HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/27/1995rrtl:
7:00 P.M.
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California
t
Bruce Hamenbaum
Bob Huff
Da Wd Meyer
I•r SMad
r. , r�r •
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community
Development Office, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection.
If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II 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
accomodation(s) in order to communicate ata City public meeting must inform the Community
Development Department at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to. the scheduled meeting.
Pfease refrain from smoking, eating or drinking + The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
in the Auditorium %s9 and encourages you to do the same.
l
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Monday, November 27, 1995
CALL TO ORDER: 7:11
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Next Resolution No. 95-18
L ROLL CALL: CONMSSIONERS: Chairman Bruce Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman
Bob Huff, David Meyer, Don Schad, ' and Franklin Fong
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 opporturiity
to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. - Please complete a Speaker's Card
for the recording_ SecretM (Completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five minute
maximum time limit when addressing the Planning_ Commission.
3. 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:
3.1 Minutes of October 27, 1995
4. OLD BUSINESS: None
5_ NEW BUSINESS: None
6.1 Variance No. 95-2, (pursuant to Code Section 22.56, Part 2), is a request to
construct a series of two retaining walls (crib walls) within the rear portion of the
project site. Each retaining wall's maximum height is 13 feet. Additionally, this
project includes the construction of an 8,334 square foot two story single family
residence with a cellar, deck, pool/spa, and four car garage. The project site is a
1.2 acre vacant lot located within a gated community identified as "The Country
Estates".
Project Address: 1729 Derringer Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Owner: Jeffrey
and Eddy Hu, 933 Leyland Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Applicant: Frank Piermarini, 2100 S. Reservoir, Pomona, CA 91766
Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has prepared a Negative Declaration.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the
public hearing, receive testimony and continue Variance No. 95-2 in order to allow
the applicant the opporutnity to redesign the project.
T. PLANNING COMMISSION HIM: Presentation of plaque to outgoing Commissioner
Bob Huff
8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
9. ANNOUNCENIENTS:
10. ADJOURNAUNT: December 11, 1995
2
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 23,r'1995
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Flamenbaum, called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. at the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Vice Chairman
Huff.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners: Chairman Flamenbaum, Vice
Chairman Huff, Commissioners Meyer, Schad and
Fong.
Also Present: Community 'Development Director James
DeStefano; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu;
Recording Secretary Carol Dennis.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of October 9, 1995.
VC/Huf f made a 'motion 'seconded by C/Meyer to approve the
minutes as submitted. Without objection, the motion was so
ordered.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS:
1. A request to Cul-de-sac Country View Drive at Grand
Avenue.
-CDD/DeStef ano stated the request to cul-de-sac Country
View Drive at Grand Avenue has been placed on agenda for
discussion. The City's Engineering Division received
this request and agendized the item to the October 9,
1995 Traffic and Transportation Commission meeting for
consideration. Testimony was received from the area
residents. Following deliberation, the Commission
directed staff to conduct a comprehensive traffic study
no later than mid-January of 1996. The study was
scheduled to follow completion of the Grand Avenue
project and the SR 60 Freeway improvement project and
include consideration of the improvements to the 71
October 23, 1995 Page 2 Planning commission
Freeway/Corona Expressway. The Commission requested
that, upon completion of the traffic study, the- matter, be. -
scheduled for public hearing. This request was forwarded
to the City Manager. On Thursday, October 19, 1995, the
City Man * ager ordered the * traffic study to commence in
January, 1996. The Traffic and Transportation Commission
will review the study and forward its recommendation to
City council. In the event that the Traffic and
Transportation Commission recommends the cul-de-sac, the
Planning Commission will be asked to review the item for
compliance with the General Plan. The traffic study will
incorporate the entire area including Quail Summit Drive
and Rolling Knoll Road, as well as Country View Drive.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive
public testimony and forward the information to the
City's Engineering staff. CDD/DeStefano stated a copy of
the complete package was forwarded to Ms. Wanda Tanaka,
signator for the petition from the neighborhood
residents.- In addition, a copy of the Planning
Commission agenda was sent to approximately 60
individuals who signed the petition requesting the cul-
de-sac.
C/Meyer stated that because he resides on Rolling�Knoll
Road, his participation in the review of the project will
be'limited.
C/Schad stated he is in favor of expediting action to
relieve the congestion on Country View Drive.
Chair/Flamenbaum requested information regarding the
placement and effectiveness of "no -right -turn" signs such
as the signs at Country View Drive and Rolling Knoll Road
at Grand Avenue.
Chair/ Flamenbaum opened the meeting to public testimony.
Hubert Wilson, 23649 Country View Drive, presented a
pack ' et to the Planning Commissioners for their
consideration. He stated that the problems experienced
by the residents of Country View Drive and the
surrounding areas began when Los Angeles County prepared
a'Negative Declaration for the extension of Grand Avenue
through the City of. Industry. When the Chino Hills
project began in the 19801's, another extension was
granted from Diamond Bar through Chino Hills to the 71
Expressway. This created a population center which was
planned for 33,000 dwellings south of Diamond Bar. In
order for motorists to get to Chino Hills when they
encounter problems on SR 57, they exit the freeway onto
Diamond Bar Boulevard and onto Grand Avenue. When the
October 23, 1.995 Page 3 Planning Commission
traffic comes to a standstill on Diamond Bar Boulevard,
the vehicles exit onto Quail Summit Drive and cut through
at the top of Country View Drive or Rolling Knoll Road.
Because of speeding, residents and pets have been killed.
The residents of Country View Drive believe the street
should be closed. In addition, the residents believe
that the problems are a direct result of the development
in Chino Hills. When the EIR and the subsequent
amendment was prepared, no consideration was given to the
impact to the community of Diamond Bar. He further
stated that the document he presented to the Commission
proposes the cul-de-sacing of Country View Drive at Grand
Avenue and the conversion of Grand Avenue to a toll road.
The monies collected from the toll would be used to cure
any traffic problems which result from the establishment
of a population center to the. south of the City of
Diamond Bar.
Wanda Tanaka, 23805 Country View Drive, stated she is
present representing the' majority of the residents
regarding the cul-de-sacing of.Country View Drive. In
1993 the residents went before the Traffic and
Transportation Commission and the.City Council regarding
the cut -through traffic on Country View Drive. Studies.
were conducted which confirmed the overloading of the
streets and "no -right -turn" signs were installed. She
further stated that it is -obvious the signs are not
working. More traffic is cutting through the City.
Country View Drive is unique in that traffic borders both
the front and rear of the residences. The air, noise and
traffic pollution is horrendous.
Kenneth Cline, 23812 Country View Drive stated ' he moved
back to Country View Drive for the second time because
the street was very quiet and a good street to raise
children. He further stated that the 71 Freeway project
will not be completed for at least two years and Chino
Hills continues to build. Traffic studies have been
conducted. There was traffic enforcement,when the "no -
right -turn" signs were installed, however, there is no
current enforcement. He appealed to the Planning
Commission to take action. .
Debra Cline, 23812 Country View Drive stated that, in
addition to Chino Hills residents, local residents are
using the area as a cut through. She indicated that she
has written several letters to the City and has contacted
the Sheriff's Department regarding this matter. She
further stated that she and other area residents have
been told by the Sheriff's Department that they will not
enforce the "no -right -turn".
