02 -PAGE I BACKGROUND: The project site is an irregular shaped vacant lot encompassing approximately 34,848 square feet (.89 acres) and located within the "Country Estates" gated community. It contains a 20 -foot wide private drainage, utility and sewer easement that bisects the northerly most section of the site. The project site is part of a 2.5 acre 3 -lot subdivision (Parcel Map No. 23382) approved in December 1999 with graded pad areas. Additionally, as part of the map, conditions were imposed regulating such items as grading, drainage, access, utilities, street improvements, building setbacks and tree preservation. ANALYSIS: A. Review Authority This application for a new single family structure on a vacant parcel requires Development Review by the Planning Commission per the City's Development Code (DC) Section 22.48. Additional concurrent applications are required for a Minor Variance (DC Section 22.52), and Minor Conditional Use Permit (DC Section 22.56). B. General Plan/Zoning General Plan designation: Low Medium Density Residential (RLM), maximum 5 Dwelling Unit/Acre Zoning: Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000) Surrounding Zones and Uses: North: C-R (Commercial Recreational), Multiple Family Residences South: R-1-8,000 (Single Family Residential), Vacant & Single Family Residence East: R-1-20,000 (Single Family Residential), Single Family Residence West: R-1-8,000 (Single Family Residential), Vacant C. General Plan/Design Guidelines/Compatibility with Neighborhood 1. Strategy 1.2.4, Maintain residential areas which provide ownership for single family housing and require that new development be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood's prevailing character; and 2. Strategy 2.2.1, new developments shall be compatible with surrounding land uses. Staff's review as described in the following sections, finds the application consistent with the General Plan, Development Code s, City's Design Guidelines, Conditions of Parcel Map No. 23382, and compatible with the neighborhood. DR 2005-37, MV 2005-10, MCUP 2006-02 - PAGE 2 D. Development Review The following comparison shows that the proposed project meets the City's development standards and parcel map requirements Development Feature RLM- Building Proposed Meets Standards/PM 23382 Requirements Minimum Lot Area 8,000 S.F. 34,848 S.F. Yes Residential Density 1 Single -Family Unit; 5 per 1 Single Family Unit Yes gross acre Front yard setback 20 feet 30 feet Yes Side yard setbacks 10 feet & 15 feet from 30 feet & 24 feet Yes buildable pad edge Side yard minimum between structures on adjoining 15 feet 15 feet Yes parcels Rear setback 15 feet 15 feet plus Yes Building Height Limit 35 feet maximum 35 feet Yes Hillside Development As required by Chapter Two story on createdpad Yes 22.22 Hillside Mgt.) Retaining Wall Maximum Height 6 feet 7 feet Minor Variance No. 2005-10 Landscaping As required by Chapter With conditions - Yes 22.24 (Landscaping) meets requirements 2 in fully enclosed garage Minimum Yes Parkin (20'X20'). 4 -car garage Maximum 14 feet to Minor Conditional Driveway garage; landscape 50% 20 feet Use Permit No. 2006-02 Landscaping 50 % of the front yard in 50% of front yard will Yes landscaping be landsca ed Lot Coverage 30% Approximately 12% Yes Preserved/Protected Trees Tree Permit Required to No Trees to be Yes Remove certain trees Removed DR 2005-37, MV 2005-10, MCUP 2006-02 - PAGE 3 E. Architectural Features/Colors and Materials/Floor Plan The architectural style, as described by the applicant, is an eclectic Mediterranean design emphasizing the use of a variety of building materials for interest to include: concrete tile roof, smooth stucco walls, columns at arched entry points, spindle balcony railings, multi -paned windows with decorative trim and molding treatment. The material/color samples indicate earth -toned shades will be used for the exterior finish to soften the impact and assist in preserving the hillside's aesthetic value. The Applicant has not received the approval of the Country Estates Homeowners Association Architectural Committee. A condition has been placed in the attached resolution requiring proof of association approval prior to issuance of any permits. The proposed project's architectural design and palette are compatible with other eclectic architectural styles within the Country Estates and consistent with the City's General Plan, Development Code, and Design Guidelines. The proposed residence will have two floors as delineated in Exhibit "A". There are a total of five bedrooms, seven bathrooms, family room, kitchen, dining room, living room, foyer, four car garage, enclosed patio that provides access to two adjacent covered patios, exterior balconies, and 1,420 square foot attic space on second floor. F. Grading/Drainage The preliminary grading plan indicates that approximately 4,700 cubic yards of fill will be necessary to adequately grade the site and expand the buildable pad. However, as part of this project's conditions of approval, the applicant will be required to submit a final grading plan and soils report for the City's Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division review and approval. Additionally, the drainage patterns and techniques shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to any permit issuance. G. Minor Variance/Retaining Walls The applicant proposes retaining walls varying from two feet to seven feet in exposed height. The walls will be located in the rear, front and side yards which support the pad for the residence. The Development Code allows six feet maximum exposed height for retaining walls and up to seven feet if located outside the front yard setback and in areas of varying topographical features. Therefore, the proposed rear yard crib wall does not require a Minor Variance. However, a Minor Variance is required to allow the seven foot high retaining walls in the front and side yard setback area. The Minor Variance requires findings that depend on topographic constraints and the determination that the wall is needed to implement the grading plan/permit for the parcel. DR 2005-37, MV 2005-10, MCUP 2006-02 - PAGE 4 It is required that retaining walls be constructed from decorative block with cap. The Development Code allows a 42 inch open railing height atop walls holding a fill. It is required that the massiveness of the walls be mitigated by using decorative pilasters and horizontal metal railing. H. Drivewav Development Code Section 22.30.080.E.1.b requires that driveways to garages having a setback greater than 24 feet from the street property line have a minimum width of 10 feet and a maximum width of 14 feet at the property line. The proposed garage is setback approximately 35 feet with a driveway width at the street of 20 feet. Therefore, a Minor Conditional Use Permit is required to deviate from this standard. Staff's review typically considers two criteria: The parcel should have at least a 70 feet street frontage. The parcel has a frontage of approximately 215 feet; 2. The total front yard hardscape area does not exceed 50 percent. The front yard is approximately 6,450 square feet and the landscape area is approximately 3,300 square feet or 51 percent. The project's streetscape, architectural features and design coupled with location of the garage away from direct public view minimizes its impact on the streetscape. Additionally, the internal driveway width shall be reduced to a maximum width of 12 feet. This will ensure compliance with City Code and allow for additional landscape areas. Therefore, the circular driveway is allowed in the zone and complies with the Development Code standards and is consistent with the General Plan. As conditioned, the design, location, size, etc. is compatible in the vicinity and the site is physically suitable and absent of physical constraints. Landscaping and Preserved/Protected Trees One of the main purposes of landscaping is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by preserving and enhancing the positive visual experience of the built environment (Section 22.24.010). The preliminary landscape plan delineates the species, and size of the proposed plant materials to be utilized throughout the site. The plan provides for a variety of grasses and ground cover, flowering plants, and shrubs and trees. However, it is required that the final landscape plan identify the quantities of plant material to be used for Planning Division review and approval. All landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to the Planning Division's final inspection. A significant oak tree is positioned on the adjoining westerly property. However, as a condition of Parcel Map 23382 a 10 -foot oak tree protection zone is required, which DR 2005-37, MV 2005-10, MCUP 2006-02 -PAGE 5 prohibits any building, encroachment or grading activity. The 10 -foot protection zone extends to a portion of the subject property. Therefore, the condition of Parcel Map 23382 must be strictly adhered to. Covenant and Agreement A condition of approval requires the property owner to complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single Family Residence" on a City form. The covenant must be recorded with the Los Angeles County's Recorder's Office prior to building permit issuance. K. View Impact The terrain in the vicinity of Steeplechase Lane is hilly. The parcels on north and south side of Steeplechase Lane slope in a downward northerly direction. By maintaining the allowed height of 35 feet or less, the proposed residential structure allows view corridors to its neighbors. Therefore, staff does not consider this proposed residence detrimental views of the existing properties. L. Additional Review The Public Works Department and the Building and Safety Division reviewed this project. Their comments are included in both the report and the approval conditions. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: On February 2, 2006, 41 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail and three other locations were posted within the project's vicinity. On February 3, 2006, the project's public hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City has determined that this project is categorically exempt per the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(a) - (new single family residence). RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2005- 37/Minor Variance No. 2005-10/Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the attached resolution. DR 2005-37, MV 2005-10, MCUP 2006-02 - PAGE 6 Prepared by: Milan L. Garrison, LDM Associates, Inc. — Planning Consultant ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval with required findings; 2. Covenant and Agreement; 3. Aerial; 4. Exhibit "A" - site plan, conceptual grading plan, floor plan, roof plan, elevations, and conceptual landscape plan dated February 14, 2006. DR 2005-37, MV 2005-10, MCUP 2006-02 -PAGE 7 I-1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-XX �A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-37/MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2005-10/MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-02 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 7,200 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING AREA AND FOUR CAR GARAGE, PORCHES, BALCONIES, COVERED PATIO, SWIMMING POOL AND A SEVEN FOOT HIGH RETAINING WALL IN THE REAR YARD. CONJUNCTIVELY, A MINOR VARIANCE APPROVAL PERMITTING A SEVEN FOOT HIGH RETAINING WALLS IN THE FRONT AND SIDE YARDS AND A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL FOR A DRIVEWAY WIDTH GREATER THAN FOURTEEN FEET AT THE STREET PROPERTY LINE. THE PROJECT SITE IS 3121 STEEPLECHASE LANE (LOT 3, PARCEL MAP NO. 23382; APN 8713-017-112), DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. Recitals The property owners, Arun & Indira Jain and Applicant, Pete Volbeda have filed an application for Development Review No. 2005-37, Minor Variance No. 2005-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-02 for a property located at 3121 Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review, Minor Variance, Minor Conditional Use Permit, and Categorical Exemption shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On February 2, 2006, 41 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail and three other locations were posted within the application's vicinity. On February 3, 2006, the project's public hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site. 3. On February 14, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines. This is Resolution No. 2006 -XX pursuant to Section 15303(a) of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a parcel located at 3121 Steeplechase Lane (Lot 3, Parcel Map No. 23382) Diamond Bar, California, within the gated community identified as the Country Estates. The parcel is .89 gross acres. The lot was part of a 2.5 acre 3 -lot subdivision approved in December, 1999 with graded pad areas. Additionally, as part of the approval of the parcel map, conditions were imposed regulating such items as grading, drainage, access, utilities, street improvements, building setbacks and tree preservation. A 20 -foot wide private drainage, utility and sewer easement bisects the northerly most section of the site. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Low Medium Density Residential (RLM), maximum 5 Dwelling Unit/Acre. The project site is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000). (c) Generally, the project site is surrounded by the following zones and uses: to the north is the C-R (Commercial -Recreational) zone, Multiple Family Residences; to the south is the R-1-8,000 zone, vacant and single family residence; to the east is the R-1-20,000 zone, single family residence; and to the west is the R-1-8,000 zone, vacant. (d) The application is a request to construct a two story, single family residence of approximately 7,200 gross square feet with porches, balconies, covered patio, swimming pool and four car garage and seven foot high retaining wall in the rear yard. The request includes a Minor Variance for a seven foot high retaining walls in the front and KA Resolution No. 2006 -XX rear yard setbacks and a Minor Conditional Use Permit I for a driveway width greater than fourteen feet at the street property line. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (e) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments). The vacant project site was part of a previously approved 2.5 acre S- lot subdivision in December, 1999 (Parcel Map No. 23382), which established the buildable pads for single family residences. Additionally, as part of the approval of the parcel map, conditions were imposed regulating such items as grading, drainage, access, utilities, street improvements, building setbacks and tree preservation. Furthermore, the proposed project complies with the elements of the adopted General Plan of July 25, 1995, which has a land use designation of Low Medium Density Residential (RLM), maximum 5 Dwelling Unit/Acre. The proposed use is zoned for single family residence at R-1-8,000. The proposed structure complies with the City's General Plan objectives and strategies related to maintaining the integrity of residential neighborhoods and open space. The structures and placement on the parcel conform to the site coverage and setback. With the seven feet maximum exposed height retaining wall Minor Variance approval, the Diamond Bar Municipal Code height criteria are met. There is no specific or additional community planned development for the site. (f) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The project site is currently an undeveloped lot within an existing subdivided parcel designed for single family homes. The proposed new construction does not change the use intended for the site as a single family residence. The developed property is not expected to unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic orpedestrian hazards. The project site is adequately served by Steeplechase Lane. These private streets are designed to handle minimum traffic created by this type of development. 3 Resolution No. 2006 -XX (g) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The proposed project's architectural design and palette are compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes within the Country Estates, and are consistent with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code, and Design Guidelines. The eclectic Mediterranean design emphasizes the use of a variety of building materials for interest to include: concrete tile roof, smooth stucco walls, columns at arched entry points, spindle balcony railings, multi -paned windows with decorative trim and molding treatment. The material/color samples indicate earth -toned shades will be used for the exterior finish to soften the impact and assist in preserving the hillside's aesthetic value. Additionally, the landscape materials screens much of the front, side and rear retaining walls, the maximum seven feet height of these walls is compatible with the neighborhood. Many homes in the Country Estates have similar structures. (h) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. A project colors/materials board is provided. The "Mediterranean" design proposes the use of a variety of compatible building materials and earth tone colors to soften the home's impact and assist in preserving the established neighborhood character and aesthetic value. (i) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Before the issuance of City development permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions set forth in this resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, and Fire Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process will ensure that the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety !� Resolution No. 2006 -XX or welfare nor will it be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. The terrain in the vicinity of Steeplechase Lane is hilly. The subject site is higher at street level, sloping to lower elevations toward the rear of the property. By maintaining the allowed height of 35 feet, the proposed residential structure allows view corridors to its neighbors. Therefore, the proposed residence will not have significant detrimental view blockage impact. (j) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Article 19 Section 15303 Class 3 (a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structure). The categorical exemption reflects the independentjudgment of the City of Diamond Bar. MINOR VARIANCE (1) There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions), so that the strict application of the City's Development Code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards. The Minor Variance request is to allow retaining wall sections up to a maximum of seven (7) feet. The lot is .89 gross acres. The combination of size, shape, and the varying topography of the slope on the property are typical of lots in the general vicinity. The landscaping on the adjoining sides of the wall minimizes the effect of height in the front yard area. Many homes in the Country Estates have a series of retaining walls to create the pad and therefore the project is consistent with the neighborhood. Ornamental retaining walls are required using a decorative block. The Municipal Code allows a 42 inch open railing height atop walls holding a fill. Staff has conditioned that the mass of the wall be broken up by 5 Resolution No. 2006 -XX a vertical design element and horizontal railing. Staff will work with the architect to create a feature that adds to the project's design. Therefore, due to the combination of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of the Development Code to the wall height denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts that creates an unnecessary and non -self created hardship that makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards. (m) Granting the Minor Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning districts and denied to the property owner for which the Minor Variance is sought. Due to the combination of special circumstances applicable to the property, the strict application of the Development Code to the wall height denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts that creates an unnecessary and non -self created hardship that makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards. As a result, Granting the Minor Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning districts and denied to the property owner for which the Minor Variance is sought. (n) Granting the Minor Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. As stated in Item (I), the proposed retaining wall is consistent with the General Plan and consistent with specific strategies 1. 