Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/12/19957:®o P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Board Room 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Bruce , // ► I. ►► •r Huff .DaWd Meyer Don ► ,FrankHn Fong Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community Development Office, located at 21660 F- 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 at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Auditorium The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, June 12, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Next Resolution No. 95-9 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Bruce Flamenbaum, Vice ' . Chairman Bob Huff, David Meyer, Don Schad, and Franklin Fong 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 recording_Sec� (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 May 8, and May 22, 1995 4. OLD BUSINESS: None 5. NEW BUSINESS: 5.1 Presentation by David Liu, Senior Engineer, Public Works Department on Neighborhood Traffic Study. 5.2 Review of Fiscal Year 95-96 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for conformity with the General Plan pursuant to Section 65401 of the Government Code. 6. PUBLIC HEARING: 6.1 Appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 95-7. ADR No. 95-7 is a request to expand the cellar and first floor and add a second floor to an existing 2,749 square foot single family residence. The expansion of approximately 4,444 square feet, includes a four car garage and exterior remodeling. (Approved May 2, 1995) H Property Owner: Mr. R. Sodhi, 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: Pete Volbeda, 22640 Golden Springs Dr., Ste. B, Diamond BAr, CA 91765 Property Address: 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant for Appeal: Ron Everett, 2618 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar, CA Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt § 15301 Class 1. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission sustains the Community Development Director's approval of ADR 95-7. 7. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: 8. ANNOUNCEMENTS 9. ADJOURNMENT.- June 12, 1995 E MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 8, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:.12 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 Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL Present: commissioners: Chairman Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Huff, Meyer, Schad, Fong. Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Assistant City Attorney Michael Estrada; Consultant Engineer Mike Myers; Special Counsel Robert Owen; and Recording Secretary Carol Dennis. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:. Lydia Plunk, Diamond Bar resident, respectfully requested that the commission give due consideration to go beyond the legalities and consider the appearance of having the highest ethical standards in discussions and decisions. When a public official serves on the board of an organization which stands to benefit in value, in her opinion,- the commissioner should step down as a member of the Planning commission and address the 'item as a private citizen. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of April 24, 1995. VC/Huff indicated the minutes should reflect the opening and continuing of the public hearing for New Business Item Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382. A motion was made by VC/Huff and seconded by C/Schad to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was approved 4-1 with the following roll call: May 81 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission AYES. COMMISSIONERS: VC/Huff, Schad, Fong, Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OLD BUSINESS: 1. vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 and Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2. Consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 and Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 for review and comment pursuant to Government Code Section 65857. At the joint session on April 6, 1995, consideration of the project was continued before the Planning Commission for their review and comments. Applicant/owner: Diamond Bar Associates, Inc., 3480 Torrance Boulevard #301, Torrance, CA 90503 CDD/DeStefano stated that, during this meeting, the Planning Commission will be discussing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850. In addition to staff, Tom Smith and. Steve Nelson, Environmental Consultants from Michael Brandman and Associates and the developerfs team are present. Also present is Robert Owen, Special Legal Counsel, Rutan & Tucker, who was retained to provide the City with specific legal advice regarding this project. He further stated that since this is not a public hearing item, the Commission has the discretion to entertain public comments. Staff recommends that the Commission provide comments regarding the project which will be forwarded to the City Council for the May 16, 1995 public hearing. AP/Searcy stated that this project has been referred back to the Planning Commission at the direction of the City Council pursuant to action taken at the conclusion of the Joint Session held on April 6, 1995. The ' Planning Commission expressed the desire ' for further information to provide clarification on issues and perceived inconsistencies related to development of the project. The Planning Commission cited a lack of familiarity with the project, as there are no current members from the 1992 Commission that approved the project. The Commission forwarded an itemized list of questions via public testimony to staff for responses. Staff has compiled answers to the expressed issues as attachments to this overview. 4,0 May 81 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission The project was reviewed bythe Planning Commission in a series of public hearings beginning in September of 1991. At the October 28, 1991 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission directed staff to prepare Resolutions of Approval and to amend the draft conditions of approval to most notably preserve an additional seven (7) oak trees in the western most canyon. The project was returned to the Commission on November 25, 1991. The commission took action to certify the Master Environmental, Impact Report for the purpose of approving the hillside development/SEA Conditional Use Permits and Oak Tree Permits and to recommend approval of the VTM- 47850, 47851, and 48487 in addition to the Certification of the Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR).' The City Council began deliberation on the project in January, 1992 following a series of public hearings I. over several months. In June of 1992, the Council certified the MSIR and approved VTM 47851 and VTM 48487 as recommended by the Planning commission. several issues arose out of the public hearing that focused on the geotechnical information on VTM 47850. The Council required the applicant to provide extensive information in order to respond to the questions. In November of 1992, the Council set a public hearing to deliberate on the project. The applicant had not provided the required information to respond to the plan check review questions in time for the -public hearing and requested an extension of time to respond to the issues. The Council took action to deny the requested extension of time and additionally took action to deny the application without prejudice. In so doing, the Council found that they could not approve the project without definitive information on the geotechnical *issues and allowed the applicant to submit a new application for the project once the information had been gathered. Subsequently, the applicant filed a lawsuit to appeal the decision. The lawsuit was resolved when the City and the developer entered into an out of court settlement agreement. The settlement agreement required the City to re-initiate processing of the project commencing with a Joint session to be conducted with the Planning Commission. AP/Searcy further stated that the city Attorney's recommendation for following the settlement agreement is included in the Planning Commission packets. As a result of the April 6, 1995 joint session, the public hearing.for this project has been set by the city Council for May 16, 1995. The Planning Commission's May 8, 1995 4,D�p Page 4 Planning commission comments from tonight's meeting will be forwarded to the --City Council for the public hearing session. AP/Searcy continued that this project is a 73 acre site located in Northern Tonner Canyon. The 57 lot subdivision is proposed for a site which currently developed with extensive oak and walnut woodland. This project contains the most valuable biota of the three tracts proposed for development. VTM 47850 contains significant walnut woodlands that cover approximately 34 acres contain almost 700 trees. Approximately 110 oak trees are primarily found within two stands comprising 2.5 acres. The trees located in the southwest portion of the tract have been identified to be protected and contain some of the oldest and healthiest trees on-site. Sixteen oak trees have been marked for removal as a part of this project. These oak trees will be replaced at a 4:1 ratio as will all walnut trees removed as part of the project. The replacement trees have been grown from seeds collected on=site in order to ensure the continuation of the genetics of native plant community. The landscape plan for the project has been crafted to reproduce an environment that is compatible with remaining vegetation and natural habitatto be complementary with residential development and the mitigation measures recommended by the SEATAC. The project was submitted and deemed complete in 1989 and is vested in the standards in effect at that time. The Government Code (section 65360) allows actions to be taken in the absence of a General Plan with approvals of the projects requiring the City to make findings of consistency with the future adopted General Plan. The map as proposed ' is consistent with the zoning classifications which traverse the site. Approximately 50 percent (35 acres) of the site is within the R-1-8,000 zone classification with the remainder of the -project to be developed within the R-1-20,000 zone. The project proposes development of the site with a total of 57 units, although