October'23, 1995 Page 4 Planning Commission
v
Chair/Flamenbaum closed the public testimony.
CDD/DeStef ano responded to Chair/ Flamenbaum that the
.General Plan called out the maintenance of existing cul-
de-sac at Sunset Crossing Road and other streets in the
immediate area. Sunset Crossing Road functions as a cul-
de * -sac and Country View Drive does not. The Traffic and
Transportation Commission will make a recommendation to
the City Council. The Planning Commissioners may comment
on the study as private citizens. The Planning
Commission will be provided a copy of the traffic study.
The Planning Commission will have an opportunity to
review the item if the Traffic and Transportation
Commission recommends that Country View. Drive be closed.
The Planning Commission will review the recommendation
for consistency with the General Plan.
Chair/Flamenbaum stated this is a land use decision as
well as, a traffic decision. In his opinion, this item
should be under consideration by the Planning Commission.
CDD/DeStefano stated that formal applications for cul-de-
sacing, stop signs and other traffic control devices are
considered by the Traffic and Transportation 'Commission
with recommendation to the City Council for action.
C/Schad stated that the Planning Commission recently
approved the cul-de-sacing of a street.
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested the Planning Commission
request a joint meeting with the Traffic and
Transportation Commission to discuss this item.
C/Meyer stated that the discussion of this item is a
symptom of the problem. The problem is that the arterial
highway system does not function. This is the end result
of that problem. What the area residents describe is
true. The end result is that the neighborhood- is
handling more traffic than it was designed to handle.
The neighborhood is being subjected. to cut -through
traffic because Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue do
not work. ,During the General Plan review process, the
Planning Commission was to have considered alternative
roadways that would lessen the congestion on the City
streets. 'The matter was passed over and now the City is
dealing with symptoms of a problem with which the
Planning Commission decided it did not want to deal. He
proposed that the residents should also request the cul-
de-sacing of Rolling Knoll Road. Rolling Knoll Road
deserves the same considerations as Coun ' try View Drive
since the problems are applicable to both streets. This
community is bound by the mandates of the State of
October 23, 1995 Page 5 P104ping Commission
California. Traffic analysis for any development are
extended a maximum of five (5) miles from the project
site to analyze the traffic impact at intersections. In
addition, mitigation measures must be implemented and
funding sources must be provided. The City needs to
actively participate in the regional pursuit of providing
an alternative arterial highway to move the traffic as
provided for in the General Plan. The elected City
officials will have to deal with the situation.
VC/Huff stated he agrees with C/Meyer that.this request
is a symptom of a regional traffic problem. Chino Hills
is only 60% built -out. Forty percent of the Chino Hills
commuters travel to Orange County and because Carbon
Canyon Road is only two lanes, most of the commuters pass
through Diamond Bar. He further stated he has observed*
that the Sheriff's Deputies patrol close to Rolling Knoll'
Road. The savvy drivers avoid the deputies by proceeding
to Country View Drive and make a right turn onto Grand
Avenue. He encouraged staff to request the Sheriff's
Department * to increase enforcement of the "no -right -turn"
at both the Rolling Knoll Road and Country View Drive
outlets until the traffic study is completed. He stated,
that, in his opinion, the City should consider a regional
road to move the traffic from San Bernardino County to
Orange County without cutting through Diamond Bar.
C/Schad stated that during the General Plan process he
was attempting to get the decibel level reduced and this
item is a good application for reduction. He indicated
that he is in favor of a joint meeting with the Traffic
and Transportation commission to move the matter forward.
CDD/DeStefano stated that Traffic and Transportation
Commissioner Gravdahl advised him that it was appropriate
to conduct the traffic study at the beginning of 1996.
He indicated he will convey the wishes of the Planning
Commission to expedite the study. In addition, he stated
he will contact the Sheriff's Department on Tuesday
morning, October 24, and request increased enforcement of,
the "no -right -turn" signs at Rolling Knoll Road and
Country View Drive.
C/Meyer cited the absurdity of a scheduled "no -right -
turn" as a traffic solution to mitigate a publicly
designed street.
C/Fong stated an obvious solution would be to cul-de-sac.
Country View Drive since it would cost less than a
traffic study.
Odtober 23® 1995 Page 6 Planning commission
C/Meyer stated he advocates cul-de-sacing both Rolling
Knoll Road and Country View Drive and moving the traffic
signal to Diamond Bar Boulevard at Quail Summit. In
addition, he advocates putting a road through Soquel
Canyon or Tonner Canyon to get the traffic away from
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue.
CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Schad that the citizens of
Diamond Bar and neighboring communities have rights of
access to Country View Drive because it is a public
street. The end result may be that the street is closed.
However, in order to accommodate the 'law, the public
hearing process must be followed.
C/Schad made a motion, seconded by VC/Huff to request the
City move expeditiously to complete the traffic study and
to request enforcement of the "no -right -turn" signs at
Rolling Knoll Road and Country View Drive. Without
objection, the motion was so ordered.
CDD/DeStef ano reiterated he would relay the motion to" the
City's Engineering staff and the Traffic and
Transportation Commission. In addition, he stated he
would include the request for a joint meeting between the
Planning Commission and the Traffic and Transportation
Commission.
Jean Fuj ihara, 23717 Country View Drive stated she favors
a traffic study in January, 1996 rather than during the
holiday season when the traffic counts are skewed.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
VC/Huff thanked the City for trimming the trees along Grand
Avenue.
INFORMATION ITEMS:
CDD/DeStefano stated that the City of Industry is processing
an Environmental Impact Report for the MERF project. The City
of Walnut has. joined with the City of Diamond Bar to share the
cost. The City of Industry continues to pursue its agenda to
create the project. The EIR will be completed within
approximately three months.
ANNOUNCEMENTS - None
October 23, 1995 Page 7 Planning Commission
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to conduct, Chairman
Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 8:08 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James DeStefano,
Community Development Director
Attest:
'Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman
� 114 WALOt4_01
MEETING DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
14'Z04 !J01NW4K*_17JZ1P1Z
411WJ"11
I V-11tv 'If el.,(�
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING CONMSSION
Staff Report
6.1
November 13, 1995
November '27, 1995
Variance No. 95-2
To. construct- a series of
two 13. foot high re-
taining walls (crib
walls) within the rear
portion of the project
site. Additionally, this
project . includes the
construction of an 8,334
square foot residence.
1729 Derringer Lane
Diamond Bar,, CA 91765
Jeffrey and Eddy Hu
933 Leyland Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Frank Piermarini
2100 S. Reservoir
Pomona, CA 91766
The property owners, Jeffrey and Eddy. Hu and applicant, Frank
Piermarini are requesting approval '(pursuant to Code Section 22.56,
Part 2) to construct a series of two retaining walls (crib walls)
within the rear portion of the project's site. Each retaining
wall's ' maximum height is 13, feet. Additionally, this project
includes the construction of an 8,334 square foot, two, story,
single family residence with a cellar, deck, swimming pool/spa, and
H
four car garage. The project site is located at 1729 Derringer
Lane (Lot 6, Tract 24046) within a gated community identified as
"The Country Estates.