2.4 and 2.2.1 of the Land Use Element. There is no specific plan. (o) The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, and Fire Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 1. Resolution No. 2006 -XX (p) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Article 19 Section 15303 Class 3 (a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structure). The categorical exemption reflects the independentjudgment of the City of Diamond Bar. MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (q) The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. As stated in Items (e -i), the proposed single family use is allowed within the zoning district and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code. The circular driveway meets the parcel size and the flatwork is less than 50 percent of the front yard. The project's streetscape architectural features and design include a perpendicular garage and circular driveway. This adds variation and stateliness at the streetscape. The circular driveway use is allowed in the zone and complies with the Municipal Code standards and is consistent with the General Plan. The design, location, size, etc. are compatible in the vicinity and the site is physically suitable and absent of physical constraints. (r) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. As state in Item a -i, the proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and there is no applicable specific plan. (s) The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. As stated in Items a -i, the design, location, size, etc. is compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. (t) The subject site is physically suitable forthe type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, 7 Resolution No. 2006 -XX compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. As stated in Items a -i, the subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. (u) Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. Soils report, fire department approval, structural plan check, City permits, and inspections are required for construction. These processes will ensure that the finished project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (v) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Article 19 Section 15303 Class 3 (a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structure). The categorical exemption reflects the independent judgment of the City of Diamond Bar. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, floor plans, elevations, roof plan, grading plan, landscape plan, sections, and materials/colors board collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated February 14, 2006, as submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. (b) The subject site shall be maintained in a condition that is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City Resolution No. 2006 -XX to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) Before construction begins, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing pursuant to the Building and Safety Division's requirements along the project site's perimeter. This fencing shall remain until the Building Official approves its removal. (d) Applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction. (e) Prior to any plan check submittals, the architect shall submit a retaining wall design plan with a decorative vertical design element with horizontal railing for Planning Division review and approval. (f) Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall submit proof that the building design is approved by the Country Estates Homeowners Association Architectural Committee. ENGINEERING/BUILDING AND SAFETY (g) Prior to Grading Plan submittal, a geotechnical report prepared by a Geotechnical Engineer, licensed by the State of California shall be submitted for approval by the City. (h) Grading Plan shall be prepared by a Civil Engineer, licensed by the State of California, for approval by the City. The Grading Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the City's Requirements for Grading Plan Check requirements. All grading (Cut and fill) calculations shall be submitted to the City concurrently with the grading plan. (i) All easements and flood hazard areas shall be clearly identified on the grading plan. Q) The Grading Plan shall show the location of any retaining walls and the elevations of the top of wall/footing/retaining and the finished grade on both sides of the retaining wall. Construction details for retaining walls shall be shown on the Grading Plan. (k) An erosion control plan shall be submitted and erosion control measures shall be in place for construction starting after October 1 st through April 15th. The erosion control plan shall conform to national 0 Resolution No. 2006 -XX Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). (I) If required by the City Engineer, the applicant shall comply with Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) requirements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (m) All drainage/runoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. Permission must be obtained from adjacent property owners if proposed drainage flows into their property. (n) Applicant shall submit calculations for the proposed rip -rap on the grading plan. (o) Finished slopes shall conform to City Code Section 22.22.080 - Grading. (p) Prior to the issuance of building permits, a pre -construction meeting must be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. (q) Rough grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the foundation of the home structure. Retaining wall permits may be issued without a rough grade certificate. (r) Final grade certifications by project soils and civil engineers shall be submitted to the Public Works/Engineering Department prior the issuance of any project final inspections/certificate of occupancy respectively. (s) Applicant shall verify that the project site is currently connected to the public sewer system and impacts on the sewage capacity as a result of the proposed structure shall be approved. Applicant shall verify availability to and make application for connection to the sewer with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and/or the Sanitation District prior to the issuance of any City permits. (t) Applicant shall submit an application to the Walnut Valley Water District for Fire Flow and submit their approval to the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 10 Resolution No. 2006 -XX (u) Site, driveway grade, and house design shall be approved by the Fire Department. The maximum slope is 15% per the Public Works Division. (v) The single family structure shall meet the 2001 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Electrical Code requirements. (w) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles per hour and "C" exposure. (x) The single family structure requires Fire Department approval and is located in "Fire Zone 4" and shall meet the following requirements of that fire zone: 1. All roof covering shall be "Fire Retardant, Class A"; the roofs shall be fire stopped at the eaves to preclude entry of the flame or members under the fire; 2. All enclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior walls; 3. All openings into the attic, floor, and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than '/ inch nor more than'/2 inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door; 4. Chimneys shall have spark arresters of maximum '/2 inch screen. (y) This single family structure shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards. (z) Due to the site's topography, applicant shall comply with special design requirements as specified in the 2001 California Building Code, Section 1806.4.2, building setback, top and toe of slopes. (aa) All sleeping rooms shall have windows that comply with egress requirements. (bb) All balconies shall be designed for 40 pound per square foot live load. (cc) Hand rails and guardrails shall be designed for 20 -pound load applied laterally at the top of the rail. (dd) Smoke detectors shall be provided in conformance with the 2001 California Building Code. 11 Resolution No. 2006 -XX (ee) Application shall provide window and door schedule for Building and Safety plan check. PLANNING DIVISION (ff) A final landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. The plans shall include species, size and quantity of trees and shrubs, in addition to those shown on the preliminary landscape plan, to soften the retaining walls at the front, side and rear yards of the pad. (gg) The applicant shall provide for a protective fencing around the existing oak tree. The fencing shall provide a 10 -foot protection zone as required by Parcel Map 23382, which prohibits any building, encroachment or grading activity. A certified arborist shall supervise the preservation of the oak tree and shall comply with the Section 22.38.140 Tree Protection Requirements. Additionally, the oak tree with 10 -foot protection zone and protective fencing shall be delineated on the grading plan. (hh) All landscaping/irrigation shall be installed prior to the Planning Division's final inspection including the protected/preserved trees. Any walls, gates, fountains, etc. that may be proposed within the front setback shall not encroach into street's dedicated easement or exceed a maximum 42 inches in height. (ii) Internal driveway width shall be reduced to a maximum of twelve (12) feet. Qj) Prior to plan check submittal, the applicant shall submit elevation of all retaining walls for the Planning Divisions review and approval. (kk) Maximum height of the residence shall not exceed 35 feet from the finish grade at any exterior wall of the structure to the highest point of the roofline. The 35 feet includes the chimneys. At roof sheathing inspection, the Applicant shall have a licensed engineer certify that the height of the residential structure meets this requirement and submit it to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. (II) The single family residence shall not be utilized in a manner that creates adverse effects upon the neighborhood and environmental setting of the residential site to levels of dust, glare/light, noise, odor, traffic, or other disturbances to the existing residential neighborhood and shall not result in significantly adverse effects on public services 12 Resolution No. 2006 -XX and resources. The single family residence shall not be used for commercial/institutional purposes, or otherwise used as a separate dwelling. The property shall not be used for regular gatherings which result in a nuisance or which create traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood. (mm) The applicant shall complete and record a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single Family Residence" on a form to be provided by the City. The covenant must be completed and recorded with the Los Angeles County's Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. (nn) Applicant shall comply with the requirements of the Fire Department and City Planning, Building and Safety, and Public Works Divisions. (oo) This approval is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercised (i.e., construction) within that period or this approval shall expire. A one- (1) year extension may be approved when submitted to the City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission will consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code. (pp) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (qq) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project,,then the applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. The Planning Commission shall: 13 Resolution No. 2006 -XX (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to Arun & Indira Jain, 20825 Quail Run Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 and Pete Volbeda, 615 North Benson Avenue, Unit D, Upland, CA 91786. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Joe McManus, Chairman I, Nancy Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of February 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary 14 RECORDING REQUEST BY: City of Diamond Bar WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Attn: Deputy City Manager Above Line For Recorder's Use Only COVENANT AND AGREEMENT TO MAINTAIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. DR 2005-37/MINOR VARIANCE NO, 2005-10/MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-02 The undersigned hereby certify that Marie Bechara and Elie Nader is/are the owner(s) of the hereinafter described real property located at 3121 Steeplechase Lane in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, commonly known as: Legally described as Lot 3 of Parcel Map No. 23382 Assessor's Book and Parcel Number: 8713-017-112 And, I/we do hereby covenant and agree for ourselves, heirs, assigns, transferees and successors, with the City of Diamond Bar (hereinafter "City") that the above described property shall be used for single family residential purposes only. This covenant and agreement shall run with the land and shall be binding upon ourselves, future owners, their heirs, and successors and assignees and shall continue in effect until and unless approved otherwise by the City of Diamond Bar is specifically intended that the benefits and burdens of this covenant run with the land. If the City is required to bring legal action to enforce this covenant, then the city shall be entitled to its attorney fees and court costs. 0 a DATED: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES On this day of , 200_ before me the undersigned Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that executed the same in authorized capacity(ies), and that by signature(s) on the instrument the person(s) or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Notary Public in and for said State 01te'DIRIZOR ,l ro!+: ;;: dip:,; � � (.i�` r 1a'�r'�; � t� •�.-�'.'v- 5� �` � ,,,� ,r{• �_ i' r'" a � i �': �` w', i►�,�' .� 1., ew gym, � + v � � ov 71 � fir. � b.�, 'r✓ x � Sr ,.,v �� ��`-�, g.- r'. �'�' W'74 1 tt� � '+f i. t! � 4 �� {j k '�. M' 4`. 7i Y.«4'M *'Y�S�i '�� +✓ � M }� '�#� 1. �. ve 01 }7 } �& � - /% \\ PETE VOLSEUh ApghiLogLuro pla7B�§ REgogc FOR G& awBENSON AVE SUITE C, UPLmaG71/86 PARCEL 3PHz382STEEPLECHASE, DB TEL mglaz,m _ �_ , a , /§§§ \ \ \ } \ \( j\\\7 ` t § ~ - - �& � - /% \\ PETE VOLSEUh ApghiLogLuro pla7B�§ REgogc FOR G& awBENSON AVE SUITE C, UPLmaG71/86 PARCEL 3PHz382STEEPLECHASE, DB TEL mglaz,m _ �_ qo9� q1 pp P., • J • •' �, �. � ate- nOLO ��„ � •'� Lir . —T ' v. f) ���r • Imo' r l.• 1 /•. ti6w£t ddW po�°pou 9W 0 o�Mr t y' 9�;m1 t � a,j0 of > ". PETE VOLUMR PppbiLogLupo Planing u lolEr RESIDENCE FOR JAIN 615 N BENSON AVE SUITE C, UPLAND, CA 91786 � °`°'�''�'��006 0.e'epN °°'� PARCEL 3 PM 23382 STEEPLECHASE, DB TEL 909 373 1150�»�� PET��DLHEDP Pi4uUd" Pbpim ENCS FOR JAIN ,,''ENSON AVE SUITE C, UPLAND, CA -EEPLE--HASE, THE COUNTRY re- 909 3731150 FAX 904 373 1152 4�- CAl A TI > > > ;:u U) > > F 0 0 > o P -u N S U) r- > 0 C) DD 00 -Ti 'ura a, e NJ cc r\j NJ CY 41 0l Cn jo 0 -Ti -Tl —4 U) Z CY) Fm ewnn 0 0 -T� > r— 00 KI G) < 0 DD 01 00 PET��DLHEDP Pi4uUd" Pbpim ENCS FOR JAIN ,,''ENSON AVE SUITE C, UPLAND, CA -EEPLE--HASE, THE COUNTRY re- 909 3731150 FAX 904 373 1152 I I '-'d- IliI I I j 11•I II i I 1 II .1 it �I - I I I ; iii--�--• 1� JI' `-� -� -_ � I .I ..- I r ^ I _ I 4 t�j I I I I- �- -.. I I XlY — Fl ,L L •�- f –{; �_ - IL— I- e-r27— _ GGG I _ ,�. •j � I •. , a 4-! - J. IL —21 I I I I I I tiZ�• � i�----�I( � ti• ti! I yyyI -- I --- � 1 `- AT, Fly I T I�•r I P 11 11 ' i •F II IN I ' I I - ELEVAI' ONt o;d® PETE !!®L®PUP Aobu@Lwo P m -hg p) RESIDENCE FOR JAIN , E 615 N BENSON AVE SUTE C, UPLAND, CA 91786 c rral cn�nE•r Nur nnI l:.Iro.. rEL 9093731150 FAX 909 373 1152 a oru I I'� "all �3 ggtl£ 3o mg� o3P:°���'gg3 d r Sm 3 °s' f 98Ao I'� "all FOE o RESIDENCE FOR JA'N im " 615 N BENSON AVE SUITE C, UPLAND, CA 91786 PARCEL 3 PM 23382 STEEPLECHASE, DRI mi TEL 909 373 1150 FAx INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DIAMONDB,#R COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Milan L. Garrison, LDM Associates, Inc. (Planning Consultant) DATE: February 14, 2006 SUBJECT: Design Review No. 2005-31 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03 for property located at 2502 Razzak Circle (Lot 181, Tract 30578; APN 8713-009- 066) The above -subject project had been duly noticed and scheduled for the February 14, 2006 Planning Commission hearing, however, corrected drawings were required of the applicant to be submitted to City staff in order to ensure compliance with all Code provisions. The applicant was unable to provide the plans in a timely manner which would have allowed staff the opportunity to review and prepare the necessary staff report and accompanying resolution. Therefore, we request that the Planning Commission continue this item to the February 28, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. MEMORANDUM orIDsnx COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director BY: Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner MEETING February 14, 2006 DATE: SUBJECT: Form Based Code Discussion Background: The Planning Commission recently expressed an interest in implementing a "form - based code" in the City. The purposes of this report are to provide a brief background on "form -based codes", to clarify the definition of form -based code, to make an assessment of its potential use in the City, and to make recommendations to the Planning Commission on the potential sites for implementing form -based code within the City. Description of Form Based Code: The City's current Development Code is an example of traditional zoning regulations that place an emphasis on the separation of uses. With traditional zoning, a City is divided into different use zones and placement of buildings on a site is regulated by general setback, height, and density standards. Form -based code (FBC) is somewhat the opposite of conventional zoning in that the code places less emphasis on prescribing the location of uses and more on building form and the relationship of buildings to their surroundings. The form of the building determines the type of use. The ultimate goal of a FBC is to create a sense of place as envisioned by the community which it serves. FBC was conceived as a way of implementing New Urbanism principles of walkable neighborhoods, mixed use, enhanced streetscapes, and mixed residential densities. The concept of form based code was originally developed in the early 1980s for the town of Seaside, Florida by Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk. The property owner of the 80 -acre site on Florida's panhandle sought to create a new town that Page 1 of 6 would recreate the character and architecture of small southern town that occurred throughout the Florida coastal areas. Towards that end, Duany and Plater-Zyberk created a code that prescribed building form where buildings are placed close to the street, front porches are mandated, street types are clearly defined and eight specific building types (examples include commercial, residential, office and workshop, and combinations of those) are allowed. Since that time FBC has been further developed and refined in many other cities and towns across the United States. Some of the most well-known examples of the use of FBC are in Seaside and Celebration, Florida; the Columbia Pike Corridor plan in Arlington Virginia and the South Miami plan. Form -based codes in Celebration and Seaside, Florida were implemented as new towns from undeveloped land. In contrast, the cities of South Miami and Arlington, Virginia implemented FBCs in existing developed areas as a way of counteracting urban sprawl and creating traditional main street environments. Use of FBC has also been associated with transit -oriented development. FBCs commonly include some form of the following five components: 1. Regulating plan is a plan or map that shows the locations of the various building types and street types and how they relate to the lot, block, and larger surrounding area. 2. Building Envelope Standards show the height, building types, building orientation and build -to lines. 3. Architectural Standards are often very specific and can show allowed building styles and materials, wall configuration, window style and door placement and configuration, roof material and types. 4. Streetscape Standards include the various street types, lighting and landscaping along public areas. 