the total number units under the zoning entitlement for the R-1- 8,000 acreage (net acres) would.be approximately 142 units. The applicant designed the project to conform to the 1 unit per- acre density (RR/Rural Residential) classification proposed in the draft General Plan and the community General May 81 1995 Page 5 Planning commission Plan previously approved by the County of Los Angeles. If the most restrictive application of density (1 unit per acre) were to be applied to the project, the project would be entitled to 72 units. The proposed density of the 57 unit project is .73 units per acre., The concept of clustered development has been utilized to maximize open space opportunities within hillside projects throughout the City. The' subject project does not cluster development in the sense that all of the proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum lot sizes required by..the zone. The applicant has provided additional open space by simply reducing the density.. The project as a whole conforms to the land use designation RR as proposed within the Draft General Plan. The geotechnical issues primarily revolve around soil stability and the calculations which were used to design the project. The design parameters of this project meet or exceed state of the art factors of safety which are traditionally set at 1.5. The site is designed to meet all d ' esign standards. The design was reviewed and approved by the City. The site extensively implements conservative measures to account for worst case scenarios. For example, the site is designed as if materials such as bentonite are found on-site, although none has been identified. All shear strength calculations were performed using lesser shear strength values associated with this material. Additionally, the project will be overgraded with a 10 foot blanket fill. The standard overfill depth is typically three (3) feet. The environmental issues raised at the Joint Session reflect that staff needed to highlight the environmental documents that include technical appendices which supplement the presentation with the revised EIR., The primary issues staff identified as being raised are centrally related to the animals found or thought to be found on-site. All of the animals found on-site cannot be observed in the surveys that can be conducted on-site in a couple of visits. Therefore, staff compiled lists of animals expected to be on-site or traverse the site based on historical surveys. The site may be used by certain animals at certain times but because of the development surrounding the site on three sides, the value of the site as a primary corridor is negligible. The site does, however, provide limited habitat for certain animals that will be reduced as a part of the 141%, May 8, 1995 Page 6 Planning commission development of the site but the proximity of Tonner Canyon provides a viable area for relocation. CDD/DeStefano reiterated that the City's staff and consultants, as well as the developer's consultants are present to assist the Planning Commission in its deliberation. The project has been returned to the City as a result of a settlement agreement. This matter was the focus of a Joint Session held by the City Council and the Planning commission on April 6, 1995. The project was al ' so the subject of a community -wide study session held March 11, 1995 to outline the project and related issues. The project is before the Planning Commission tonight as a result of City Council's direction requesting Planning commission comments. Responding to C/Meyer and public comment by Lydia Plunk, CA/Owen stated that he agreed with the conclusion of the legal opinion from ICA/Montgomery that C/Schad may participate in any deliberations regarding this project. In response to VC/Huff, C/Schad'asked that ICA/Montgomery's memo be entered into the record. It reads as follows: "The mayor has asked if Commissioner Schad is disqualified from voting on a zoning application*, if the developer may decide to donate to the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy as part of its mitigation of the environmental impact. Based upon the documents that I have been provided with, the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy was incorporated effective April 30, 1992, by Commissioner Schad as sole incorporator as a tax exempt, charitable corporation, pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c) (3). Paragraph V(A), of the articles of incorporation recites: "The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes and no part of a net -income or assets of the corporation shall every inure to the benefit of any director, trustee, member, or officer of this corporation, or to any private person,and upon dissolution, the assets shall be distributed to a governmental or non- profit charitable entity (Subdivision B).11 May 81 1995 Page 7 Planning Commission The State of California issued a tax exemption to the Conservancy on 0 ' ctober 20, 1992. The United States government issued its tax exemption on July 19, 1993. Commissioner Schad stated for the record at a public Planning Commission Meeting on June 13, 1994, that he 'does not, has never, and will not in the future, take any personal remuneration of any nature from the Conservancy. Based upon the foregoing, the Fair Political Practices Commission, on June 15, 1994, issues a telephonic, opinion, that Commissioner Schad has no present financial or incompatibility conflict of interest, with respect to the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy., and pending applications, wherein the applicant retains the final decision as to which environmental preservation entity will receive the mitigation payments." C/Schad stated that he has never madea penny from this Conservancy. His goals, gains and enjoyment have been achieved by working with the children and assisting them in understanding and enjoying nature. He further stated he has run this Conservancy out of his own pocket and it has never made a cent. VC/Huff requested C/ Schad to respond to whether the conditions ineffectat the time are still in effect including the fact that there are no bylaws, directors or employees of the Conservancy. C/Schad responded that these facts or currently in effect. Responding to C/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated the recommendations from the staff are now before the Planning Commission for comment and recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Owen, responding to C/Meyer, stated that, at this meeting, the Planning Commission cannot make a formal recommendation to approve or deny the project. This can only be done at a public hearing under the City's local subdivision ordinances and tonight's meeting is not a public hearing. . C/Meyor recommended that the City Council be encouraged to determine whether it wants land or money as -meeting the Quimby Act. In response to C/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated that the question of project reduction in relation to the amount of grading May 8, 1995 Page 8 Planning commission required had been addressed in, the EIR. In addition, the project is consistent with the density provisions of the Draft General Plan being reviewed by the City Council on May 16, 1995. AP/Searcy stated, in response to C/Meyer that the common lot is the lift station to be given to the Homeowners Association for maintenance. C/Meyer asked if the street easements proposed for the project would affect the density projections, to which AP/Searcy responded that the project would still be in conformity with the proposed General Plan even if the easements for the streets are subtracted from the equation. In response to C/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated that the project must conform to the minimum 10,000 square foot building pad size. Regarding annexation to "The Country Estates", AP/Searcy stated that a provision of approval states that,the developer -must actively seek annexation. CDD/DeStefano stated that based upon the approval of the companion tract, it is the City's expressed desire that this property become a part of "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association. Howeverl the City Council did not specifically mandate annexation. The Council said that there shall be an application for annexation and a good faith effort toward annexation. The Council also indicated that the annexation fees should not exceed those fees which were paid by the developers of Tract No. 47722. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, CA/Owen stated that the City. Council can make reasonable conditions on its approval. Often, with respect to subdivision maps, there is 'a requirement that a homeowners association be formed. Regarding this map, the matter is under consideration for the project to join an existing homeowners association. The City does not have the power to force the existing association to accept new development. However, as a condition of approval, the City Council can require that the developers of this project make their best efforts to annex to the existing homeowners association. CDD/DeStef ano, in response to C/Meyer, stated that the "Buyer Awareness Package" was established approximately four years ago by the City of Diamond Bar for, all new subdivision tracts. The idea of the package is to provide an additional. means of information to the potential buyer of any given lot within the May 8, 1995 Page 9 Planning commission a tract of homes. For example, this project is adjacent to a significant ecological area that has sensitive species of flora and fauna, predatory animals and a number of different items unique tothe subdivision immediately adjacent to this project. The "Buyer Awareness Package" for this -project would indicate the type of fencing material that would permit these types of animals to traverse the site. In addition, the package would indicate the buyer needs to be aware that there are animals present that may "eat your cat". Therefore, food should not be left outside. Additionally, the buyer would also be advised that careful consideration should be given toward the use of pesticides and other chemicals which might be hazardous to the immediate environment. He further stated that the package goes beyond that required by the Department of Real Estate -and is prepared by the developer and designed to be specific to the tract. The city must