The project site is within the Single Family Residential -Minimum
Lot Size 40,000 Square Feet (R-1-40,000) Zone. It has 'a General
Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential (RR). Generally,
the following zones surround the subject site: to the north and
south is the Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 40,000
Square Feet (R-1-40,000) Zone; to the east is the Residential
Planned Development -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet -2 Units Per
Acre (RPD -20,000-2U) Zone; and to the west is the Single Family
Residential -minimum Lot Size 10,000 Square Feet (R-1-10,000) Zone.
The project site is 1.33 gross acres (1.23 net acres). It is
vacant and rectangular in shape, narrowing toward the rear property
line, at a 2:1 slope ratio. The slope grades vary from 10 percent
to 67 percent (1.5:1 slope ratio).
A flood hazard area is located within project site's rear portion.
No structures are proposed in this area.
The Variance process is utilized to consider the modification of
development standards as they apply to particular uses when
practical difficulties, unnecessary hardships, or results
inconsistent with the general purposes of the City's Planning and
Zoning Code develop through the strict.literal interpretation and
enforcement of Code. A Variance may be granted to permit the
modification of several development standards including height and
bulk regulations which apply to this project. Additionally, the he
City's Planning and Zoning Code offers a Yard Modification which is
utilized for minor modifications related to height variations due
to topographical features.
The applicant proposes to construct a series of two retaining walls
(crib walls). Each wall's maximum height will be 13 feet. The
planter area between the two walls is six feet wide. The retaining
walls' purpose is to create a recreational area consisting of.lawn,,
swimming pool and spa. Additionally, retaining walls are proposed
adjacent to both side property lines to contain a fill. Maximum
height of these retaining walls is six feet except for the a
portion of the retaining wall which meets the crib wall (westerly),
adjacent to the north property line. At this location, the
retaining wall's height is 11 feet.
Pursuant to the City's Planning and Zoning code Section 22.48.160.
D., the maximum permitted height of a retaining wall is six feet.
In order to construct a retaining wall which exceeds this height
limitation as proposed for this project, the Variance process must
be utilized. The Yard Modification process can not be utilized in
this case because the series of retaining walls, as proposed,'are
not considered a minor modification.
E�
The guidelines of the City's Hillside Management Ordinance are
applicable to this project. These guidelines state the following:
design a project that is sensitive to. the natural terrain and
minimizes the effects on the hillside; and design a single family
structure that is located and terraced to follow the slope and
minimize necessary grading. Suggested techniques for guideline
compliance are split pads, stepped footings, and grade separations.
In 1990 a similar projects was presented to the Planning Commission
for 1741 Derringer Lane (the vacant lot next door). The Planning
Commission. denied that project. The applicant redesigned the
project to comply with the Code's height limitations for the single
family residence and retaining walls and the cellar definition of
50% below the average finish grade.
Pursuant to Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990) , the proposed
project requires Administrative . Development Review performed by the
Community Development Director through the public hearing process.
However, the Variance review allow's the Planning Commission to also
review this project from a Development Review perspective.
The following is a comparison of the City's development standards
and the proposed project's development standards:
City's Development Standards
Project's Development Standards_
1. Setbacks: front yard
1. Setbacks: front yard - 361;
minimum of 201 from front
side yards - 151 & 181; rear
property line; side yards
yard - 1001 plus;
minimum 51 & 101 from side
property line; rear yard
minimum 151 from rear
property line;
Height of structures within
Height within the setbacks:
the 201 front yard setback:
4211 is the maximum height of
71 high pilasters on either
structures within the 201
side of the driveway;
front yard setback;
2. Building Height: 2 stories-
2. Building Height: two'story
maximum - 351; may have a
with a cellar - 351 from
third level - cellar -
AFG as calculated by the
minimum 50% below the'
project's engineer;
average finished grade
(AFG);
Parking: Minimum 2 car
3. Pa rking.: 4 car garage
,13.
garage;
3
4. Accessory Structure: min-
4. Accessory Structure:
imum 51 from any lot line;
swimming pool/spa - 15, &
minimum 61 separation from
801 from side property
other structures;
lines; 1001 plus from rear
property line; 161separation
from the residential
structure•
5. Retaining Walls: maximum*
5. Retaining Walls: maximum
height - 61;
height - 131;
As proposed, the project complies with the Code's development
standards except for the retaining walls heights, pilasters' height
within the 20 foot front yard setback, and the average finished
grade AFG calculations. Additionally, this project does not . comply
with the intentions of the City's Hillside Management Ordinance.
The Hillside Management Ordinance requires that retaining walls,
associated with lot pads, shall not exceed four feet in height.
Where an additional retained portion is necessary because of
unusual or extreme conditions, (such as lot configuration, steep
slope, or road design) the use of terraced retaining structures
shall be considered on an individual lot basis. Terraced walls
shall not exceed three feet in height and shall be separated by a
minimum of three feet and incorporate appropriate landscaping. The
proposed project site is steep sloping. Therefore, the site's
development causes the use of terraced retaining walls. However,
the retaining walls, as designed, even though appropriately
landscaped, do not comply with the Hillside Management. Ordinance's
guidelines.
According to the City's Planning and Zoning Code Section 22.48.160.
A., the maximum height of structures within the 20 foot front yard
setback is 42 inches. The conceptual landscape plan delineates
two pilasters, seven feet high, located on both sides of the
driveway. To comply with the Code, the pilasters' maximum height
shall be 42 inches. The conceptual landscape plan also indicates
low planter walls within the private street's easement. These
walls need to be moved out of the easement or deleted.
Pursuant to the City's Planning and Zoning Code Section 22.20.110,
the maximum height of a single family structure is 35 feet and two
stories. Also, a third level may be constructed as a cellar, if it
is located 50% or more below the grade. As defined in the Code,
grade is the average of the finished ground level (AFG) at the
center of all the single family structure's walls. In order to
calculate the AFG, the Code requires the utilization of the
elevation at the mid -point of all the structure's outside walls as
a reference point for estimating the grade. Next, each indicated
mid -point measure is identified on the grading plan. Total the
mid -point measures.. Divide by the number of measures taken for the
actual AFG. The applicant calculated the AFG using the mid -point
of the structure's outside walls. However, when doing these mid -
4
point measures, the left portion (westerly) of the rear elevation's
outside wall was not considered. This wall is part of the
residential structure and should be considered. When considering
this elevation (1175.7 and'1181.0), the AFG calculation is 1184.76
instead of 1187.26, as proposed. With an AFG calculation of
1184.76, the residentialstructure's height from the AFG is 37.5
feet and the cellar is not 50% or more below the AFG. As such, the
cellar (pursuant to Code) is *a basement (third story) and not
permitted and the residential structure exceeds the 35 foot height
limitation as measured from the AFG.
When reviewing thi's project's design, the rear elevation must be
considered from the view of neighboring properties below. This
view will incorporate the 35 feet high rear wall (three levels) of
the residential structure and two thirteen feet high retaining
walls. Therefore, the total view of walls from neighboring
properties below is approximately 63.5 feet high.
The applicant's conceptual landscape plan indicates extensive
landscaping of the crib walls and rear yard's recreational area, as
well.as in the side and front yards. However, this landscaping can
be considered a bandaid for the reality of walls totalling to
approximately 63.5 feet in height.