5. Administration Procedures explain the process by which a development project gets approved and who the approving body is. For more extensive information, several examples of FBC that have been adopted by other cities are attached to this report. Developing a FBC begins with a visioning process that involves a significant amount of community input and support to determine the vision for an area. As the case with South Miami plan and others, the New Urbanism concepts such as pedestrian -oriented character, mixed residential uses, and mixed residential and commercial use were implemented to help achieve the ultimate goal of creating a vibrant downtown area, preservation of historic buildings, and pedestrian -oriented streets. The broad overall concepts of New Urbanism may be incorporated into the General Plan as a way of providing goals and principles that would encourage the use of the form -based code. The State of California recently endorsed FBC by adopting legislation that authorizes its use Page 2 of 6 FBCs contain many graphics to clearly illustrate the building, architectural and streetscape standards. Some FBCs use the transect, which is a system that classifies land into six forms that vary in intensity from rural to highly urban. Graphics and tables make it easier for the public to understand the code and saves time when working with developers because there is less left to interpretation. Issues: Form based code is more easily implemented in undeveloped areas that have one property owner as is the case with the cities of Seaside and Celebration where it had significant success in defining the town. FBC may be less effective in developed communities because of conflicts with the existing code and potential for creating nonconformities. For example, the City of South Miami Plan has seen only a moderate amount of development pursuant to the South Miami Plan, a FBC developed to preserve their downtown area. However, newer more developed forms of FBC have been created as overlay zones or as complements to existing zoning may be more successful in developed areas because they work with existing zoning. FBCs have been criticized because they seek to develop areas with traditional main streets that never really existed and overly prescribe form. FBC is often seen as a way to provide solutions to failures of traditional zoning such as areas where there is a lot of strip commercial and cities with older declining downtowns. However, these types of areas have also been improved with the use of traditional zoning regulations, Specific Plans, and design guidelines. Application: Because Diamond Bar is mostly built -out, form -based code would be difficult to implement by completely replacing the existing Development Code throughout the entire City. Use of a FBC may be most effectively implemented in smaller areas of the City that are either mostly vacant or where there are large underutilized parcels or areas that have the potential for redevelopment. In this way, a FBC can be implemented as a type of Specific Plan where regulations are tailored for a specific area of the City. Towards this effect, the City of Diamond Bar may desire to create policies for creating a FBC and indicate potential sites for implementation by amending the General Plan Land Use Element. To establish a FBC within specific areas of the City, there are several options that include the following: • Replacement of existing zoning with a FBC in one specific area or site; • Development of a FBC as an overlay zoning; • Use of FBC as an option with incentives that favor use of the FBC; or • Use of a combination of FBC and traditional zoning regulations. Page 3 of 6 Potential Sites: Potential sites for implementation of a FBC overlay zone or FBC Specific Plan in the City of Diamond Bar include those that may be a good option because they are either large underutilized sites or had redevelopment potential. Potential sites for where there is potential for implementation of a FBC include the following: 1. K -Mart site: Location: Southwest corner of the 1-60 freeway and _Diamond Bar Blvd. Boundaries: Area: Approximately 100 acres Property owners: Multiple Existing conditions: Older buildings, large parking lots along main street frontages, buildings set well back from street frontages, high traffic volume, close to freeway exits and commuter parking lot on the north side of the 60 Freeway Potential for FBC: This area/site appears to be in decline and, therefore, is particularly appropriate for redevelopment. Development of a FBC overlay or Specific Plan could assist in redevelopment of the site by providing an impetus for new economic growth opportunities. Because of proximity to the freeway and a commuter park and ride lot, the area may be especially conducive to mixed used combining high-density residential and commercial/office uses on the site. 2. Golf course site: Location: East of the 57 Freeway, south of the 60 Freeway Boundaries: 60 & 57 Freeways on the west, Prospectus Rd. on the northeast, residential on Golden Prados Rd. and Golden Springs Rd. on east Area: Approximately 170 acres Property owner: Los Angeles County Existing conditions: Site is used as a golf course. Potential for FBC: As a large underutilized property that is adjacent to a freeway, the site has great potential for future development that would provide additional commercial and high-density residential opportunities for the City. These characteristics also make it particularly conduce for use of a FBC. If the City envisions the area as one which should be developed with a special character using the New Urbanism concepts of pedestrian -oriented and mixed use, a FBC is particularly appropriate. Page 4 of 6 3. Freeway corridor site: Location: South of 60 Freeway and west of the 57 Freeway Boundaries: 60 Freeway on north, Golden Springs Rd. on south, commercial property on south side of Lemon Ave. on west, Brea Canyon Rd. on east Area: 14.27 acres Existing conditions: Site is developed with multiple older commercial buildings. There are multiple property owners. Potential for FBC: This area/site appears to be in decline and, therefore, is particularly appropriate for redevelopment. Development of a FBC overlay or Specific Plan could assist in redevelopment of the site by providing an impetus for new economic growth opportunities. Because of proximity to the freeway, the area may be particularly conducive to mixed used that would combine high-density residential and commercial uses on the site. Summary; FBC was developed as a way of implementing New Urbanism principles of mixed use, pedestrian -oriented development, mixed residential densities, and enhanced streetscapes. It has been used to create a sense of place or character for an entire City, as the case with Seaside, Florida, or for revitalizing smaller nodes within a city such as the Columbia Pike Corridor in Arlington, Virginia. Wholesale replacement of a traditional zoning ordinance in a developed city is a difficult and time-consuming process because of the high level of public involvement required and the fact that it must work with existing development built under traditional zoning regulations. For these reasons, a FBC can be more appropriate for smaller areas of the City where implementation of New Urbanism principles are a goal. There are three areas of the City that have potential for implementing a FBC because they are either ripe for redevelopment or encompass large vacant or underutilized parcels: the K -Mart site; the golf course area; and the freeway corridor site. In addition, a pure FBC that would replace the existing zoning for smaller areas of the City may also not be appropriate particularly because the City may want more control over permitted uses. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the following options: a hybrid of FBC and the existing traditional zoning; a FBC overlay zone; or an FBC Specific Plan. Page 5 of 6 Recommendation: After discussion and if the Commission concurs with staff finds, forward a recommendation to the City Council requesting a joint study session with the City Council to discuss ways in establishing provisions that encourage form -based codes. Attachments: 1. FBC examples 2. Aerials of three potential sites 3. September 21, 2005, Memo to City Council. Page 6 of 6 �Qv 4 n K 1.10 gm Once Ge Local Go ermait (Conini-is-zion% Sman (mmmh Zmzinq Codcs:.4 Resom-cc Guide lU"biShed, L'.'C. g WSM! Ming c(Mes has gahwd :-.,n!L:.:]. 11611y. -"o1':II-1v%-.'d hmv bnavy or vxW;QnjY pop!" q;-, ;!k,) .") 11I -_-'e , -,­i:A i win, n hoc peyd i v m A m Pn% mA k and play. :--.'!Ltion-'hip Oa 71i 1::1" dl. pr:nlary ln'ii not 1!'': v:'!m! aild Xd -.c) l. J,'. -'l c.1:00 (dow cr..'air'l b -v 1­.-IIJ..F1l;;� As o5h (W vnmt gio"t1i vomym cod:_ -s snimlions I(.') _ -,:I co-". i(•T C1161-- ((x.11:1'111. '1". 1 jk!i. W, hq Fe form -based cocteBSc. 7 4L .. a .' C: C:;i lir"I ](I ()&'i id fa"adc' cc hod W ens?M&M od QQ Qum "16(mysixom cut mudi r 4Q!ki�--' ay.-L� L ncw C'N''s 11" APIA, C !(A -is ri(-A%.'� 6L'13( t I hk a N r m m Mmv J 61)'C'1% a'.. id �A �rri d6fs­\% J fifd C-0 j V IL: I U 011:1 /.(',111 "0C nlM Fociis; 111 C', L vI ge. o I ijl`a�' -x"'d i;. I :1.' 'II S1113 1 M III 11.11' LW,!J(` ea! 1) 1 C -C ]AI. T; 111 irm-31)ALI C •'). 11 doilin lh7 I. -S' ;ILA I I C L''C' I'i 110;111"-'ILr a I ,S 7 .,..I ".A Cx", T -V, OIL HIT IF he focus on building and street design in form -based codes allows graphics and photos - instead of lengthy, repeti- tive text - to explain the details of zoning requirements. In turn, these codes are much more democratic instruments, because they are more readily understood by residents who are not otherwise involved in land use or development professions. a Pictures tell the story Form -based codes can greatly reduce discussions about the meaning of zoning tenns and argue nents over the interpretation of code language, allowing every- body involved in a public partici- pation process to focus their time and energy on the essence of the regulations, rather than on "word- smithing." Using form -based codes, a picture really can be worth a thousand words. m Easy -to -find infortination Another improvement offered by form -based codes is that they contain all relevant information in a concise format. By contrast, conventional codes usually include this information in several different sections of the code, sometimes even in side documents that may not be readily apparent or available to the inexperienced user. By consolidating information and using a simple pictorial style that avoids jargon and complex, repeti- tive language, form -based codes offer a much more accessible format. a Great for mixing uses Another key characteristic of form -based codes is the way they treat different use types. Since the dawn of zoning, conventional codes were built around the concept of separating uses. They seldom allow uses from a different category (retail, single-family, multi -family, office, etc.) within the same zoning district. When uses from different categories are proposed by project developers, extra processes and additional hearings are often required. In contrast, form -based codes assume a mix of uses, especially in neighborhood or town centers. E Better, faster, cheaper process This clarity of format and intent can lead to a shift in approval processing from a hearing -heavy process to one that is largely administrative. Simply put, if all the details are discussed and clarified .when the code is developed, and if they are accurately represented in a format that leaves no doubt as to the requirements, then a "build - by -right" approach is possible. This means the review of a project application follows procedures similar to those for obtaining building permits. If the proposed project meets all of the code's requirements, the application can be approved administratively. Obviously, this reduces time, expense and uncertainty for the developer, but it also reduces processing and hearing costs for the jurisdiction involved. This can free up staff time for more proactive planning. V Form -bused codes use picrrues to reli the store -------- ---------------------- t , ----------------- - - -------- - - - - -- ' A New state law authorizes use ofform-based codes t 1 ik(: 1!..!1'.