sign off on the package and there must be evidence that every buyer and potential buyer has received the package. Again responding to C/Meyer,. CDD/DeStefano stated the application was submitted as a Vesting Tentative Tract Map in 1989. The City did not have a Hillside Management ordinance until October, 1990. This developer chose to adopt some of the standards :of the Hillside Management Ordinance and incorporate them in their product even though they were not required to do so. C/Fong suggested that a reduction in density should result in a reduction of the amount of grading required. C/Fong stated his concerns regarding shear strength value and requested further explanation of staff's comments that lower shear strengths were, used in adjacent tracts. C/Fong recommended that the developer and consultant should state in writing their understanding of Smectite and Bentonite and clarification of the actual element contained in the project site. C/Fong stated that the project should implement the spirit of the Hillside Management ordinance. VC/Huff . recommended that the sentence referring to fences on Page 2, Paragraph 2 under Wildlife Habitat of the Buyers Awareness Package" be changed to read: "No fences or other barriers can be constructed within these areas except for fences approved by the City of Diamond Bar." May 8, 1995 Page 10 Planning Commission Chair/ Flamenbaum requested clarification of the response to his question regarding planting of trees on the hillside. He stated the response, indicated that the EIR does not state that trees shall not be planted on the hillsides.' He read from the EIR as follows: "In general, the planting of trees on slopes is not recommended, since the individual root systems, although very deep, are limited in extent and the process of normal growth may loosen the soil and create channels for the ingress of water into the.soils".. Chair/Flamenbaum again requested to know what happens at the end of the five year monitoring program for tree growth. Responding to questions from the Commission, CE/Myers stated that the issue of reduction in density/gra * ding is addressed in his memo to CDD/DeStefano dated April 20, 1995. He further stated that since there has been no five to fifteen lot proposal submitted to the City, he is not in a position to state conclusively, that a smaller project would involve less grading disturbance. With regard to the shear strength, CE/Myers stated that it is his understanding regarding the lower parameters used in analyzing the reports on the adjacent tract, that there is no more information contained in the reports other than that those parameters were assumed. This project incorporates a body of work and tests which recommend higher parameters than are being used in the analysis. The applicant was pressed to stand by his earlier conservative assumptions in reviewing this project. CE/Myers asked for further clarification of C/Fong's concern .for clarification of the definition of Smectite and Bentonite. In staff's opinion, the relevant information is being utilized in the geotechnical analysis and the definition of the material is academic. CE/Myers stated that the vesting status of this project map gives the City limited ability to require compliance with the Hillside Ordinance. Staff feels that the applicant has attempted to comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance at the perimeter of the project. Chair/ Flamenbaum declared the meeting open to public comments. Lydia Plunk stated that in her opinion, when dealing with a sensitive area the idea of donating property to a Conservancy act.. "RAP May 8, 1995 Page 11 Planning commission is good. She requested that the Commission recommend to the Council that the criteria would assure that any property set aside would be used for the purposes stated in perpetuity and in good repair. C.hair/Flamen ' baum declared the public comment portion of the meeting closed. RECESS: Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:17 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 8:.27 p.m. Kurt Nelson, Diamond Bar Associates, stated that as a result .of conversations with CDD/DeStefano and the City Council, the "Buyer Awareness Package" originally prepared for.Tract No. 47851 has been revised and upgraded for Tract No. 47850. He further stated that if the oak tree plantings have survived for five years, they would have reached their full native state, thereby allowing them to survive on their own from that point. The homeowners association that is_being established will be charged with further custody beyond the five year program. Regarding annexation, Mr. Nelson stated that,.as a result of recent discussions with the board of directors of "The Country Estates", an agreement is forthcoming. Diamond Bar Associates paid "The Country Estates" in excess xcess of $300,000 in the mid 1980s in settlement of a legal action concerning the back country tracts which included Tract No. 47850. In addition to the Jump sum payment, the lots *must pay $3000 for access rights as they are built out. There is an optional payment of $4,500 per lot that the owner must pay if they wish to avail themselves of "The C ' ountry Estates" recreational facilities. Mr. Nelson stated the applicant has offered to make the $4,500 mandatory for uniformity of- annexation. In lieu of the $4,500, the applicant has offered to meet with the board of directors of "The Country Estates" to determine what figure would be agreeable. Mr. Nelson further stated that as a result of project alternative studies conducted in 1987, the EIR states that a 15 lot subdivision would not significantly lessen the remedial grading. Given the studies and the 'fact that the 57 lots were 50 percent of the allowable number of lots under the ordinances in effect at the time the map vested, no further consideration was given to a 15 lot subdivision. May 8,, 1995 Page 12 . Planning commission Mr. Nelson indicated that, in the spirit of the Hillside Management ordinance, the tract is completely redesigned by Horst Shore in 1990. The project alternative before the Planning Commission is the result of a radical tract redesign by theengineering firm of Hunnsaker & Associates to accommodate a large portion of the Hillside Management Ordinance. Responding to VC/Huff, Tom Smith, Michael Brandman Associates, stated that the replacement ratio for oak trees is 4:1 and for walnut trees is 2:1. The intent of the monitoring program is that at the end of the monitoring period there will be as many living trees as there are planted. . Mr. Smith agreed that the wording could be clarified to indicate this outcome. Mr. Smith stated, in response to VC/Huff, that a condition of approval is that a specific mitigation plan is to be developed to determine where the buffer areas are in relation to other requirements such 'as, fuel modification, and biological restoration and habitat. There are a number of areas that are overlain by a number of different requirments. VC/Huff requested that the language be revised to limit the non-native plants to the pad. Referring to Page 28 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, VC/Huff read that "all trash and manmade materials shall be removed from natural open space areas on a r egular basis" and he asked to know who would remove the trash. Mr. Nelson responded that the homeowners association would have the authority to respond to.such conditions. . C/Schad commended the applicant for attempting to develop.a project that is aesthetically balanced with the existing environment by gathering seeds for approximately 5,000 plants from the project site, and having nurseries develop plants that are indicative to the area. Again responding to C/Fong's concern regarding the reduction of the number of units for the project, CDD/DeStefano stated that the City Council retains full discretion with respect to approval or denial of this project and if the Council feels that it is appropriate to reduce the number of dwelling units, it has the authority to impose such conditions. C/Fong recommended that the number of building lots be 'reduced to 34 thereby, in his opinion, significantly reducing the amount of necessary remedial grading; that these lots be removed from the westerly and southerly portions of the property where the May 81 1995 Page 13 Planning commission most complicated geotechnical problems exist; development should be confined to the easterly portion of the site, in those areas most generally covered by lots I through 12, 27 through 36 and -45 to 57 where the geotechnical conditions are most favorable. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to recommend that the City Council approve the project subject to the 33 conditions from the Community Development Department, the 52 conditions recommended by the City's Engineering Department, the five (5) conditions recommended by CE/Myers in a memorandum dated March and addressed to the Community Development Director, the recommendations contained in Resolution No. 91-23, consideration of the Quimby Act, as well as other recommendations stated by the Planning Commissioners at this meeting. GENERAL COMMENTS: VC/Huff stated that, in his opinion, if a developer came before the Planning Commission today with this project he would be shown the door. The rights were granted to this project some time ago. Yet, it has been returned to the Planning Commission for recommendations. He.further stated that he has difficulty recommending this project because he does not like the standards under which project approval might be granted. The residents have been clearly stating they want more open space and less housing. In spite of the fact that dev'elopment does not stop, it should be shaped to the needs of the City. He indicated he would like to see the project go back to the developer. The fact that the developer does not want to do a project of 34 units does not mean he cannot do it and still make a profit. He stated he believes there will be significant impact to the project site. I In response to VC/Huff, C/Meyer commented that the Commission is dealing with standards that were set in 1988 and 1989. The applicant applied for the map and had it veszted in 1989. The proposed density was over double of that now proposed. The project is consistent with the three draft general plans that the Commission has looked at. Special Counsel Robert Owen reminded