The conceptual landscaped site plan does not coincide with the
conceptual landscaped elevations. The exterior rear. elevation is
not completely delineated. It appears that the grading plan is
ambiguous at the residential structure's west wall, between the two
sets of stairs.
The proposed project's architectural style is Mediterranean. The
following materials and colors will be utilized:. stucco - Omega
Navajo white; window frames, garage doors — white; the roof -
Mallorca - terra cotta color. The applicant has obtained approval
from "The Country Estates" architectural committee. Additionally,
the proposed architectural style is. compatible with existing homes
within "The Country Estates.".
The preliminary grading plan indicates significant grading of the
site's upper easterly portion with a majority of the earthwork
being fill over the existing 2:1 slope. The project's application
indicates that approximately 2,000 cubic yards of ' earth will be
imported to the site. However, the preliminary grading plan does
not indicated the grading quantities.
The proposed project was reviewed by the Public Works Department.
The following is a synopsis of the City Engineer's comments and
recommendations:
1. This project's construction, as proposed, requires
grading and drainage plans and geotechnical reports for
review and approval by the City Engineer before the
issuance of any City permits;
2. This project's development is subject to the Hillside
5
Management Ordinance. Proposed retaining walls exceed
the maximum allowable height by this ordinance. The
maximum retaining wall height appears to be approximately
19 feet. Retaining walls which exceed two feet in height
require a construction permit;
3. The northerly side yard, a 12:1 fill is required to be
flattened to 2:1 thus increasing the side yard's
retaining wall height from 11 feet to 13 feet at the
westerly end;
4. The electric remote control gate operators are required;
5. Public gravity sanitary sewer mainline is available. The
mainline's depth is not adequate to serve the residence's
lower levels without an on-site ejector system to lift
the domestic sewage to the mainline's existing elevation.
Additionally, sewage backflow prevention devices are
required;
6. Utility extensions are required to be constructed
underground;
7.. Nearest fire hydrant's location is required on the
grading plan.
8. The average perimeter elevation calculation provided by
this project's engineer is not accurate, as it concerns
the residential structure's westerly wall. Though the
exterior elevation drawings and preliminary grading plan
are not easily reconciled, it appears the engineer has
not considered the southwesterly corner of the structure
supported by a column resting on. a six foot high
retaining wall. Thus the lower pool area's elevation
should figure in the engineer's, average perimeter
calculation., but it does not. It is recommended that the
revised average perimeter calculation accurately reflect
the average finished grade at the residential structure's
perimeter.
The proposed project was reviewed by the Building Official.. The
following is the Building Official's recommendations*.
1. The residential structure's footing setback from
descending slope's surface shall meet U.B.C. Section 2907
and Figure No.29-1. It appears that the minimum distance
will be seven feet from top of slope to bottom*footings
.(see north and south slopes);
2. It appears that the residential structure is a three
story (pursuant to building code -definition). and shall be
plan checked as such. (See attachment);
3. Proposed kitchen is located one floor below dining room.
Please explain;
[i
4. Plan shows two master bedrooms. Please explain;
5. Maid's quarters shall not be used as a second residence;
6. Fire Department approval is required;
7. The single family structure shall meet the 1991'U.B.C.,
U.M.C., and the 1990 National Electric Code
requirements,
a. The minimum design wind pressure is: 80 miles per hour
and exposure "C";
9. The single family structure is located in "Fire Zone -411
and shall meet all requirements of the fire zone;
a)'. All. roof covering shall be "Fire Retardant"; the
roofs shall be .fire stopped at the eaves to
preclude entry of the flame or members under the
fire;
b.) All unenclosed under-flOor areas shall be
constructed as exterior walls;
c.) All openings into the attic, floor and/or other
enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -
resistant wire mesh not less than 1/4 inch nor more
.than 1/2 inch in any dimension except where such
openings are equipped with sash or door;
d.) Chimneys shall have spark arrestors of maximum 1/2
inch screen;
10. This residence shall meet the State energy conservation
standard; and
11.. Check drainage patterns with the City's Engineering
Department. Water must drain away from the building at
a 2% minimum slope.
In order to comply with the Hillside Management ordinance, the
applicant can redesign the project - in a *manner that better
accommodates the site's topography. Additionally, the following
options may be considered: to raise the AFG and meet the cellar
calculation requirement, it may be possible to modify the proposed
retaining wall/house footing to a conventional footing and provide
a- retaining wall, approximately four high, five feet from the
conventional footing; and -terrace the rear yard recreational area
pursuant to the Hillside Management ordinance, thereby reducing the
height of the two 13 foot tall retaining walls.
ENVI[RONMMUAL ASSESSMENT:
The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project will
not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative
Declaration No. 95-5 has been prepared pursuant to the guidelines
-of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
VA
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin
and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on November 6 1995 . . Public
hearing notices were mailed to approximately 24 �roperty owners
within a 500 foot radius of the project site on October 27,1995.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public
hearing, receive testimony, and continue Variance No. 95-2 in order
to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project.
-1
I�a0 ', I 1W mvj a ul � 14 4 A a 4 0 Z I
1. That because of special circumstances or exceptional
characteristics applicable to the property, the strict
application of the code deprives such -property of privileges
enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical
zoning classification; and
2. That the adjustment authorized will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is
situated; and
3. That strict application of zoning regulations as they apply to
such property will result in practical difficulties or
unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose of
such regulations and standards; and
4. That such adjustment will not be materially detrimental to the
public health, safety or general welfare, or to the use,
enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in
the vicinity.
Prepared by:
Ann J. 914 , 4sistant Planner
Attachments:
1. Exhibit "All - grading plan, floor plan, sections, -elevations,
and conceptual landscape plan dated May 8, 1995
2. Negative Declaration No. 95-5
3. Environmental Checklist Form
4. Application
5. Memorandum dated October 30, 1995 from Dennis Tarango,
Building Official
6. Memorandum dated November 15, 1995 from Mike Myers via George
Wentz, City Engineer
8
I. Background: The proposed project involves the construction of a series of two retaining
walls (crib walls) within the rear portion of the project site. Each retaining wall's
maximum height is thirteen feet. The maximum retaining wall height permitted by Code
is six feet. Additionally, this project includes the construction of an 8,334 square foot
two story single family residence with a cellar, deck, pool/spa, and four car garage. The
project site is a vacant 1.2 acre lot located within a gated community identified as "The
Country Estates". The project address is 1729 Derringer Lane, Diamond Bar, CA
91765.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Name of Applicant: Jeffrey Chein-Fen Hu and Eddy Yun Shin Chia Hu (property)
owners)
Address and Phone'Number of Proponent: 933 Ljvlan� d Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
(909) 861-8485
Name, Address and Phone of Project Contact: Frank Piermarini. 2100 S. Reservoir
Pomona, Ca 91766
Date of Environmental Information Submittal: August 28, 1995
Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal: August 28. 1995
Lead Agency (Agency Required Checklist): City of Diamond Bar. 21660 E. Copley
DR., Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (2M 396-5676
Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdivision): Variance No. 95-2
Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination): None
F4 KIMMEMER101
Variance. X
Conditional Use Permit: X
Zone Change: X
General Plan Amendment: X
(Attach Completed Environmental Information Form1
31 - =-
(Explanations and additional information to supplement all "yes" and "possibly" answers are
required to be submitted on attached sheets)
YES NO POSSIBLY
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
X a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in
geologic -substructures?