\IMc(?:'1C;a:.:0:):1 ..'. L..!:i, ('))rn-ba;L!d CQl'!et \Cl.',C "PL: cai!:dur:iblc. sk,...pC1C1�1'nl 111 nIarn CO:..::U1J .t1;.'S. and :a .'C'!l.ti :L ..:IS 'i1 u.•J I i tll:!:'th,:v v.-.,, ro! Caen a l.!1;r'.1 1!'1:`a:'!i f!. ::S!':. 1p (11I1'av 11!al :idle, the C J''(? 'a le s ? ailc \vim --il�d !:1 1'\' ..�:.'• �� i. i •;�!:::1'!:�' t1di '!„t�:�<1 '!.:..o la% 1!l. Ell\' ^(!!1•l, 1'::5:....17L� 1:1 +..ry Clear lent":'1•; '11 . l . ..t• _ ' C.,!li:l':Il Man Gindki''l::� .1'ta .:?t. \'.. i:11:S `.',U\'lrl'l.M! ZO-1i:t.i ......:�(;1� ' i ......t _ t ..---------------------------------- • .. - �i •..�'��. i;'k ice.,; .. ,,/ti•'+ f'i r . •�r" J �.-v�-•'•'�--- 2AL-_-�_.:__:1�'.l0_�.= rAX " �... a / •fir i .� `'> ;.•:i,: '%%' I:,f• I ':. (_ 14 .�i:'r .r07 ® - i; �� ■ y l' .•/ // 1 i '', ,�., ter., • l,' 1„ ]♦ •■ T� -RbRRL ..._ 12 R3n41 -.. T.3. URBAN _ J T4 Gf7+'nAl -i - ,;,Rv-I T6 IRERN D. -.. . np,! [RAE _ i 1<'. - :I i2 %4A4 URBAN I T.'i _... ._ 4' :1 -i1. lr,'r.l7'i !iJa. .. !iYy:.':'. 1 !!.'•,Ji hL;::::r•: :i. .l. .( :.r( ,- N! ,!(:•:;.�: .. i•) •� •,'1 ,r•. •:1,. J.!..-. •J.,' 1 - ' 11 Y -,irli' '{?• "[�,i J•''• �7', 1' .1..'' i:'.. �1.!f;•:^ .l''r �)[' 7!!I'1• i - :.$een:r :land uses:;; in..:c '.. ;The Trase,ct g ontext' Li ,I[rii:iil itt..,, 1JIi r::r,'"'=i:J LlI i(.).; .JLi t;rJ.al.,.7 .lrr.. 1. ,. t.ti:i:' ,' :•' mL*u l:'t['(. • air) :[,'(3� 1 ,t (..77:`i'lc�,: " 1 t.(...l) rail)il`<.irl,.l..t.L!Li_.1•. lli,. 1. d. iCl'L; .,7 1' ..S•,L..l, !81'10, rlllat.' , IF l.l.JilCfi , lii•'ib'..Sfe..-I• Pr r;• i , �.,: n�•liiri-,t.,iilLl +•:11{rr'lk+l.:lic'r' .' 1i+rlitii'1 sul�\..Illt• i'1! :'�i-• •i!t]Ll''S�1'f)\\Lil 1'::(l!' 111 5f1!l�B 1' 'ill _iStr. � �. li.l,� ri:']CJ• . , i1'lil:1)l7JJi111!!r l'Vl')l:S 111. 15.'11 1'.1!" LVili'rC I' ;� ;,I1 :ir ll]C j?I'liJlill-`,ll('l,[.15 rLl�� ,•�• •-, ul}]Cl\1.apli'lg 11c'.1 1.Jar•CI! I.. �I?rA:SLI u. -LS . ' I t l';C \S Cllt\'l .U'.::!'t1111 1. " 1 ! v C..1 71,^,�•�.'�.•.'.•L .:,'-,r '1:.} .,7.).•]'itt..:SG. I1'l1!71,,.,•:'' •• . 1. i.)l.i t 11.1+1 .l; Illi. )']Ii)1 r � ••.'•. . ., S'1; 'TJIiS•ir:!1"I ll'\YU!'li::ll�l?V1 :i•a)i'�ilC:l),ll�i• l:•I'1 ".11':1\1UUSI\' LI:7Ci'_'::'llh)lal LHS l),TSI. CLLl\L. \�'t I.",i,n1 Ll''rill';) 11!(,1:'1 LI I'!dcril.iLl7(.111'-i,-j liii i:bt, z l' "/%r''l'.',]11l ds Yid Oil!, r' Ca)TJIr.deiVe'1Q:)}! oni.. :.c ;• :';.::..' ..," .l. -:iia; :i7•. ' '•.•.,: •' I"' "!: .IlUStI 111]111. {),Jl .,!1'!Cl )ri.)'C is .S IIUI ;i'lll(ir`:'!11�\`• 1.)i:(1, i'la;,, C'�,)l.)II!lllt i:aa1'uCL 1 .:.. '• is '111.1 1 LS ;Ir,.. I • 'J: ••';1:1C:L l','IlJ1lrl�tJ1C L']1)f!il t•'il)riC':•' r li)I:L:S lilO],- (1!ICI]Cl„S LIN' !:LI1l.. .IHI\` l).; .,)rl\'C l.�1^•- �: . J WS L:(')IJt!liU:'. i(.)' L!IC: MLTO.ll�'ll_]C'.:LLIOil. i•i. : �"�{1;•}'l:lt)1.��r�,1.�)111Sf11L'1+S;1'.It1':�'y'lJUll - 'l !C' Lb(J' 17L.'lLrl.1b.61 'I7UU(JS'. Still' 1,)Il:II1\S i:(1}l :lll'.Li!'v'I�'I!i•ll: �'.irid ct\'Lri'.1'J iJillCrc!;11. C:'t! w• L') LI:C:1, ,1 ..11ll]'L:SS,• C'.6 [UVIS 11..JI._ l_]C.1C1''C1J11.I1CS:a:!:S• 4 .'([ 1 Li l'.0 UI:_ � S I )'1'J�ft-L'l7l'17C1 1 '�,Si ;('r` . .: • I i:.U::111C •ilk'S . l.l� I •I :It.,(')�'t)OI-111,1!1 "" :iI'i)CJ1'1lJ'-, '' �• " JIC:11J11�:•C)i11000l ;!1;'ll'iJ�VCaU1' :IdL ll::i�a:1'It LJ1',:3 7!ICJ l)llllll!7i!_C i lil: :i�'•.+' 1rd:15i1\'S1C1115. ;1{• I`!L!.1 &11, l'4nit. dicl:li'LS, 11{)Ti r _ � •1;1 ,1)l:fa.11il]:!• ,�..'1111t)ii:.a �[!' �:\•L (� ;h i>I'ti'1 I�c'INL9' 0I '01.1 ;liar(.i I r t'lis, , cil,:l1',:.1�'nti'i:)n ::1!CJ l'ti•.?S that r4o"', ::11'1 r'\°L:,-CM 7`H:1Si�, I,(') 1.11c'. .. . ..71'l; .'�' .GCr,'I(::1171i' !�l('...::C)11.'L!ti:U}: ail:i ('[)1}• ; ;i•{'�1) 1}1;{t;y•C,II;JI:ri't'11`co'.1'1'llli'1]t.lLi', lill)7.1!I '.(.r1L'. 1 Jig "I;+O L](::1H Vs i'1 111C'f5".11111 S:UL)C.� 1!'1 11 OL i!\' OL!:C)L)(j.. , rr .J ai,ciriins s ?(' 'ial:''1iLZtl ila iii[ I;cc� ;17is 3 I' . ritentlolls.;Ln( a''•1'ti'lo L: i;:, (icicJ•. 1m.\l':smN Cat I?1is.altL'ol Of., !::!('1:!E.li;• , (lisi(1-.! D1.1[ii'tl11a .CC 1.5 •' Fiic <_*rai'':LI a:)li.:IL'(?r 11•. 11ri:rlin'''S';]iliilr)!'. S hai'R::.ill! ill.it:!i!(:�:,ii'•I::ti`:! t:.1i: :r,. '` 1 \ iQi 1. L:[.,, ! 1 C"" .l' a \i all { +) ! '.; '� lJl.\'.1Q`ill.ia'1�: ?='(1iriC_iS ti 1!'C•17L 1;J(:. :a-;ul••tli!�•.(:a"ail rL:, i, 1 ... ipi•. I•'- tic:{ [:(a{3�;� . rC:\\' �..1'1):i11.a!'1'1. '7'l� La[Cl'1':'tlie' i''lla 1 011. IllOr'l' !l: ri'1': •li: );'' ) i;11:SlCl 11 J!LI:J'7 J•:11�CWT,,L`Ull'r r " ' -O ;i OI 1111' .JO! !'!r .!, t 'i•15 '7.:ti:" rll'[:d (:Ii::•l:]1(:(l - J1;1S 17C1C11'i:ISI 11:111,'1)W ul ,+ ' 1>' NC ,.'I'),c and" 1L: ll) d,ICl'1.!tiC' -LQ•i•'1'la':1:'i+: •'il).ti?+:•' '.'1`:!!l COI 'a• • � 11115 � 7 It :: 'I" .:,.."(t dti lr�'Chu .• I 1 1 .I1' ]'ll+., l_i !!i11 ., 1w. 1�; 1 r. .. (:1:1SSJ�ilCail(�:i•.I C)•'OlC)�'\.. .FI: i,.Jr.,i! 'L1 ::' 'I LI .1J` �� l.li i(:�•)Lr' �. it :i}i),=r:+l \\(nla"' nhtalliaii'iil• .(:i)rO� ](::l1•ti1,1I111C8; [1!'1]':.';i ^! r0�• ;7C'I),111.i, i1(�'.\: .'('P;'llfr:'.(!•(:: , rCi S .+..'C:il(11: l:li'l)la`:Jtl]:;i:. i1:11):1::L, •` ;..,. it. L)lf: ilYl).:LLCi" !lI1JL•i,it ind i:acnr'Iiit+•[' ';I'.e1�'iir•';S:ll:u:.(,(�i3i''liiil< i!1� ,, .. Il!ill.• �OZ".'.teps for preparing a form -based code o«, does a coin,nunity go about preparing a< form -based code? What are the steps that need to be taken to prepare a form -based code? According to planner Paul Crawford, one of the nation's experts on form -based codes, the typical steps are required to prepare this type of code include: Existing conditions analysis and inventory Before embarking on development of the code it is critical to under- stand clearly what the existing,- patterns xistingpatterns of development are in a cominunity. This record of existing conditions — especially of areas that the community identifies as special, or significant — can help develop a code that fits local characteristics. Using diagrams and notes, a typical analysis will look at: >- Street types (by setback, walk- way, roadway, and landscape) > Block types (shape, size, alleys, parcelization) Building types (footprint, profile, streetfi-ont, access by car or pedestrian, service areas) >- Open space types (front, back and side yards, squares and parks, undeveloped parcels with urban zoning) > Parking types and location (parallel, diagonal, lots) Natural features (creeks, signif- icant trees, views, hills, etc.) Z Public visioning and charrette Input from the conununity is gathered early in the process through a public visioning and charrette process. The charrette is a collaborative planning process that brings together residents and design professionals in an intensive multi - day process that typically includes focus group meetings, workshops, presentations, and public engage- ment exercises to develop a feasi- ble plan for future revitalization and development. V Step 1: E.ristirr,T ronditions' invcntory_front the City of Sonorna_c dn-clopntent code update :--•------------ ---------- ----- - ------77 �.. . Z MEN.. •'�:• ; • ,. kit: ... --- -= -- ------------------- �. Ste,, 3: Azusa''s code divides the city into open spare, residential arc•,as, connnercial corridors land corrnnercial districts, ?J Determine appropriate spatial basis for regulation (districts, transect, streets or special zones) There are a number of different approaches that can be taken in determining how the form -based code will be defined and regulated. Although there is some 'overlap between these approaches, Crawford describes four basic alternatives that are typically used by different practitioners: Neighborhoods, districts, corridors Transect Street -based regulating plan Special purpose zones This process entails identifying which parts of the community are appropriate for different types of development. For example, if the transect -based approach is used the plan would identify those areas that are suburban (T3), general `111./0 a a 0 — " 411 -IN 7% %.A %_ %.& %.4 %_ -0 . VV —.00-M Z7 — . — . --.M 0 V VV wn M M %. a y m Sonoivia,, California liz clu-".s, zn] locmed in 66,'. !--(::,ilic !IQ ofs::mollla ".ad soon Ino io r why! va gonv On (?ill r vdghhm VIM SO :L; (.)',j' :1lar .trcs 0 "".6, :o (ILI :1 t C. - To bi-,�:ik i!i.- d.-i-m-fing uvak of a %vllol . L ACIO-DR-d in 2GOLM -ex inno MY Cok cm"! K! C.'" it:... rev!`.(,;n 17iL'CeS, 0'I,.! (AIV '.,as div:kIL."I mto 1) gor.-Cs cio:IiJor opcn �;-,,)cL-. "Vii'.1in i3l_1L:1L(.)1-;oJ a;J o)1!:px.-Cd I'l 01: Who sawc J!: C. is wunvs o -v ­oziL! I.) ;,coylw exhid"g de%Oqrnwa "TIN OjWng a nov a%Ommy Onwomk nn Kwo Wohonwn Ara; of Minud conovin such as rund nmv, An u0nn edga mid CT eks am -)d sul'.;:,-t :(.) 7 A. 6(1. d. "I P.) I I I e C.", i t C'.; di "'6 i- I . ll;i, r (T6)'and c-\wnp e, Ml al� 6ir,; ,j5L:(':iaV(? T 611, SCI!AUC -S• -111, L M rv.of- (F. 1Y'l- C. 111 g, I S W t�zx -b5l ls, 4, VC. SIlI W, . C, 77-_..,,i'_---7 7 , - r.-, 71 ngmp w.. couR illi.:Ilt; 11.1 .?MS 6� "''I.11C'•�U�1) 14. to 40 CT! 110. 3. 11(.1' d-ovel 11, cod 6. thr 11-1'),�,A Slah q. A i il L U I.! I u% I re, r Mr, in 1 i-:;: "c II I bw &.;igratp�.S -'Of' Va"Al A 0: 1 L 01. V...l. A. I I I I A ZU'. 11. MUM! V..."l.be ROVing #LY of) A% aid if I i otou site histriii.6 Allk;iti.. and il MMelon, architecAurall, - ----------------------- knifich"Ink", j;ifflding or. . D10CUS11 S 1,A) . �io T Parl:.y az )! .`i), i , eruln ar o . Jslolli. , !S plort!ss ill- "r, to TPw; I iowludo MF 11 q I my V a n d iyguyv( .................. L dA I I )Ow NNY )CIOd L -C.) A kwomikuw1'1.111111+.1( Iy M i. tM.-de fin.- 'V, I, - L\,)t ol )Ill dlni?V, 3 (XVIII -0 0 "1 Of 6 ------------ -------- --V 1AT PINvy �� w I '"1: Yr j'{�1!' - 1.., ,. ;f,,•1 viii. ,;"1 :•( I i/'� on- 1•a �i I�j. j"'" — C-`.'',c•n' r^ 7:r ri.'a 1 ..� J'iS�S;'? i.' : i,u1-;'h:ifr I�;%eFi• i r:t.•��" .. ;i,.?�5•e,f .=;'•'- =ate.; - i':•Z:.., _._.-:.-:_- --- - - .. ' zbdn :for consensus reviaalizatlon -------------------------------------------- '-'' .- i til ... •. -v, ' . = ' did.`riirt'assure'thc.stake I ® Pe. a uma- _rCal fornhi�' Y ' 'Holders that flew ,_aj`'tYtel t;tlir'$, y~ l"iia.