the Commission they ate free to make any recommendations they.desire to the Council, but the Commission is not free to take a formal vote of approval or denial of the subdivision map, as is normally done for airen--ru subdivision mar) in -the City, because it is not a noticed public hearing. May 8, 1995 Page 14 Planning commission C/Fong suggested with respect to lots 3, 4 and 5 that the designer to consultants recheck their design on the shear keys. It appears that the geotechnical conditions on lots 3, 4 and 5 are rather favorable and there is no need for a shear key as it is shown on the grading plan. He suggested the change is to not impact the adjacent existing grove of oak trees in the area. He stated it is a. matter of changing a few lines on the map. C/Schad called for the question. C/Fong recommended that the Hillside Management Ordinance be implemented for this project. C/Fong recommended that the lots be staggered to have clear areas between the structures so a passerby or someone driving down the street can see between the houses down to the open areas. Chair/ Flamenbaum restated the motion. The Planning Commission recommends that the city council approve all the conditions as presented by staff and transmit all comments and recommendations stated at this meeting tonight. The motion was approved 5-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Huff, Schad, Fong, Meyer, Chair/Flamenb,aum .NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS4. None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS: dhair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:17 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 9:27 p.m. CDD/DeStefano introduced the new Assistant City Attorney, Mike Estrada, with the law firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 95 -rand Development Review No. 95- 1. A request,to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1634(1) in order to approve construction of a two story sanctuary structure with a cellar and two temporary modular units; and to ensure compliance with applicable design standards. May 81 1995 Page 15 Planning commission Property Location: 3255 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar Property Owner/Applicant: Evangelical Free Church of Diamond Bar, 3255 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar VC/Huff announced that he would be recusing himself from this agenda item and left the dais. Ann Lungu stated the applicant is requesting approval to construct a two story sanctuary structure with a cellar and install two temporary modular classroom units. The modular units will be removed when the Certificate of occupancy is issued for the two story sanctuary structure. The applicant's request also includes lifting the time constraints and deleting irrelevant conditions of approval in the original Conditional Use Permit. The project site is a 2.37 acre triangular shaped lot. The project site is zoned R-1-7,500 and has a draft General Plan designation of Commercial .(C) . Since this facility is located in a residential area, a Conditional Use Permit is required to insure that the development of this church is well integrated with the existing development in the area within the residential zone. The reason for the applicant's current request is twofold. First, the applicant desires to lift the time constraints of the original Conditional Use Permit. Since the Council's approval for the extension of time, Phase II was completed. Consequently, it is reasonable to suggest that substantial '. construction and completion of the project has occurred. once. substantial construction occurs within a grant's specified time limit, a grant is in full force and effect. Additionally, land use entitlements, which meet this requirement remain with the land. Therefore, the Commission could nullify the time constraint. The applicant wants the nullification in order to accumulate enough money to construct a debt free sanctuary structure. The applicant hopes to begin Phase IIIfs construction at the end of 1997 or the beginning of 1998. Since the applicant is applying for revisions to the original Conditional Use Permit grant by the County, staff feels it is appropriate to delete conditions of approval which are no longer relevant. These conditions restrict the construction of a tower and/or spire and limits evening activities to twice a week. The applicant is not applying for a tower or spire, so that condition is no longer applicable. In the evenings, the Church provides community services by allowing Cub Scouts and Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, as well as church May 8, 1995 Page 16 Planning Commission activities. Therefore, it is not in the community's best interest to eliminate these services. In December 1994 the City Council approved on -street parking along southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard from 100 feet south of the curb return at Crooked Creek'Drive to the northerly driveway of the project site. The permitted time for parking along Diamond Bar Boulevard is Sunday from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. However, the on -street parking is only permitted until .installation begins for double left turn/ intersection modification on southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard at Brea Canyon Road. Presently, the project site maintains 41 on-site parking spaces, two of which are handicapped spaces. The code allows a ratio of one parking space for every five occupants based on the largest assembly area of the Church. The largest assembly area of the sanctuary structure will have an occupancy of 390 persons. Therefore,- based on code, 78 parking spaces are required, two of which are required to be handicapped spaces. AstP/Lungu pointed out the current plan which allows for 76 on-site parking spaces. Compact parking spaces could be added to allow for the additional two on-site parking spaces needed to meet the code. The Fire Department is reviewing the proposed plans and their comments will be a requirement for this project. The parking lot construction causes the removal of three Aleppo Pine trees and one Canary Island Pine tree. The applicant is proposing to replace three of the four trees within the parking lot area. Proposed grading quantities for the sanctuary excavation for the cellar includes 2,960 cubic yards of soil. 172 cubic yards of the excavated soil will be deposited in the western portion of the parking lot. Exported soil quantities will be 2,788 cubic yards. Due to the expected excavation, the applicant is required to make an application for a grading permit and submit a grading plan prepared. by a Civil Engineer for review and approval by the City Engineer. An application for Development Review is required for this project because it is an institutional type use and the applicant is adding more than 10,000 square feet to the existing structure. The proposed project's development standards comply with the City's development standards. The architectural style of the proposed sanctuary structure will match the existing structures on-site. The colors and. material utilized will Ar Zee May 8, 1995 Page 17 Planning Commission match the existing structures which have red tile roofs and off-white colored stucco. As such, the proposed sanctuary structure will be compatible with existing on-site structures and other structures in the area. The applicant is also requesting to install two -24 feet by 60 feet temporary modular classroom units to be utilized until construction of the sanctuary is completed. Before the issuance of the sanctuary's Certificate of Occupancy, the temporary classroom units will be removed. In addition, the area.will need to be paved to accommodate the temporary modular classroom units. Pursuant to the Development Review Ordinance, an application approved or conditionally approved automatically expires if not exercised within one year. However, the Planning Commission, subject to appeal to the City Council, may extend any such .approval for two successive periods not to exceed six months each. Since construction of the proposed sanctuary depends on the Church's financial status, staff recommends that the Commission consider granting a two year Development Review approval. If construction does not begin within this two year period and the design of the sanctuary structure is not altered substantially, staff recommends that the Commission require the applicant apply for an Administrative Development Review application to ensure compliance with current design standards and the Commission's approval. The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative. Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approval Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1, Development Review No'. 95-1, and Negative Declaration No. 95-1, Findings. of Fact, and conditions as listed within the resolution. Responding to Chair/ Flamenbaum, AstP/Lungu stated that if the applicant- does not exercise the CUP within two years the project will be referred back for Administrative Review. Staff is recommending that the time constraints be lifted. The applicant has made a substantial completion of the project and only one phase is left to be completed. The reason staff recommended Administrative Development Review is to assure that the applicant has complied with the conditions., Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that the lifting of time constraints appears to be granting the applicant special May 8,,1995 Page IS Planning commission privileges that have not been grantedtoany-other-applicant in the past. AstPZLunqu responded that staff feels that the applicant has substantially complied with the CUP. This agenda item is an amendment to the original CUP approval. In response to Chair/ Flamenbaum, AstP/Lungu indicated the proposed 78 on-site parking spaces complies with the code for a ratio* of 1 parking space for every 5 occupants. I The sanctuary accommodates 390 occupants. Chair/Flamenbaum questioned whether the 78 spaces would be adequate. in addition, he indicated that the City has shied away from adding compact parking spaces. AstP/Lungu stated the applicant may be able to increase the parking area to accommodate the two additional required spaces to comply with the Code without adding compact parking spaces. CE/Myers responding to Chair/Flamenbaum stated he did not feel it was necessary to conduct a traffic study for this Conditional Use Permit. AstP/tungu responding to Chair/ Flamenbaum stated she believes that the Church has had conversations regarding parking with the owner of the adjacent commercial property located across the flood channel. At this time, she indicated she is not aware of any agreement for parking. C/Schad commented that he believes in extending the time for the applicant since they have made a good faith attempt to comply with the Conditional Use Permit. He suggested the mesa area could be "stepped" for future parking. He indicated that some of the older pines along the storm drain may represent a hazard and may need to be removed. He cited the historical value of the property in the knoll area and suggested that the applicant should consult with the City's historical group to see if there is anything on the, property that should be preserved prior to further construction. He stated that the trash on the northwest corner of the property adjacent to the residences should be removed without cost. to the Church. C/Schad suggested a northerly left turn lane from the Church property. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing open and requested that those in opposition to, the project. approach the podium. Larry Fry, 3155 Cherrydale Drive, stated he has been a resident of Diamond Bar for 21 years and has lived on Cherrydale Drive for 11 years. He indicated he does not oppose the Church. However, he does have a concern about the knoll area and the trees which are.situated on the site of the May 8, 1995 Page 19 Planning commission original Diamond Bar Ranch ranch house, If the trees -are taken out, they cannot be replaced in kind. * In addition, red tailed hawks live in the trees. He suggested the area that is proposed to be used for office space by_the Church could be converted to classrooms and sublease office space in another location. Responding to C/Meyer, Mr. Fry stated he has no problem with removing the night meeting restriction. He indicated he has no problem with the bell tower as long as it is not used in the night hours. He further stated that he has no problem with the sanctuary. His only concern is the knoll area. Ronald Jung, 3163 Cherrydale Drive, stated he has been a resident of the area since 1981. He indicated that when he bought his property .in Diamond Bar he was told by - the developer that the area was protected and the trees would remain along with the country feel. He further stated he is not opposed to building of the sanctuary but he is totally against any building on the knoll Area. In response to C/Meyer, Mr. Jung stated he is opposed to lifting the restriction on the evening meetings and on the bell tower. Nora Jean Jung, 3163 Cherrydale Drive, stated she would have a problem with meetings five nights a week and she is opposed to the spires. She further stated she is concerned with the wildlife that live on the knoll and she is opposed to any building on the knoll area. Christine Fry, 3155 Cherrydale Drive, stated that she is surprised that the staff report does not include a negative environmental impact. She indicated she is very concerned with the wildlife in the knoll area and is opposed to any building in that location: She further stated she has no problem with evening ' Church meetings.and she has no problem with a spire/tower for the sanctuary. Seeing no one else who wished to speak in opposition to the project, Chair/Flamenbaum invited the proponents to speak. Mark Hopper, Pastor, Evangelical Free Church of Diamond Bar, 3255 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, referred the Commission to the original site 'plan for the project adopted under the Conditional Use Permit which included a two-story building in theknollarea. The original building was completed in 1983. In 1990 the Church received a five year extension and since the building has not been completed, an extension is being requested at this time. He indicated that approximately $100,000 building funds have been raised and with the May 8, 1905 Page 20 Planning commission estimated cost to be in excess of $1,000,000, there- --are insufficient funds to complete construction. Pastor Hopper stressed that the Church has a desire to develop the grassy knoll and that this should be reflected in the staff Is report. He asked that the addendum to the staff report be changed to read as follows: "In the event that future expansion of the Church facilities into the knoll is needed, the applicant shall protect and preserve and/or relocate and replace ... 11 He stated that the building for the knoll has been reduced from two-story to one story which would be approximately the height of a residence. He further stated the Church would be willing,to help grade down the knoll to reduce the nuisance and visibility, whether for building or for the parking. In addition, most of the trees are located on the perimeter of the knoll area and would not be disturbed. The two or three trees that would be disturbed would be replaced by the Church. C/Fong suggested that the proposed knoll area classroom, structure could be re ' designed to be built into the hill to preserve the terrain and aesthetic -value for the adjacent residents. Ron Clark, 20940 Ambusher Street, requested that the Planning Commission favorably consider the recommendation by staff. Pamela Watkins, resident of Pomona and Church attendee, cited numerous 'Church sponsored programs which impact the facility. She stated the Church is currently renting space at a facility on the opposite side of Brea Canyon Road to accommodate the overflow. Al Smith, Church Elder, emphasized the importance of providing facilities for the youth of Diamond Bar. Michael Beard, Associate Pastor, Evangelical Free Church of Diamond Bar, stated there are no written agreements for parking at neighboring locations. Mr. Fung entered photographs of the project site into the record. Jim Thayer, Architect.for the Church, indicated the majority of trees at the site would be preserved. He stated the 5 to 1 ratio for parking appears to be inadequate and the ratio is closer to 3 1/2 to 1. Larry Fry -stated that, in his opinion, the restriction originally imposed by the County should remain on the project and that the Commission should consider restricting further building in consideration of the areas adjacent to the project site. May 8, 1995 Page 21 Planning commission Responding to Mr. Fry, Pastor Hopper stated that the Church has needs and that they are attempting to move forward in a responsible manner, with due consideration to the neighbors. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1 and Development Review No. 95- 1 which prohibits development on the grassy knoll, removes the time constraints of the original Conditional Use Permit, removes the spire constraint, and removes the restrictions on evening meetings. The motion was approved 4-1 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Chair/Flamenbaum, Fong, Schad NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Huff ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None VC'/Huff returned to the dais. RECESS: Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 11:05 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 11:10 p.m. 2. Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 92- 1, and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. A request to subdivide one parcel into four residential lots. Property Location: 3000 Block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar Property Owner: Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, 4251 S. Hiquera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Applicant: Warren Dolezal, 4251 S. Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Applicant's Agent: Hunsaker and Associates, 10179 Huennekens Street, San Diego, CA 92121 CDD/DeStefano stated that staff has provided the Planning Commission with an extensive package on this item including a lengthy staff report, environmental documentation, mitigation monitoring program as part of the negative declaration, maps, etc. This is an application for a four lot subdivision behind the gates of "The Country Estates" located on a 2.55 acre site May 81 1975 Page 22 Planning commission directly across the street from the JCC project discussed earlier this evening. The four proposed lots range in size from about 24,000 gross square feet to a little more than 39,000 gross square feet. The pad sizes range from about 5,600 square feet to about 6,500 square feet. The zoning for the property is R-1-8,000. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the zoning. The project is consistent with' the draft General Plan which permits up to three dwelling units per acre. The project requires a Conditional Use Permit because it is within a Hillside Management area and technically within a significant ecological area. An Oak Tree Permit'is required because there is one existing oak tree on site which is set aside and designated for preservation. The property has smaller pads than some of the adjacent -properties, properties, the purpose of which is to serve as starter pads for future development for homes ranging in size from 4,000 to 8,000 square feet and to attempt to comply with the Hillside Management ordinance guidelines. The units would be consistent with that which has been and is being developed in "The Country Estates". The property is technically incorporated within the Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15. However, there is only one oak tree in the area. The property has been disked over the 'last 20 years. It is essentially a remanent piece from the Las Brisas condominium project which was built several years ago. The old SEA boundary generally ran along the ridgeline. This property, according to the graphic that was provided to the City upon incorporatioii, indicates the property is included within the SEA. The City hired a biologist and environmental consultant to look at the property and, through this process, confirmed staff's suspicion that, the property should no longer be considered a part of the SEA as it has none of the qualities for which the SEA was originally created. Approximately 185 property owners surrounding the site have been notified through the public hearing notification process. Staff requests that the Planning Commission recommend approval and forward the application to