X b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
X C. Change in topography or ground surface
relief -features?
X — —
X —
LZ
r4p
M
2. Air.
X_ a.
X_ b.
X_ C.
3. Water.
X b.
X_ — d.
X — — e.
X — — f.
The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical feature?
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
Changes in deposition, erosion of stream
banks or land adjacent to standing water,
changes in siltation, deposition or other
processes which may modify the channel of
constant or intermittently flowing water as
well as the areas surrounding permanent or
intermittent standing water?
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
The creation of objectionable odors?
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any changes in climate,
either locally or regionally?
Will the proposal result in:
Changes in currents. or the course or
direction of water movements?
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns; or the rate and amount of surface
run-off?
Alterations of the course or flow of flood
waters?
Changes in the amount of surface water in
any body of water?
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality
including but not limited to dissolved
oxygen and turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
YES NO POSSIBLY
X
9-
Change in the quantity of ground waters,
either through direct additions or,
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
X
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies?
X
i.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
4. Plant
Life. Will the proposal result in:
X
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plants)?
X
b.
Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare
of endangered species of plants?
X
C.
Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat
areas or plant communities which are
recognized as sensitive?
X
d.
Introduction of new species of plants into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species?
X
e.
Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Change in the diversity of species, or
—X
number of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish, and
shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)?
X
b.
Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare
or endangered species of animals?
C.'
Introduction of new species of animals into
—X
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
migration or movement of resident species?
X
d.
Reduction in size or deterioration in
quality of existing fish or wildlife
habitat?
6. Noise.
will the proposal result in:
X
a.
significant increases. in existing noise
levels?
X
b.
Exposure Of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light
and Glare. Will the proposal result in:
X
a.
Significant new light and glare or
contribute significantly to existing levels
of light and glare?
8. Land
Use. Will the proposal result in:
X
a.
A substantial alteration of,the present or
planned land use in an area?
YES NO POSSIBLY
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
X—
a. An increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
X
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
X
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
X
hazardous substances (including but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
X
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condition?
X
b. Probable interference with an emergency
X
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
X
11. Population. Will the proposal:
X
a. Alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of
an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect:
X
a. Existing housing, or create a demand for
X
additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
X
a. Generation of Substantial additional
vehicular movement?
X
b. Effects on existing parking facilities or
demand for new parking?
X
C. Substantial impact on existing
transportation systems?
X
d. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and
goods.
X
8. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
X
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services.. Will the proposal:
a. Have an e ' ffect upon, or result in the need
for new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas:
X
1. Fire Protection?
X
2. P81ice Protection?
X
3. Schools?
X
4. Parks or other recreational
facilities?
X
5. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
X
6. Other governmental services?
YES NO POSSIBLY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
b. Substantial increase in r demand upon
existing energy sources or require the
development of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in:
a. A need for new systems, or Substantial
alterations to public utilities?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to the public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in:
a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration of or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological
site?
b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
C. A physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
d. Restrictions on existing religious or
sacred uses within the potential impact
area.
21.. Mandatory Findings of Significance?
a. Does the proposed project have the
potential to degrade the qualityof the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate or significantly reduce a plant
or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
YES NO POSSIBLY
X b.. Does the proposed project have the
potential to achieve short-term, to the
disadvantage of long-term, environmental
goals?
X C. Does the proposed project pose impacts
which are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable?
% d. Does the project pose environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
(Attach Narrative)
IV. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
X I find that, the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect
ffect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because
the mitigation measures described on the attached
sheet, have been incorporated into the proposed
project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE
PREPARED.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date: 10 L23f95 Signature:
Title: Assistant an er
For the City of Diamond Bar, California
NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 9575
October 23, 1905
Case Number: Variance No. 95-2
Applicant: Jeffrey Chein-Fen Hu and Eddy Yun Shin Chia Hu
933 Leyland Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Proposal: A request to construct a series of two retaining
walls (crib walls) within the rear portion of the
project site. Each retaining wall's maximum height
is -thirteen feet. The maximum retaining wall
height permitted by Code is six feet.
Additionally, this project includes the
construction of an 8,334 square foot two story
single family residence with a cellar, deck,
pool/spa, and four car.garage.
Location: 1 1729 Derringer Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Initial Study - Environmental Findincts:
1. Earth. (a -g)
The proposed project includes the construction of a two story
single family structure with a cellar and retaining walls.
The retaining
ining walls'purpose is to create a recreational pad
area and construct the.residence in a manner which creates a
high profile building that stands out in a hillside area.
The undeveloped project site is 1.23 net acres (1.33 gross
acres). The project site slopes from the street, in a
westerly direction, to the rear at a 2:1 or 50 % slope. The,
proposed construction and importation of approximately 2,000
cubic yards of earth, to form cut and fill slopes, will cause
a significant alteration to the site's topography.
The proposed project will not create unstable earth conditions
or changes in the geologic substructures or destroy any unique
geological or physical features.. A flood hazard area is
located in the rear portion of the site, approximately
ely 100
feet from the development area. However, the proposed
development will not effect this flood hazard area.
Findings Theproposed project will not have a significant
effect on the, environment because soils and geotechnical
report and drainage study is required for the City's review
and approval before the issuance of any permits. .
�M
3.
4.
6.
Air. (a -c)
The proposed project will generate short-term pollutants.
These pollutants will be generated locally by construction
equipment emissions and dust from grading activities. The
project's developer is required to protect against windblown
soil erosion during grading and emissions from construction
equipment. combining protection measures required in the
Uniform Building Code and SCAQMD Rule 403, these impacts will
be regulated. Additionally, the proposed project is not
anticipated to result in the creation of objectionable odors,
alteration of air movements, moisture, moisture, temperature,
or climate.
Findings: The proposed project will not have a significant
effect on the environment. However, existing regulations
mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificant.
Water. (a -i)
The proposed project is not anticipated to result in changes
in current, direction or flow rate of water, amount of surface
water in any body of water, or the quality of water.
Additionally, the proposed project will not create or expose
people to water related hazards, reduce the supply of water.
The diminutive increase in off-site runoff due to site
development is insignificant.
Findings: The proposed project will not have a significant
effect on the environment.*
Plant Life. (a -e) and 5. Animal Life (a -d)
The project site is a vacant lot within• an existing ing
development. As such, it does not have any unique or
endangered species of plant or Animal life.
Findings: Site development will not have a significant effect
on plant or animal life.
Noise. (a -b)
The site's development will result in the generation of noise
for the short-term only. The short-term construction noise
will be generated locally during the construction of the
single family residents. The single family residential use
will not increase the area's ambient noise level. The
project's developer is required to comply with the 'City's
Noise Ordinance and hours of construction.
Findings: The proposed
effect on local noise
regulations mitigated
insignificant.
7. Light and Glare. (a)
project will not have a significant
levels. However, existing City
potential impacts to a level of
The proposed project will -not result in significant new light
or- glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of
light and glare. The project site is within an existing gated
8.
9.
item
community of residential development. As such, will not
increase the area's light and glare.
Findings: Due to the project type and its compatibility with
existing development, the proposed project will not have a
significant effect on the generation of light and glare..