�de'iicEi:7o` a:.r::e;edle%v;el:el,,cf,it ,`=�iz'. i"i•,�- gi;ednticiji'' th-piiictunG _-o s] ie:kisfific, istoriinc fici c. . _. lit :•. _ MV market'.bisedz"fhl.=wi�7'`io�c,: `.Sanl'u Rocu'Pve3s=Derioir�i[ i=e17,"�o ter move forward: wrote'iii'A'til`�D{3"Thevii'« city. hired a can'su]tant' �- `r=u.11o' it�i 6dLiccd t_he: t ::.:_ •. , ; ittitietscr'is tli� bia''d'`a` of transect]]]a'rt . S. - , ..'. - ::,• ,;. Y `� w�:forzn }jased'cocies: C:'ode.- .. ... 1 . Tb's focused Tess °.T}ie;;C` 1t�F'1?cta]iinasti'u" 1�d fou' ! oil scepai-ating tiscs'arid, 7 eve3.,ye'a'si10-,aclie;"c'onse u] deli =ri ii]�r the' or'e' ori spec r-.' an:for`a (1Ci=acr"e::: t)uilailig fcsrins that ;• aerie ;elopir a tisi a adjar nE'to: wotild rzalize 'tie'coiii= 1'4 sp).tC'extei %iVe: miulit 's vision' :. } , PP. Pc 'olitia]••liatiles P � ;�? - pedcstria7i-oriented; ,...... ,. 'contuuedLlS:et~weeri="residents;°..;_ ;]ixi'd=iise Istrict., `de'v elo "Cly: Slid '�k?<•".,.t.a_ii, r1t3]15t5. ; . Resid:,ns' ]ave'eiipro, p o,ni1Z. eiOekreuredy tie h"celeair�i'ty ; ,,.. 1 ... _ . .. ...,._ . ' £u]I"nfl l'­• and.relative simplicity . ,.. - .... , .. . - -= - -rx,_ of the iie�� code a7 d ,. *� �-1 • , '1 ; _ �e4:elbper, 'aj..p]-eciatC, _ .......,.. , ..... , , .. f " Gs O K;ar-rules: aiid ex edited 1 j 'ria Sic _ e P, _. �J.�••'':�F''i�'i[5� �..±';?' > .�•; ',''" pernntt, Cr ocess. .-; ________ ________________________ 'f�1fLe1' 0771}y P_711e il]UI]t]]$ of Com-, 7nimity'vieionint>:a7�d ecinsensus- Th6 Ccrltr;tl Petalun]a S :ec:ific' } ._: db 'I" former. adversaries agreed 1'1cn, adoj�ic'd in June .2iQ:,'i is'.'' nri tie 'new fiirm-liased 4ocjc; jump--stsarted t]ie const,ruca}ein-oi. ' '' ••:_ _ +: _ -�" :a . f brcakiri�a long -tulle to�Tjam. ;i ucty, n]i .ci-use the itcr'c'isn ic;t: ® Hercules, California he "Regulating Code," adopted for the small city of Hercules across the bay from San Francisco in the summer of 2001, is similar to another pre- pared by the same firm for the City of Winter Springs, in Florida. Intended to foster smart growth development in newly created town centers, both codes have been extremely successful, inunediately triggering develop- ment projects conforming to the principles and details embodied in the code. The Hercules code covers four districts in the central part of town. It includes eight street types, though not all will appear in each zone. The use table is a mercifully short three pages, with a half -page of footnotes. Four tunes that number of pages are devoted to facade details and architectural standards. r -'7 -,:-Tr ----------------------------------------- --------- mubw------- AL Attractive uctu Horses in 11cindes look out Onto rhe `an Fraucisco Bay. This architectural material features photographs and drawings of desired and unwelcome features, signs, porches, trim and so on. These details precede the use tables in the code, consistent with form -based codes' emphasis on building form and the public realm. One page is devoted to each street type, detailing streetsc:ape features such as pavement width, curbs, on - street parking, landscaping, corner radii, sidewalks, building setbacks, eaves, awnings and balconies. This format allows the user to quickly access all the most relevant requirements and standards for a piece of property, just by referenc- ing the street type that fronts the property. Hercules' new Regulating Code has clearly been a success. Since its adoption, development has flourished in the area it covers. Several traditional -appearing residential projects have been built, with a total of 300 units, and construction is under way on the first phase of the main street area of the Waterfront District. That naain street building includes fifteen 2,700 -square -foot o`uner- ship'units with commercial space on the ground floor and two-story townhouse units above. The single- family projects include a number of creatively designed duplex, triplex, and fourplex units that blend in very well with the sur- rounding housing. Building styles are varied. The structures, landscaping, street design, and even the street lamps have design details specified in the code. This thorough approach to the details can make all the differ- ence in the finished appearance and appeal of a project. Code preparcd by Dover, kohl & Parrrmrs e.l.. II kill. M� C117 ?p % ;li147 ld;n 6 "J'S.; ?I z a f I i., 17 :IF X N x;tjv. 5v 1 IT NAL R 'S R MS.. WWQ f J111100: A I WIN., vj� -VA I r AN' U I 'n. Leal c X 1111, 1.14 P L "L N P % W1. k 811 'P&i. M Nv. 1c I �-?S N,w c INI-11, 1'. 1AN r.v AJ 3', 7 . 0. 6 i. ­ t rn Mik F NW. I iI . . ISSI 4 SIR I-m, 'URI. pa nalk, P1124"Al On M 1-1111 1. 0 lux j.1 R"i F.TV, . . . ....... L • v I IG=ILLY y= Mti",7 ,%&1.' GR v 'I N How. .&A r m.. "'.0, W." I R.• Other Points to Consider x"cdc I ­v!,:c-n,; of codt:S !%.S %avc, WMW :U:11':1tLJ {):'1){"'•{,:1:5• -„ !: 1'1, 7 1 ..):!11,A).!11:1+ OT -I Lm Ill):. mvu( c".d... sm; I t I I ...... u'. d. , 1 :)c ncc'd an -d ;1i,-%: odc.. .-.�d o..ell. v "."I �u.v , .1 1 - I I. I - - . - I r: : I a. ,% :k I .0­Et-- 11'1es" polOoms "v"! lilt! W:r (Im.::%", a 'o: 1 1: .7: ci Idle, I Lq; :I: oI I r n n :1 1 Ind q,poi n(ed ('11: 1( m.s, vl: Il'.%" 1 .11.-1 '1 1. w0 1 1 :1 7( . 1 ; c; . a a I : a.. I 'o code ::K 1:.,,..1- '(:,!1:(::1:. 1( "Ll A 1-_- tet I (`\,'. i 11.: .�d !:1 or -;:!,:!n HD ALIv-Aw­., 1 co; :1;1, K -Mart Site - - i ;'.r:.; ;,.- -- `_. •`. _' (-... _ ` =/ •'� �" y - - -- — — —.a, w Y fir• 5 ,r , :`-• 60157 Freeways 5 ; s•'•�` t ;;' , *` 7-11 F. '1 •7.4.'.4;_4 i ;i•,,' ��� s.� �� _ a _- ^yr-�` • 14.'1 " � 1 _ .� j• �. F\ .1\ `1"'' '' ,,,5.i r'i -.vr' 4 J - moo Ile A. Diet. p Ba ..i :� •. .•',�... i��r'f•' ,'. �, . � 'asp , i •,� _ �..IS' ,. •` I :,� •+ +rZ-1�•:1•]] � •, •tip, ^1. ~,��L,.-1 ti �'•� • 'fir •a _ •' • �:'• r+ Y, Y' ! ,y r 1 Bfvd'' Fi:3-14 ti `. •ti.,,1``', 1 �'r l {h �, .� 1 Lrti, *.''!' ' .�• r"h•v '",S,.f � _ •'k •��.- � •.. •r' ., •{� syr :r -i 2���.. mme-R9e�}'::r:-4s 1-' -� .' - :r' •-!' v �r ..---= ~�+—Yy � .- '" . _� _ —_ _-�fr•+'{ i� • .-1" .._ _ . . Golf Course Site 60157 Freeways _ Grand, Aver I:F:?:�?_f ,,. Cx•u .�r tifT -- � -- —. __._—_ T�J'lle?y11 —.,— —__ Freeway Corridor Site 60 Freeway_ 1 - Golden _ Springs;' ^ . ;i,57.- Freeway Rd: ,•`'y •.r LL ..—', ISY ler.. 1. - .\", , ' .,� J,. ,��� �. ;� •� �+ 1•' . IN � _'. .r^:,•1111 .Y fff i• .11. 1 '1 rl' '.1 'L 1,. i SCI:°i92G xm+'vs.:::+•�x 1:L 1 —r: ,. Y. ` ;l • • • .' , i Y.; r_' �•16wa9I1 �.rl INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: September 21, 2005 COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Linda Lowry, City Manager BY: Nancy Fong, Planning Manager TITLE: Form -Based Code Information from the Planning Commission As a result of attending the Planners Institute last April 2005, the Planning Commission was introduced to "Form -Based Code" and believes that the concept can be utilized in Diamond Bar. Form -based code is one of the "New Urbanism" ideas and its concept is to regulate the physical form or the built environment in a three dimensional way. The form -based code establishes the street types (boulevard, neighborhood streets street sections) and building types (urban core, urban center, special district, suburban, rural preserve). It has a set of building envelope standards that govern height, the building siting, building elements such as entries, windows etc. It uses graphics to demonstrate the desired built environment. Typically it encourages mixed uses and works well in denser communities. It creates compact walkable neighborhoods that enhance streetscape and civic life. It is served by public transit. Attached are examples of form -based codes from cities that have adopted the concept. Although the city is mostly built out, the Planning Commission saw opportunities to use the concept in several areas such as Tres Hermanos site, redevelopment of K -mart area, the golf course, and Site D. Specifically, the Planning Commission recommended that the form -based code techniques be used in the specific plan or master plan for these opportunity areas. Also, The Planning Commission recommended that the land use element of the General Plan be modified to include language regarding the form -based code. CC: Planning Commission attachments MEMORANDUM DLAMONDBAR COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director BY: Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner MEETING February 14, 2006 DATE: SUBJECT: Art in Public Places Issue Paper Background The Planning Commission has expressed an interest in establishing an art in public places program. This type of program involves the incorporation of artworks into new development projects in publicly accessible places within the City. This report discusses issues associated with preparing an art in public places program for the City. Review of Programs in Other Cities To understand how these programs work, staff reviewed a number of art in public places ordinances and programs in various cities within the Los Angeles area. Some of the most well-known programs include those in the cities of Brea, Claremont, Rancho Cucamonga, Laguna Beach and Pasadena. All of these programs were included in the background research. The attached table presents a comparison of the various components of each city's art in public places program. Most programs are generally very similar in that they apply to all new commercial and industrial projects that exceed a certain valuation and to new residential projects that exceed a certain number of units. The fee requirements are also similar in that most cities require a fee of 1% of the project valuation be applied towards public artwork. Claremont reduces the fee to %2% for residential projects. These types of programs are often referred to as "percent for art" programs. Page 1 of 3 A notable exception to the norm is the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The city has a program that applies only in the Haven Avenue Specific Plan area which is a major gateway into the city. In this area, the specific plan allows an applicant to reduce the landscape requirement by five percent if public art is provided in a publicly accessible area on the project site. Discussion: An art in public places program would provide a benefit to the City by providing more interesting public places and fostering community appreciation of art. Although most programs are generally very similar, the details of the program allow the City to tailor it to meet community goals and needs. Some of the various program options are discussed below. 