the City Council for approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2. Responding to Chair/ Flamenbaum, CDD/DeStefano stated "The Country Estates" has no interest in a third gate (Hawkwood Road and Steeplechase Lane) . Hawkwood Road homeowners are not interested in the .additional traffic that a third gate at that location might create. The third gate does provide an appropriate location for an "emergency only" access point. May 8, 1995 Page 23. Planning commission Responding to C/Schad, CE/Myers indicated that there is existing sewer at the Las Brisas Condominium for connection to these four parcels. Therefore, no pumping station is needed. In response to VC/Huff, CE/Myers stated he does not note any significant drainage swales or down drains proposed for this project. CDD/DeStef ano responded to VC/Huff that the condition for annexation is consistent with that imposed upon recent developments in "The Country Estates" i.e., that essentially a good faith effort must be demonstrated toward annexation into "The Country Estates" and that the fees should not exceed those which Tract 47722 paid. Chair/Flamenbaum.declared the public hearing open. Lex Williman, .Planning Director for Hunnsaker & Associates, 10179 Huennekens Street, San Diego, CA 92121, stated he is representing the applicant for this project. It is the intent of the project to annex to "The Country Estates" homeowners association. The intent of the project is to take driveway access from Steeplechase Lane and offer the ability within a 20 foot maximum step to drop the house down the hill in order to minimize grading and disturbance of the area. Mr. Williman indicated the applicant does not have any problem with the conditions except with one issue' which is specifically related to the Hawkwood Road/ Steeplechase Lane interface. Hawkwood Road currently deadends. In addition, there is an emergency access from the Las Brisas Condominium complex which connects into Hawkwood Road and onto Steeplechase Lane. The applicant proposes, as an alternative to the cul-de-sac turn around, agate with fence in a motif' and material that mimics the entrance to "The Country Estates" which would be used for emergency access only. A small turn- around would be retained. He requested that the wording regarding the cul-de-sac be eliminated and attach their rendering as the basis for fulfilling that condition. C/Meyer requested the applicant provide hillside development -standards that would put a building envelope on the four proposed lots. He stated he is opposed to the development as it is proposed. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by VC/Huff to continue the hearing for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 to. May 22, 1995. The motion was approved unanimously. May 8, 1995. Page 24 Planning Commission INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None, PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None ANNOUNCEMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT: Chair/Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 11.40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Community Development Director Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman jft MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION UPArr MAY 22, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:18 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 Huff. Also Present: Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Consultant Attorney Robert Owen; Consultant Engineer Mike Meyer; and Recording Secretary Carol Dennis. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mark Hopper, 1125 Grubstake Drive, stated he represents the Evangelical Free Church. With respect to the minutes of May, 8, 1995, he asked that they be amended to reflect the spirit of the meeting. He requested that on Page 20, Paragraph 10, line 4, the word "prohibits" be amended to read'.11which does not include" development at this time. He further requested that the statement in the Draft Resolution be amended accordingly. C/Fong stated he believes Mr. Hopper is correct with his wording, because his understanding of the matter is that the Planning commission does not intend to prohibit any development on the knoll. He said as a Commissioner he can make that change. C/Schad stated he concurs with C/Fong. Wilbur Smith, Diamond Bar citizen wanted to know what the Planning Commission had recommended to the City Council regarding the General Plan. Chair/Flamenbaum responded that the Planning commission version of the Draft General Plan was distributed to the public at the time of its approval. This version was sent to the.City City Council for their deliberation. The Planning Commission is required by Government Code to review areas of the General Plan that were not discussed. 4 1-1 the i - These areas were referred to the Planning Commission I City Council; the Planning Commission held a public hearing May 22, 1995 Page 2 Planning mmfission S.0 and discussion; the results were submitted back to City Council with recommendations from the Planning Commission. The specifics are included in the Planning Commission minutes for public consumption. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of May 81 1995. C/Fong stated the wording on Page 14 is incorrect. He asked that "eliminated" be stricken and the sentence be revised to read as follows: "C/Fong recommended that the shear key be reviewed and modified as appropriate on Lots 3; 4 and 5 to save the oak grove in view of favorable geological conditions indicated on the current geological map." He indicated this is what he intended to say and what it says on Page 14 is wrong; technically, it is incorrect. With respect to the third paragraph, Page 14, he asked that the following words be added to the end of the sentence to clarify what he meant: for unobstructed view of the canyon areas from planned streets so, that the sentence reads: "C/Fong recommended that the lots be staggered and that spaces be left between the lots for unobstructed view of the canyon areas from planned streets." C/Meyer stated he has a problem with adding verbiage of what should have been said and the way it is thought to be at this time. The minutes are suppose to be an abbreviated action type of minutes that reflect what occurred at the meeting. He indicated he has no problem changing C/Fongs statement to "modified" rather than "eliminated" because he believes that is what C/Fong said. He stated he does not concur with adding clarification to paragraph 3. C/Fong stated he did mention for unobstructed views in canyon areas but it is not reflected in the sentence. C/Meyer responded that this was not in accordance with his recollection. Chair/Flamenbaum stated he agrees with C/Meyer that the minutes should reflect what was said and what occurred. He suggested that the minutes be tabled and that the recording secretary review the tape to determine if the minutes accurately reflect what was said. C/Fong stated that with respect to Mr. Hopper's comments, he believes the minutes are incorrect. He doesn't believe the Commission meant to prohibit development on the grassy knoll. He indicated he remembers that development on the grassy knoll was to be deferred at this time. May 22, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission Chair/ Flamenbaum. stated that he believes the minutes accurately portray what the motion was and what the Commission voted on. He indicated the recording secretary could also review this area of the tape. The minutes have to speak for themselves. C/Meyer stated the minutes reflect the true content of the motion. He reiterated that his intent was to prohibit development on the grassy knoll. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to table the approval of the Planning Commission minutes for May 8, 1995 to the June 12, 1995 meeting. The motion was approved 4-1 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong, Chair/Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS:, None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Huff ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 2. Resolution No. 95-06: A resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar approving Conditional -Use Permit No. 95-1, Development Review No. 95-1, and Negative Declaration No. 95-1 which is a request to construct a two story sanctuary structure with a cellar and install two temporary modular classroom units and repealing Conditional Use Permit No. 1634(1) for a church facility located at 3255 South Diamond Bar Boulevard (Tract 33417, Lot 19). VC/Huff recused himself from this agenda item and left the dais. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to adopt Resolution No. 95-06. Chair/ Flamenbaum stated his understanding of the government code is that the word "prohibit" or words to that effect do not preclude an applicant from applying for a new and/or revised Conditional Use Permit at a later date. AP/Searcy concurred that under Title 22, the Conditional Use Permit addresses bringing back projects that are substantially different from a project for which the commission has taken action. Chair/Flamenbaum continued that it was the intent of the - Planning Commission to absolutely deny building on the grassy knoll at this time. Pursuant to funding available to the applicant, there was no idea as to when such building might occur. The Commission did not believe it was in the City's best interest to approve a structure that would appreciably impact the surrounding community without knowing more about it. The Commission was May 22, 1995 Page 4 Planning Commission DRA Mm *8"' concerned with the issue ofparking, as well as tt improvements scheduled for Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. If and when the applicant wishes to make new or revised application the Planning Commission will then make the appropriate determinations. Responding to Mr. Hopper, C/Meyer stated it was his intent to prohibit. development on the grassy knoll as an entitlement of the Conditional Use Permit, to eliminate the prohibition against spires on buildings on the site, and to'eliminate the time constraints relative to evening meetings. At issue with building on the grassy knoll is that the de ' signs are not in keeping with good land use standards. There was testimony indicating the grassy knoll is a habitat of endangered species which the environmental review