Land Use. (a)
The proposed project does not alter the present or planned
land use for the site or the area. The proposed project is an
approved General Plan land use and permitted by right -of -zone.
Findings., The proposed project will not have a significant
effect on land use.
Natural Resources. (a)
The proposed project does not significantly increase the use
of any natural resources. The proposed project consists of
in -filling of a vacant lot.
Findings: The proposed project will not have a significant
effect on natural resources.
Risk of Upset. (a -b) and 17. Human Health. (a -b)
The* proposed project may involve temporary storage of fuel and
oil for utilization by construction equipment. The risk of
spillage and/or leakage of small quantities of fuel and oil is
remote. Additionally, this potential exists at any
construction site. The project will not involve the risk of
explosion or the release of hazardous substances nor interfere
with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans.
The project's developer is required to comply with existing
regulations to protect against risk of spillage and/or leakage
of toxic materials.
Findings: Due to the project's' -small scale and existing
regulations 'in effect,, it will not result in a significant
risk of .upset or health hazard.
ii. Population. (a,) and 12. Housing. (a)
The project site's development is the in -filling of an
existing residential lot. As such, the proposed project will
not result in an increase of population or housing stock.
Findings: The proposed project will have an insignificant
effect on population and housing stock needs.
13. Transportation/Circulation. (a -f)
The proposed project is the development of one single family
residence. As such, it will not substantially increase
traffic, alter circulation patterns of people or goods, or
water, rail or air traffic. Additionally, the project will
not impact existing transportation systems or increase traffic
hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians.. The
project's owner is complies with the City's parking
requirements.
Findings: Due to the regulations in effect, the proposed
project will not have a significant effect on transportation
and circulation.
14. Public Services. (a), 15. Energy. (a -b), and
16. Utilities. (a)
The proposed project's development of one single family
residence will not increase the demand for public services.
The diminutive increase in energy and utilities is
insignificant.
Findings: The proposed project will not have a significant
effect on public services, energy, and utilities.
18. Aesthetics. (a)
The project is a vacant hillside lot. This project's
development, as proposed, incorpordtes,a series of two 13 foot
high retaining walls at the rear portion of the site. These
walls, from residential lots below, will have the appearance
of one 26 foot high wall. Furthermore, although this home
complies with the Average Finish Grade (AFG) requirement
pursuant to -Code, the rear elevation will have a height
appearance of approximately 45 feet.. Therefore, the
residential properties below the project site will feel that
a wall of approximately 71 feet tall is constructed.
Although landscaping is utilized to mitigate the view from
below, in reality this landscaping acts only as a band-aid.
The City's Hillside Management Ordinance discourages this type
of design for hillside residential development. It encourages
development that is sensitive to the natural terrain and
minimizes the effect on the hillside. The Ordinance indicates
that a single family structure should be located and terraced
to follow the slope, minimize necessary grading, and preserve
the project site's natural features. Additionally, the form,
mass, and profile of the single family structure should be
designed to blend with the natural terrain. Some techniques
suggested in the Ordinance are split pads, stepping footing,
and grade separations which are not incorporated into this
proposed project. By utilized these techniques, the view from
below would be substantially mitigated, wall heights would be
reduced, and a recreational area in the rear portion of the
site would still be possible
Findings: Under the above mentioned conditions the proposed
project will 'have a significant aesthetic 'effect onto
neighboring properties.
19.. RecreAtion. (a) and 20. Cultural Resources. (a -d)
The project site is an in -fill vacant lot. The addition of
one single family residence will not impact the quality or
quantity of - existing recreational opportunities.
Additionally, this project is located within a gated community
.identified as "The Country Estates" which has -recreational
facilities available to its residence. As an existing
development area, the proposed project will not alter or
destroy historic or historic archaeological conditions or
create an impact on cultural values, religious or sacred uses.
No cultural resources have been identified in this area.
Findings: The proposed project will not have a significant
effect on recreation and cultural resources.
21. Mandatory Finding of Significance. (a -d)
The project site, previously disturbed by disking and
surrounding development does not contain rare or endangered
species, or cultural resources. This small scale project
does not have the potential to achieve short-term to the
disadvantage of long-term environmental goals; nor impose
impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable.. It complies with the General Plan and -existing
Zoning Code. The proposed project does not involve the use of
hazardous materials, pose *the risk of explosion; nor is it
located in close proximity of such uses.
Findings: Approval of the proposed project and its ultimate
construction is not anticipated to cause substantial adverse
effects directly or indirectly on human beings,- the
environment, and animal and/or plant life.
I
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190
(909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117
VARIANCE APPLICATION
Record Owner ����-E�
HU, J&FMT
Name HU, CbDY Yuu SHiH-i,NIA
(Last name first)
Address . 933 LEYLAND DR.
City DIAMOND BAR, CA
Zip 917 F, 5
Phone( 9)_161-8485
Applicant
PIERMARINI, FRANK
(Last name first)
2100 S. RESERVOIR
POMONA, CA.
91766
Phone( 9) 59(1-48Q9
Case$ \/^k- 45 - z /Fp L. 95 -044� ..
Dak Reed %
Fee
Receipt# Oz37o�,
By
Phone( )
G® -I G ;r,- Z `/o y6
Applicant's Agent
(i-ast name first)
NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director in writing of any change
of the principals involved during the processing of this case.
(Attach separate sheet, if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and
directors of corporations.)
Consent. I. certify that I am the owner of the herein described property and permit the applicant to file this
request.
Signedc3 L- , - - Date
(All rd owners)
Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify underpenalty of perjury that the information herein provided is
correct to the best of my knowledge.
Printed Name
Signed
PIERMARINI
or Agent)
1729 DERRINGER LANE, DIAMOND I
(Street address or tract and lot number)
Date
and
between RIDGELZNF �unmrT (Stre(S) - --
et) � � fes„ � '
Zoning RESIDEN k" ► `'� o HNM /01` /f -3,14 5
ProjectSize(grossacres) 1 7 ACRES Project Density
Previous Cases d �i
Present Use of Site i 1 C' mitis LC '�
Use applied for SjZ; �t�R 5 l - Li l 114 C 614:A i2-
2 Ct- t;3 wZkJLL.3
VARIANCE CASE -BURDEN OF PROOF
In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the
Planning Commission, the following facts:
A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not:
1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare or persons residing or working in the
surrounding area, or - -
2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located
in the vicinity of the site, or
3. Jeopardize, endanger or other wise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
Lj
B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and
loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in. this Ordinance, or as is
otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area.
C. That the proposed site is adequately served:
1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and
quantity of traffic such use would generate, and
2. By other public or private service facilities as are required.
D. That there are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, such
as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which are not generally applicable to, other properties
in the same vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
-4— 1'
a
J
VARIANCE CASE -BURDEN OF PROOF
In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the
Planning Commission, the following facts:
A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not:
1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare or persons residing or working in the
surrounding area, or - -
2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located
in the vicinity of the site, or
3. Jeopardize, endanger or other wise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general
welfare.
Lj
B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and
loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in. this Ordinance, or as is
otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area.
C. That the proposed site is adequately served:
1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and
quantity of traffic such use would generate, and
2. By other public or private service facilities as are required.
D. That there are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, such
as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which are not generally applicable to, other properties
in the same vicinity and under identical zoning classification.