1. Applicability: One of the important aspects of a program is what type of projects will be subject to the requirements of the program. Most cities reviewed required all new development projects over a certain value be required to provide a public artwork piece. The City may also opt to apply the program citywide or only in specific project areas, e.g., gateways to the City, parks, or highly visible areas such as median islands of arterial boulevards. 2. Fee Requirements: Fee requirements are an important aspect of an art in public places program. As mentioned previously, most cities require that a developer devote 1 % of the value of a project to public artwork. These types of ordinances are often referred to as "percent for art" programs. However, other options are available such as the case with Rancho Cucamonga which allows a developer to provide public artwork in exchange for a reduction in the amount of required landscaping. 3. Funds in Trust: Provisions for In -lieu contributions are also included in many city ordinances. These allow a developer to pay into a fund maintained by the City if the developer chooses not to provide artwork on the project site. 4. Types of Artwork: Another component of an art in public places program is the type of art that is permitted. Often cities allow only permanent artwork such as sculpture to be provided by the developer. Some ordinances are more liberal in the types of artwork and can include a variety of types of artwork such as sculpture; paintings, drawings and prints; and other types of media such as photography and cinematography exhibits. Page 2 of 3 5. Arts Commission: When a proposed project is subject to the requirements of an art in public places program, some cities establish a process that allows the City to review the artwork before it is installed. The review requires a developer to submit an application for the desired type of artwork to the City for review and approval. Most public art ordinances designate a commission with expertise in art to review and make decisions on applications for artwork. Developing guidelines on selection of artists and artwork will assist the commission or board in reviewing artwork applications. Fiscal Impact: With a "percent for art' program, the developer assumes the cost involved in hiring an artist, and construction and installation of the artwork. The City would incur costs mostly for staff time spent on reviewing applications and preparing reports for the board or commission that reviews the artwork. A percent for art program may have some negative impacts on developers in that it would be an additional cost of development in the City. Developers may view that cost as a deterrent to doing business in the City. However, an art in public places program could also be a way of improving the visual quality of public areas within the City and result in an improvement in the City's overall image. This may have the indirect effect of leading to more high quality development within the City. Recommendations: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the merits of implementing an art in public places program and the various options for the program. After discussion, the Planning Commission should then decide on a recommendation as follows: Direct staff to amend the Design Guidelines to include criteria for placement of art and continue to extract art through the entitlement process for Commission review and forward to City Council for approval through a resolution; or 2. Recommend that the City Council direct staff to further study the implementation of an Art in Public Places Program. Attachment: Table Summarizing City Art in Public Places Programs Page 3of3 L - ;• O U m 'O T O �+ ' a_ D 0 0 > . m y Cc C> 0 y E° o E ca O i y aa)) u U CO O U p (O Q U E C 7U Q 2 O n> [� a) w 00.'6.2 co Q U 0) � U 3 c U E y _y O a) c I E cD « O E O U c0 .0 E a) a v c C Q a) o 0 C N V 0- O U C L) U O U rOf-: =` O M m C U O L O— CL yo. U O E H .r to cO C R >, C T CO ° Q�a = od E aci m U) ��m�EQEc�yyc@Ey cp) 3 cu E �Q�a�Ya) U a U L O O 'i 0- O �? > L y Q V E C E N 0 0 0' 5- L U U N E E -0 ' �-n:�C=>C a)0). O- E a) C o D:a 00(LL3Ld UU -a �¢ Co ++ L U 0 yQ=coUQQ raq;'r -N A NO tt d C ..�.ca E O C '� .Q 0 O _ 7 C R y r 0) a) ca C .— C 0) b w ywr C`� O- U) 0O U) OU O Q•— O ca E a)CD -Ccpm �"a `p cA y y E T(D O x r O O E O O� C O Q p a) >� C ta)? OE(a m Od�CO ca C C CD4) O co ',•" c6 C O C ' - -O y .O p Y c L C C w O cII y O O C O M a) N pj cO COY C O p y Ct a) w y E O .0 CLO y 0 C Y CU C y Co COO iz0{ C s.O O O O 6 to 01 O d co 3 3 tTD O 3 O m 2 N E E M 3 O 7O. �' -o co .��'. [O C y ;mss - g m 0 m co iA O U C C _co iU (6 "- 0) O _ 0 Q) •i O C 2 o a) V S O m:3 0 M o p O Q N y C (i E U> r D O- > r U r -3 U) wO o i) C C O C C O c3 O fA •0 �y 0 •" U Q) 7 E 0 a),m— O" ' - c p N 0 U B N 0 CO �� > C C O G p E y O O E a cO Q E. CO m> p- ,� 3 0 0 O f70 O>= a) c0 3 y Oy 0 y E 'O U U U C a) 6N9 O d U w N O O L — a) O cc E QC) O a) U E `� cq O U E� 0 0 0 >, X_ 'p^ p _� L O -0 O O 0 -O O U C O— c6 C L N C> X. o-- ts=•=O� = `Zca069(AcoO U�EQcvUcl N yLa)U �O38.fa • • • • • • ,tea O C: O w E co „tai; m a v ok L) r a) CL 0 0 V) O > CL U) CL r 0 a) 0 L> U > CD C ca a) 0 0 0 a S2 0 0 E t 0 a 0 CO CL E w -D CL E -5 m (v -0 E = 0 o E 6U p E -5 o :5 o co E E E CL C: 0- CD o ca .0 9 If < co 0- 0 C) o Q M, 'a LL &R3 -U -(OD Co 0 ca cli CO CD r 0 4 -- ca "r- M 0 V) C D X M 0 r.) M= Q) C .0 'D CO 0 0 :3 LL 0 o U) J) -"4 V) U) Cl. 0 4) E U) - ca -Le �g a) 03 45 0 Ta 0) 0 > ra E — z3 = ,5 0 0 1 E is 0 m 0 42 0 0-I-) uj t=aw co — IL 11 cm:2. cc 0 > '0 C> rz 0 0 00 =1 -a 0On > E 0 = -a Ld — L: L)0 2 .5 � >N C) -6 — - a) ".r mi CD 2 C> > V 0 co 10 0 CD 0 CD p g t � — c (D Q_ L E- E 0 0 Iia) o , C, > :2 .0 E Fa 0 E o w —E "',- L) 0 0 • CL-& P �=j 5 P a) a) V o 0- 5"� "o CL U CA (D U w mw ❑CO Z� Q w � d LL OJ O I j F-•' W U❑ U U N_ II I I ! I Cl) I I O < U O_ < U O U _ I a Qa.Z QZ O QZ O j rD ;iF.� W0 W W I Uo J� I M d - p0 O� 00 �I UZ CZ Z J UZ_ Z O UZ_ Z IL 01) d 0Z J oZ J oZ i N ❑O LL ❑ WO [L- L WO F- pQ pQ pQ U) a z L C'4 �o z �o �o z z z I LL LL I LL o _ U z LLL1 U z U z W W CL IL a n=. a. H- 0 (L►-- J~a. 0 U z Q a Q Q a a w . cwnQ o W J �° Q w W U }O m J Y Jo` J W J j >CU ❑ Z QY~IW ❑Y N w� Z z Oa) zO H } O U D 00 cli )N N Z O W OII iJ N� N L CD `Do v a N N J� Q �UN- ❑ QO�- Q 0- d U UUCV Q fJn Q J ZQQJ LTNL I i J (O❑` M C:) CvO MQ~ O OO CO O D 00 I co 7 $ a) N LC M In0OLL O00 p 0 0,6 Op LO O f0(D O O COCO6 O O LO O N O CV LO 0NN0 N 6 Co p N ON C14 cq N NCB UpU O' U ❑ Wa❑ ❑ UI ❑ ❑ i N❑> ❑ ❑� U❑ U U❑ ❑ 111 — -- O I I C I 0 CI L) C U) U) �' _ Z �' v C� a� W �' I >, E a) a) I r) O LU C Oo y C0 Q' _ _ W_ V E- C. W U W O. ❑ O ❑ -0 LL N E C O Y O U ( Z > W E w E U n� >> a :. O �, O CU rn H Q� O O—) UO Ca ca 0 L UJ CO dU- Cn0m W 6O �M Q a) t- Q m O O -0 �o o c a-�iU c y Z� w J Q- aE 2W Oa Q v� �p o Y� F- ) ❑o z� Q wm Q m IL m = a ^' Z W Z� O N Q O CO m C7 Z cal � -o � O �. OJ ❑ LL m O c i ZW >3 m3 �LL1wc Q3 am wE Oa)EI0ci ww.0 O �N J W 0' O Qz O O =, Z O � y C O Z W Q> �O = a)I Z '- O o' Z X 'V caw LLw ❑QI Z C Q� U a �� a.a >� 2Lu O� Q1 z a U�LU C7 Z Z_ LQ w_U m UD �a ao u Z = n ax O a 0 0 0 �� �� �� z zQ z I zQ z zQ z O z O z O z O z z 0 1- OJ F- a O i F- OJ F- (L O 1- OJ F- CL O 0 Q a a Q U 9w 2w 2)w vw U U L) 0 v (.) J a J Z a _U J a J Z a J d a0 J Z a J a J a J a J a J a J a a Q Z l O a Q Z O a- Q Z O a a Z O IL -i Q w a Q z O a Q Z O a Q Z O a Q Z O a Q z O a Q Z O a Q Z O w- F- w- W- F- w- �- w> w w- F- w- F w- F F- w- F. F- w- F F- w- �- w- F- F- wQ wQ wQ wQ w❑ wQ WQ wQ wQ wQ wQ wQ J 2 J _ :2 J -J -12 J g J 2 -j :2 - :2 J 2 J g a� a� a. of a� am aw CL a. of aaf aaf aw M 20 Z>Oa 20 2Oa Z> :�O�O Z>O 20 —50 20 —50 0 L 0LLw 0 L OL - w OW OLLw 0 L OLL OLL 0 L OLS- 0 L 0 Uza QZ UZa U� UZa Uz UZ U Uz 0 Uz ZJ ZJ0 ZJ ZJO ZF-- zJO ZJ ZJ zJ ZJ ZJ ZJ LLQ LL Q w LL Q U- <, LL Q U- LL Q LL. Q LL Q LL Q LL Q LL Q OZ O OZ> Ow OZ O OZ> Ow Om 0Z> Ow OZ cl O OZ 0 O OZ O OZ O OZ O OZ O wt wt❑ WL' W H❑ W (1) WF-'❑ wF' w W L W [z wLz w - LL❑ LL❑%•' IL❑ [L-❑} ❑m —LU LL❑} LL❑ 10 10 Li❑ LL❑ C) ED P:❑ F❑m P:❑ F F=❑m p❑ F❑ P:❑ P:❑ P: P:❑ OQ OQ❑ OQ OQ❑ 00 OQ❑ OQ oQ OQ OQ' OQ OQ z zof zWw z zOfw z�- zofW z z0� Z z zOf zT- C9 LU FO �O� O r.0� F-� F-0 FO F -O �O �O F -O �O z 2 z z z z Z zw zw zU- zu- ZLL za zu- 6 F- Q C9 a O Q 0 Q C9 Q Q Q o d C9 Q o Q C7 Q C9 a C9 a C9 m � UZ J UZCo J j- U) _UZ J _UZm J F- U) UQ J Uzm J U) :1 p: J� d J� Uz J UZ J UZ J UZ J U LU f- a- a- aaW F- a- I a- aLu F= a- a- a- j- a- �- a- F- a- F- a- O aQ a� aim aQ QUI aQw aim aw Qz aQw Q as as Q as a aQ Q as a aQcr a� a m w - U z W F- W }O Z Q } U Lli Q 0 0 W W w o Q U U Q Z C=j 0 m V m 0 C/) CL C) 0 F- z W � Z z Q z } O J -0 c9 ❑ 0 Q a w U wLU �Z °- w = F- O � g ❑ W m (n a X m Q Z Y ❑ M 2 w Z Lr)❑ d M x W ❑ O m N Ln } M 0~0 N 't N co M O � U U M N co N F-- U N N Lo Cl) Z cL J Q ff) J Q ] <❑ J J < ] <❑ L!) J < J < I m Y U) Y J ❑-� Q J Q Q Q J J Q Q J J J Q U- N M L) CM O d M NO N C Lp Lp O O M p 0� 0 00) C N 9() O i! Lo OO L) O Lo m OO OQ O O In (0O L) Ct O L) OMM O p O O It Lo Ln Ln O O Ln O Co ON N N N N N NO N O N ON N O N ONO O N N N 2 OO N N O N O N U ❑ ❑a O I ❑fa- V❑ �F- ❑ ❑ NU❑Cn > ❑� ❑ ❑ p cr- � �. I U L O CA p C N m L > fn 2il LU J U cn y 0 [Y m:3 _— U- -0 w T E w a, E -p p m E (n Cn J .c LL o -p 3 a� C) 0 � m o Y W Co O > p �- a m D a (a a w c O a 0 m ca a w a 0 c a N� .-. a� .0 W 20 .-'_' 0m Oar' d� rn Oc �� Z m mai Ya> w� > �c Qo C� ° ZN Q�, wF- O a z@o W�a �• '- C7d zc �N �Ll O p 2�, 2Ua Q_c w,c Zm 6rn ❑� -i C9 2.ww m a y w o W .v Q a°i N c d N m U O Qin F- LY p �0 m a Qa o I❑ fn (n - L O p w �� z C9J m N Oc a� F- Q U p = a E LL n.C?Y� se a�i J� O= 7-C) C i O� CCDt i < cT�.0 Zrn 6 C� F-� J x w }ALL 3oP•2uasoc4!AUP33U\1:$ juaw}aedaa sao!naaS juawdolanad pue f\l!unwwo0 zanbae ellalS eluaople0 'ae8 puowe!Q le '9002 ' L L tienaga3 uo pajno9x3 'Ioa.aaoo pue anal si bu!o6aaol aqj legl funlied jo Alleued japun a.ieloap I 99L L6 `d0 '1e8 puowe!Q anuany pueJE) 009L aalueo ae8 puowe!Q 99L 16 VO 'aeg puowe!Q 99L L6 `d0 'ae8 puowe!Q anuQ Aeldo0 Ise3 99912 peon uoAueO eaa8 006Z wn!aol!pny lo!als!Q Jed a6el!JaH juawabeueW AL!IenO Iseo0 4lnoS :suo!Leool bu!nnollo; aqj le palsod seen '9002 'V L fuenaga_� uo play aq 01'uo!ss!wwo0 6u!uueld ae8 puowelQ aqj jo 6u!}a%q aeln6a�,l ay} ao} ao!JoN aqj jo Adoo e '9002 `0 L Aaenaga_� up -ae8 puowelQ }o Al!O aqj Aq pE)Aoldwe we I snnollol se aaeloep 'zanbaeW ellaIS 'I epua6e papelle ayj uo pa}s!I we uol;eaap!suoo aol swell 'eivaoJ!le0 'ae8 puowelQ 'an!a4 Aeldo0 998LZ 'wnlaol!pny -aa}ua0 }u9wuaano0,q0! js!Q juawa6eueW Al!lena Iseo0 4lnoS aqj le '-w-d 00:L le uo!ssas aelnbej a plow II!nn uolss!wwo0 bu!uueld .ae8 puowelQ eqj '900Z 't L tienaga j u0 2Jb'8 4NOWb'Ia JO AllO 63g3JNd SO -1 JO A1Nf100 VMJOJIIVO JO 31d1S JNI1SOd 3011"014=IV (INV JN1133W 3nand d0 33IION ►���fa: NVa ONOWVId d0 AlIO Bumps" job ADSt pue ,, 1 uo