-4— 1'
Domestic Water Source _ L\ _ Company/District i1 LMJUJ, .
Method of Sewage Disposal 0) 511 C_ station District CO
Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES NO Amount
(Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent. map)
LEGAL DESCRIPTION (Allownership comprising the proposed lots/project). If petitioning for zone change,
attach legal description of exterior boundaries of area subject to the change.)
1 crr lr + 2! -Ac ci Cv
Dc Zn.i
Project Site: c L Q G
Gross Area No. of Lots
Area devoted to Structures ! Zm0 `�'._," Open Space
t,\V. vxe-a45
Residential project: 61SX•i'�4c 9$1---_ and
Gross Area No. of floors
Proposed Density 1
Units/Acres .
Number and types of Units
Residential Parking: Type{;
Required Provided
Total Required • Total Provided
E. That such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of the applicant such
as that possessed by owners of other property in the same vicinity and zone.
1 t
F. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious
to other property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone.
G
Staff Use
Project No.
J /AIZ: • t !
INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
Project Representative:
e n.IL 0 �U
NAME
ADD
A( GC1 ) C'- q C)� PxoNE #� - �'ASS
PHO #
1. Action requested and proj* t description:_,�lYy' IYt1
r V�
r �.o
2. Street location of project:3a. Present Present use of site: 11 OLP Q -A
3b. Previous use of site or structures:
4.
5.
C11
7.
8.
-9.
Please list all previous -cases
(if any) related to this project:
Other'related permit/approvals required.
Specify type and granting agency._
Are you planning future phases of this project? Y GN�
If yes, explain:
Vo
Project urea: `
Covered by structures, paving:: 72,00
Iandscaping, open space: r, G 3 Cn
Total Area:
Number of floors:
Present zoning: t 5 el, P 0, (. t2 -
,sig y 6 3c�c
10. Water and sewer service*
Domesticlic
TYater Sewers
Does service exist at site? CY-- N Y� N'
If yes, do purveyors have
capacity to meet demand of
project and all other approved
projects? CY- N r N
If domestic water or public sewers are not available, how will these services be provided?
Residential Projects:
11. Number and type of units:
12. Schools:
What school district(s) serves the property?UA
Are exi3fiftrwhool facilities adequate to meet project needs? .
YES' NO
i
If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? /1J It
Non -Residential projects: , {' s
13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc.)
14. Number and floor area of buildings:
15. Number of employees and shifts:
16. Maximum employees per shift:
17. Operating hours:
18. Identify any: End products -
Waste products
Means of disposal
19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides; chemicals, paints,
or radioactive materials?
YES NO
If yes, explain
20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks?
YES . • NO
If yes, explain
21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on-site.
22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway?
yEs NO
If yes, explain
t
B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
1. Environmental Setting—project Site
a. Existing use/structures L: C,
b. Topography/slopes
*c. Vegetation
*d. Animals O a.crJ
*e. Watercourses
f. Cultural/historical resources
g. Other
2. Environmental Setting — Surrounding Area
a. Existing uses structures (types, densities): —5?Z
b. Topography/slopes
*c. Vegetation
*d. Animals
*e. Watercourses
f. Cultural/historical resources
g. Other
3. Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees?
' YES NO J
If yes, type and number.
4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed through project development?:
YES
If yes, explain
5. Grading:
Will the project require Wading?'
If yes, how many cubic yards? 9CClo [�E�
Will it be balanced on-site? YES
If not balanced, where will dirtobtained'o�r� "dep_os`ited?
6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on the property (including
uncompacted fill)?
YES NO
If yes, explain:
7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)?
YES NO
Distance to nearest fire station:
8. Noise:
Existing noise sources at site: A I A-
Noise to be generated by project: 0 A
Fumes:
Odors generated by project: k! Al
Could toxic fumes be generated? N 'h
9.. What energy -conserving designs or material will be used?
CERTIFICATION-
,v
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present •
the data and information required fo this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and
that the facts, statements, and ' tion presented are true and correct to the best of ,
MY kno ledge and belief.
ate Signature
or.
TO: Ann Lungu, Assistant Planner
FROM: Dennis A,-Tir,�, Building Official
DATE: October A 19915
SUBJECT: 1729 DerringeM,�tie, Diamond Bar (VAR 95-2)
----------------------------
Per your request, the Building Division has reviewed the subject plans and is making the
following recommendations:
1. Proposed house footing seth from descending slope surface shall meet Section
U.B.C. 2907 and Figure No. 29-1. It appears that the minimum distance will be 7 feet
from top of slope to bottom of footings. See North and South slopes.
2. Appears that the proposed building is a three(3) story (building code definitions) and shall
be plan check as such. See attachment.
3. Proposed kitchen is located one(1) floor below dining room. Please explain.
4. The plans show two(2) master bedrooms. Please explain.
5. Pool requires separate permits.
6. Maid quarters shall not be used as a second residence.
7. Fire Department approval is required.
8. The single family structure shall meet the 1991 U.B.C., U.P.C., U.M.C. and the 1990
National Electric Code requirements.
9. The minimum design wind pressure are: 80 miles per hour & exposure.
10 This single family home is located in "Fire Zone 4" and shall meet all requirements of
the fire zone.
a). All roof covering shall be "Fire Retardant". Tile roofs shall be fire stopped at
the eaves to preclude entry of the flame or members under the fire.
b). All unenclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior wall.
1729 Derringer
page 2
c). All openings into the attic, floor and/or other enclosed areas shall -be covered with
corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than 1/4 inch nor more than 1/2 inch in any
dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door.
d). Chimneys shall have spark arrestors of maximum 1/2 inch screen.
11 This residence shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards.
12. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water must drain away
from building at a 2% minimum slope.
Please contact me, if you have any questions.
J
1991 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE 417-420
PROTECTIVE MEMBRANE is a surface material which forms the required i?
outer layer or layers of a fire -resistive assembly containing concealed spaces.
!— PUBLIC WAY. See Section 3301 (b).
Sec. 418. No definitions.
R
Sec. 419. REPAIR is the reconstruction or renewal of any part of an existing
building for the purpose of its maintenance.
S
1 Sec. 420. SENSITIZER is a chemical that causes a substantial proportion of ex-
posed people or animals to develop an allergic reaction in normal tissue after re-
peated exposure to the chemical.
SERVICE CORRIDOR is a fully enclosed passage used for transporting haz-
ardous production materials and for purposes other than required exiting.
SHAFT is an interior space, enclosed by walls or construction, extending ,'t
�- through one or more stories or basements which connects openings in successive
floors, or floors and roof, to accommodate elevators, dumbwaiters, mechanical
equipment or similar devices or to transmit light or ventilation air.
SHAFT ENCLOSURE is the walls or construction forming the boundaries of a
shaft. =
SHALL, as used in this code, is mandatory.
SMOKE DETECTOR is an approved device that senses visible or invisible
particles of combustion.
STAGE. See Chapter 39.
STORY is. that portion of a building �included between the upper surface of any � floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story
shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the top-
most floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly above a
usable or unused under -floor space is more than 6 feet above grade as defined here-
in for more than 50 percent of the total perimeteror is more than 12 feet above °rade
as defined herein at any point, such usable or unused under -floor space shall be
considered as a story.
STORY, FIRST, is the lowest story in a building which qualifies as a stop. as
defined herein, except that a floor level in a building having only one floor level
shall be classified as a first story, provided such floor level is not more than 4 feet
below grade, as defined herein, for more than 50 percent of the total perimeter. or
not more than 8 feet below grade, as defined herein, at any point.
STREET is any thoroughfare orpublic way not less than 16 feet in widthµ hich
(� has been dedicated or deeded to the public for public use.
STRUCTURAL OBSERVATION means the visual observation of the struc-
rural system, including, but not limited to, the elements and connections at signifi-
cant construction stages, and the completed structure for general conformance to>1
31
E
VFTZITMNM
City of Diamond Bar
To: Ann Lungo
From: Mike Myers 0 Via: 'George Wentz, City Engineer
Date: November 15, 1995
Subject- 2179 Derringer lane, ADR 6,10
I have reviewed the preliminary plans as received by Planning Department
October 12, 1995 for the proposed construction of a new single family
residence at the subject address.
The preliminary plans submitted for this review show significant grading
of the upper easterly portion of the lot with the majority of the
earthwork being fill over the existing approximately 2:1 slope.
Construction of the site as proposed requires -that the owner prepare
grading and drainage plans and geotechnical reports for approval.,of the
City Engineer and be issued a grading permit. The preliminary grading
plans do not show grading quantities. It should. be noted that if import
or export of more than 50 cubic yards of earth is required, a grading
permit is necessary for the borrow/export site as well. Applicant should
note the grading quantities and indicate the location of any
borrow/export site. It is recommend that this information be provided
and considered as a part of this review.
Development of this site is subject to the Hillside Management 'Ordinance
(HMO). Numerous proposed retaining walls throughout the site exceed
the maximum height allowed by the ordinance. The maximum retaining
wall height proposed would appear to be approximately 19 feet for the
upper wall of the terraced pair of walls westerly of the proposed
garage; generally though each of these walls supporting the pool and
lower back yard is about 13' high. All retaining walls over 2' require that
a permit be issued for their construction.
The northerlysideyard proposes a 1-1 /2:1 fill which will have to be
flattened to 2:1 thus increasing the retaining wall height in this sideyard
from the 11' maximum shown to approximately 13' maximum at the
westerly end.
2179 Derringer Lane, AER LAS' 9s--2 November 15, 1995
The landscape plans show entry gates and 7' high pilasters; one in the
street right-of-way and the other in the front yard setback. The entry
gates are located and shown to swing inward so as not to interfere with
vehicular traffic in the street. For expedience of entry from the street it
is recommended that electric remote controlled gate operators be
required as a condititn of approval. Other "low" planter walls and 42"
pilasters are shown in the street right-of-way area. It is recommended
that none of these features be permitted in the private street right-of-
way.
A public gravity sanitary sewer mainline is available in the street.
However, it should noted that the depth of the mainline is not adequate
to serve the lower levels of the proposed residence without an onsite
ejector system to lift the.domestic sewage to the elevation of the
mainline. Additionally, sewage backflow prevention devices will be
required.
All utilities are thought to be available underground in Derringer Lane
(although only electrical is indicated on any of, the preliminary plans) and
would require extension underground to the proposed construction. The
proximity of the nearest fire hydrant is not shown on any of the plans.
You have asked for my comments regarding the average finish grade
around the residencial structure. The Planning and Zoning Code defines
grade (ground level) as "the average of the finished ground level at the
center of all walls of a building". Without any further definition of wall in
the Planning and Zoning Code, the definition contained in other applicable
codes can be used. In the Uniform Building Code an exterior wall is
defined as "any wall or element of a wall, or*any member or group of
members, which define the exterior boundaries or courts of a building ".
The average perimeter elevation calculation provided by the engineer's
analysis is not accurate, at least, as it concerns the westerly wall of the
structure. Though the exterior elevation drawings and preliminary
grading plan are not easily reconciled, it appears that the engineer has
not considered that the southwesterly corner of the structure is
supported by a column .(element of the higher wall) resting on a 6'
retaining wall (therefore, also an element of the higher wall). Thus the
elevation of the lower pool area (approximately 1175.7) should figure in
the engineer's average perimeter calculation, but does not. It is
recommended that the engineer provide revised calculations that
accurately reflect the average grade at the perimeter of the structure.
0
0
N
DERRINGER
LANE
N
C:
C),
M1
'Hat
1 0
,P
:z
n
1 .1 HP -1
5H
0
0
N
DERRINGER
LANE
N
C:
C),
'Hat
,P
:z
n
ro0
0
0
N
DERRINGER
LANE
N
C:
(D
�}
z
�"� ` , .�
5e� q
��� r
'"
h
>��g �„
�r� n
�'�n
'� ';.d
r
;>
.�
=r
=�<
q}
z
i� F
ry_r+
\'
a
m
��
7
;>
.�
=r
=�<
q}
z
i� F
ry_r+
\'
-I
1
6 c _
N
I
n
e a
m
i
o i
e a
f� � _ _ -�
' ' �� �
�
�
'
6�
/
u
���
�a
fr
_ —��
�,. �,
P .f �
O % \\ ""'� STA
'
�i
� _ _ _ _
�, `
4
1.=�
- �
�� ��
o.
��-
4
�� �
V iL
S � �
�:
....
I
C
r^, j
✓ j O
���
g 4
`F' n
_ A� � - - Iz
'``
� _�
f
' b t r
i.
� '
�
�F
L
f
--
__
1
wy • 0� 6 j ¢�
� '.
5 _
I � •
_ ..
_ O �
V
�
f ..._ �\`
/ �
I r
i
I w �
� N
gVr;
�O
N �
�: �
� "1
�� I
.. --- 5�
.a
�j
s =�
C�
-a
Z
_
e � '
�
4
g ;
\ o
'_
� 3Wn1 PCOtman
� PIERMARINI .��„,n;�•„�
-
`. RL; \|[ ■ |
I , . !
\/ Ig.
§ { R§
Ai§ ., . .
<1
io
O<
L
Cl)
Wt
CD
C, -j
to
LLJ
01
<
Z
Lr)
ON
LL
C�
O CD
io
O<
L
Cl)
Wt
to
01
Im
01
<
Z
LL
C�
C)
t:
cc
III
N
0
L)
cr-
<n
10
co
A
;<
00.
co
0-7
C7)
Co
NJ
io
Wt
01
Im
oo
/► [S,t
-- W -ml
9Ntl
M p ISO
OM -40 -21111"PORWIMM
�Fj1�>a1yr.�pilr" �a
a��Niaa3a
,scv i au.no.s.v
CC oo�
o
QF
WQ OO V ~
'l
aW
W
!lr:l�>ti
oY
0:
®qqq
C G
z
O Q
(�
nlxxw a1M
tw4»ln1 awl
n>lx�oxl luu
�
CC oo�
o
QF
WQ OO V ~
'l
aW
W
INII2I T Id ;
- i"•T"" oy a i s'Q'a
Filerevmc—
.scanKing on ti
File revi a by
on D and is ready for
destruction by City Clerk