did not reflect. In addition, there was testimony indicating that the knoll is an historical site. He further stated that there should be no mistake that his recommendation for the preparation for the preparation of this ordinance was to prohibit development on the grassy knoll. As the Planning Commission has reviewed and modified conditions placed on the property by Los Angeles County he indicated he would expect future Planning Commissions to consider the information provided by the applicant for future development on the grassy knoll. He stated that it was his intent that if 'the applicant wished to develop the grassy knoll area, an amendment would be made to the Conditional Use Permit for consideration by the Planning Commission and the City Council at a future date. The plans that were submitted by the applicant have significant impacts on the surrounding development. Mr. Hopper responded to Chair/ Flamenbaum that he would need to_ go to his board of directors for direction on whether to continue with the matter or withdraw the application. He requested a continuance. AP/Searcy admonished the applicant to be aware that this application was brought before the Planning Commission in order to lift a condition of approval that terminated the Conditional Use Permit in November, 1995. If action is not taken by that time, the CUP will terminate and no additional development under that Conditional Use Permit would be permitted. In addition, no action taken by the Planning Commission relieves the due process procedure that is provided under the code. Due process for requesting any change at an additional time is always present. It is not precluded by any element of this Resolution. Responding to Chair/ Flamenbaum, Mr. Hopper stated that the Resolution should be adopted if it is understood by May 22, 1995 Page 5 Planning the City that the applicant has the right to return to the Planning Commission with an amended plan for the unused portion of land. AP/Searcy stated that this is guaranteed under'Title 22. In addition, comments put forth this evening are recorded in the meeting minutes and become a matter of public record. The motion to approve Resolution No. 95-06 was approved 4-1 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Huff returned tothedais. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: M e y e r I Chair/Flamenbaum, Schad, Fong None VC/Huff None 1. Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-1 and Oak. Tree Permit No. 95-2. TPM No. 23382 (pursuant to Code Section 21.24) is a request to subdivide a 2.55 gross acre parcel into four residential lots ranging from .55 acres to .90 acres. The tentative map also includes the following: Conditional Use Permit No. 92-1 (pursuant to Code Section 22.56.215 and the Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992)) which is required to protect resources contained in a significant ecological area and for hillside management in areas where grades are in excess often percent; and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 (pursuant to Code Section 22.56, Part 16) which is required to preserve and protect an existing oak tree. Applicant: Hunsaker and Associate Inc., 10179 Hunnekens Street, San Diego, CA 92121 Property Owne . r: Warren Dolezal, 4251 South Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Property Address: 3000 block (North side) of Steeplechase Lane between Hawkwood Road and Wagon Train Lane, Diamond Bar Lex Williman, Planning Director, Hunsaker and Associates, Inc., stated the purpose of the starter pads is to meet the intent of the Hillside Management Ordinance. He pointed out a clarification of proposed development standards, Exhibit "B", for Parcel Map No. 23382. A 40 foot rear building setback is proposed for each lot. The May 22, 1995 Page 6 Planning commission ,ti intent is to have the units step down the pad to overcome the massing issue. , The maximum massing is 35 feet. Condition #17, relating to the cul-de-sac extension off of Hawkwood Road is an issue for the applicant. There is no opposition to putting in the knuckle and the appropriate improvements. However, the applicant does oppose having the cul-de-sac. with the knuckle. We would ask that the Planning Commission approve, as an option: the knuckle; eliminate the standard cul-de-sac;.include a turn -around with a gated private driveway access; and retain the required emergency access to the Las Brisas Condominium project. Responding to- Chair/ Flamenbaum, Mr. Williman stated Hawkwood Road specifically services four units. The concern is that a publicfacility is being built in a private area since Steeplechase Lane at Hawkwood Road becomes "The Country Estates". Since "The Country Estates" is a gated community, this junction was intended to be gated for emergency access purposes only and not to provide public access. There are some technical concerns with this approach. As a result of a profile for Steeplechase Lane, 4 water line was installed on Hawkwood Road with a turn into Steeplechase Lane to Wagon Train Lane. The Hawkwood Road grade up from Steeplechase Lane is approximately 12 percent. A typical maximum grade for a cul-de-sac is 5 percent and he indicated his firm likes to design to a maximum of 2 or 3 percent. In order to accommodate a cul-de-sac, a severe cut would have to be made at the end of Hawkwood Road to lower the grade. The applicant's approach would be to use materials for the .gate similar to the existing main gate for "The Country Estates" and used for emergency access only and not for through traffic. In accordance with the wishes of the residents, there will be no public access to "The Country Estates". The applicant feels a public access at this location would be very inappropriate. Responding to C/Meyer, CE/Myers stated he reviewed the proposed modifications to the street improvements. A specific condition of approval by the Planning commission of Vesting Tentative Map No. 47850, which is located across Hawkwood Road from the subject property, stated that Steeplechase Lane shall be, knuckled and Hawkwood Road shall be cul-de-saced to City standards. Staff and the applicant have made this an issue in order to have the issue clarified by the City Council. The condition in VTM No. 47850 does not say "to the satisfaction of the City Engineer". In his opinion, it is a stark and clearly worded condition. Therefore, he indicated he is interested in clarification at this point in time. In this instance, no property frontage will be taken. Typical backing distance for firefighting vehicles is 150 May 22, 1995 Page 7 Planning Commission feet. Since there is an emergency connection provided between the knuckle and the cul-de-sac, the emergency turn around factor is addressed. The second drawing provided by the applicant shows a bull nose on the end of the existing 40 foot roadway. This does not provide an easy turn around for even a compact car. The current .Hawkwood Road public right-of-way is 64 feet. Perhaps a larger bull nose could be constructed. The City's Engineering staff would accept either alternative and has no objection other than it is contrary to the condition on VTM No. 47850 and the City's standards for cul-de- sacs. He stated his understanding that the applicants for this project and for VTM No. 47850 are in agreement with respect to this issue. AP/Searcy, responding to C/Meyer, indicated the residents within a 500 foot radius were notified of this project and public hearing. In response to C/Meyer, CE/Myers stated, there have been no traffic problems in this area. In his opinion, the second alternative presented by the applicant is functional. The road ending could be marked "no -outlet" to avoid inconvenience for drivers unfamiliar with the area. The conditions of approval for this project provide construction "to the satisfaction of the City Engineer". Responding to C/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated the cul-de-sac issue was addressed by the public and City staff during public hearings for VTM No. 47850. The condition was written because no viable alternative had been presented. The residents were opposed to an oversized. area which might attract non-residents using the location for parking and other purposes. Chair/ Flamenbaum proposed the cul-de-sac be placed at the end of Hawkwood Road and that the radius be increased by 10 feet.. CE/Myers responded the applicant is proposing a 20 foot radius and, because he has 60 feet of right-of- way, the radius could be increased by 29 feet. He indicated he would like to see the condition "to the satisfaction of the City Engineer" with the clarification. that it does not have to be to the City's standards. Responding to Chair/ Flamenbaum, CE/Myers stated the cul- de-sac and knuckle roadways are separated by 10 feet of parkway. In response to C/Huff, CE/Myers stated the 20 foot setback begins at the 60 foot limit. In addition, there will be a 12 foot setback from the paving. May 22, 1995 Page 8 Planning Commission Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing re -opened. Wilbur Smith asked where the gate will be placed on Hawkwood Road. He asked if the City intends to -keep the gate locked to through traffic and accommodate only emergency vehicles, to which AP/Searcy responded that was the intent. He wanted to know if a geotechnical evaluation had been completed for this project with respect to its impact on the Las Brisas Condominium complex. He stated he does not feel it is appropriate to approve this project when the City is one week from approving a General Plan. He cited a portion of the General Plan which states that lots should be one acre. He wanted to know why Project 47850 has one acre lots and this project has one-half acre lots, both of which are inconsistent with the General Plan. He requested to know what grading problems will be encountered for this project. Responding to Mr. Smith, CE/Myers stated he has no knowledge of earth movement in the Las Brisas Condominium complex area. This project has preliminary geotechnical analysis and reports which have been reviewed and approved by the City's Consultant Geologist. The preliminary report will be expanded based upon the final proposed grading and construction plans. . In response to Mr. Smith, AP/Searcy stated this project is consistent with the Draft General Plan and conforms to the density allowed by the zoning. Max Maxwell, a Diamond Bar resident, stated he is concerned about the lighting of the cul-de-sac area and its impact on the residences at lower elevations. He suggested a deep bore hole for testing. He requested to know what the tree preservation program will be for this site. He further stated this project should go before the. City Council. He asked if the project is in the SEA 15. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. Lex Williman, responding to Mr. Smith and' Mr. Maxwell, stated the applicant is concerned about additional work in the Hawkwood Road area that might interfere with existing property right-of-ways. He indicated the geologist for this project was the on-site geologist for Las Brisas Condominium complex. The applicant states that he is unaware of any land slippage issues with the Las Brisas condo complex. The report prepared for this project is more detailed than the usual preliminary report because of the geotechnical issues associated with this City. A buttress fill at the base of this project May 22, 1995 Page 9 Planning Commission was created when Las Brisas was built. He indicated at least two deep borings were completed on site and the City's geotechnical consultant reviewed and approved the preliminary report. One, on-site oak tree will be preserved. Because the City felt this project was in close proximity to the SEA 15, this project went before SEATAC for their approval. This project is on the opposite side of the hill from the SEA 15. The drainage basin is away from Tonner Canyon and the storm drain goes toward the Las Brisas complex. This project will .go to City Council for approval. The project proposes to annex to the "The Country Estates". Access will be provided through "The Country Estates". No public access is proposed through Hawkwood Road. The applicant believes he is in conformance with the General Plan and the current zoning. The lots for this site are much bigger and the density is much less than what would be Allowed by the current zoning and the current General Plan. This project attempts to conform to what is consistent with products adjacent to Hawkwood Road and located within "The Country Estates". Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, AP/Searcy stated that both resolutions require the approval of City Council in order for the project to proceed. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, Mr. Williman stated the client read the resolutions. His only concern is with the condition relating to the road. Mr. Williman, responding to VC/Huff, stated the City controls the street lights. There are no street lights proposed for this project. Regarding tennis courts, standard conditions for site development plans states any .lighting must be directed away from adjoining neighbors. The applicant will comply with this condition. AP/Searcy stated the standard condition reads that a minimum of one candle foot five feet from the surface of the tennis court is required. Mr. Williman stated he does not feel the lots are of sufficient size to accommodate tennis courts. CE/Myers indicated the street lighting condition is Engineering Condition #33. It provides only for a street light at the end of Hawkwood Road. There are no conditions for street lighting on Steeplechase Lane. Responding to C/Fong, CE/Myers and the current geological report is preliminary and further studies will be conducted. The report is complete at this point of the project to establish, to a reasonable certainty, that the development, as proposed, can proceed as proposed. In the approval of detailed construction and grading plans, the soils geotechnical engineers will conduct additional studies, if necessary, to make additional May 220 1995 Page 10 Planning Commission Tr recommendations to match the detailed construction plans. C/Fong stated the reports seem to be incomplete with respect s pec , t togeotechnic-dl studies for this project and he agrees with Mr. Maxwell that deep borings were not done for this project. In his opinion, the boring included in the addendum by Crandall is very inadequate. It does not show all of the geologic structure or details required for this type of project. He strongly recommends that detailed deep boring should be required for the City's final plan review for this tract. In addition, there should be more details and analysis to demonstrate the adequacy of the shear key located on the northwest boundary of the Las Brisas development. Any remedial grading stipulated by the City should be self -supported by the development and be supported by any additional investigation. C/Meyer suggested that the "Buyer Awareness Package" should contain the revised building standards presented to the Planning Commission this evening. AP/Searcy agreed the standards should be included and staff could refer to the document during development review. C/Meyer further suggested the applicant's proposal to include gate design standards similar to the existing entry gate to "The Country Estatesti should be included as a condition of approval for the subdivision. He indicated his ' support of the project if the City Engineer is satisfied that the conditions contained in the recommendations will accommodate the additional soils and geological reports needed to be sensitive to potential ground movement. With respect to the cul-de-sac, he favors the alternative design submitted by the applicant. CE/Myers stated Engineering condition #35 and the Tentative Parcel Map provide for the alternative design and, as written, states that it will be constructed "to the satisfaction of the City Engineer". Responding to C/Fong, Mr. Williman stated asphalt is proposed for surface improvement on Hawkwood Road. He indicated he would be concerned about C/Fongs proposal to use Grass -Crete on a 12 percent grade for safety reasons. only 20 feet will be asphalt and the remainder is intended to be green area. The applicant intends to continue the look of "The Country Estates". VC/Huff stated he likes the appliant' s cul-de-sac design. Responding -to VC/Huff, AstP/Lungu stated the minimum setback is 20 feet. The resolution proposes five-foot variations of the setbacks so that no two lots have the same setback. May 22, 1995 Page 11 Planning CommissfbjdfV-' 4 Chair/ Flamenbaum stated he feels the density is too dense even though the proposed General Plan indicates that this is an acceptable density. In principle, the applicant's proposed cul-de-sac design is acceptable. However, he feels the radius should be increased to the satisfaction of the City Engineer to permit access by emergency vehicles. He indicated he supports the City Engineer's proposal that the gate structure should be similar to the current entrance gates to "The Country Estates". The building envelope should be added to the CC&Rls. He indicated he is troubled by the duplications in the resolutions. He proposed that staff be directed to prepare repare resolutions of approval, that the resolutions relate to each other, and duplicate Conditions be eliminated. In addition, both resolutions must be approved simultaneously. He indicated he would like to see one master resolution and one underlying resolution. In his opinion, the geotechnical issues are adequately addressed in the resolutions' requirement for the City to c . reeive final geotechnical reports to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. He stated he has a philosophical problem with conditional requirements that the applicant join "The Country Estates". He further stated he has no disagreement with requiring CC&Rls to be similar to those of "The Country Estates". C/Meyer stated he. has no 'problem with duplicating resolutions since one speaks to a Conditional Use Permit and the other speaks to approval of a Tentative Tract Map. He suggested the Conditions be sequentially numbered. These are recommendations to the City Council. As an option, the Council could choose to deny the subdivision and approve the Conditional use Permit. Therefore, it may be more prudent to have the Conditions spelled out individually. He indicated he agrees with Chair/Flamenbaum that the applicant should not be required to join "The Country Estates". However, the applicant has stated their intention to freely join "The Country Estates" which he feels will be in their best interest. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to adopt the resolution recommending approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 as amended. The motion was approved 5-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong, V C / H u f f Chair/Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS.: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None May 22, 1995 Page 12 Planning 4od on A motion was made by C/Meyer and.seconded by C/Schad.to adopt the Resolution recommending approval of the Hillside Management and Significant Ecological Area -Conditional -Use--Permit--No. -No. -92-1,-- Oak Tree Permit No. 95- 2, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 9-2, as amended. The motion was approved 5-0 with the following roll call: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: NEW BUSINESS - None OLD BUSINESS - None COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Meyer, Schad, Fong, V C / H u f f Chair/Flamenbaum None None None C/Schad stated, for the record, that with respect to the May 8, 1995 Planning Commissionmeetingreference to the Tonner Canyon Wilderness conservancy, his response to VC/Huff should have been that the Conservancy has a set of bylaws, two directors and three officers. VC/Huff recommended that the Commission take local and regional field trips to review sites under development and sites being considered for future development in an effort to recommend improved development. In particular, he indicated he would like to visit the proposed high school site. Chair/ Flamenbaum, suggested the visit could be coordinated with staff's recommendations for access to the site. Chair/ Flamenbaum cautioned the Commission members` that they should not speculate with respect to the cause of the landslide affecting the Morning Sun Avenue residents. He further stated that if the Commissioners are approached by the press they should respond as private citizens and not speak for the City and the Planning Commission. He reminded the Commissioners that any speculation or comment could bring the City into litigation. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, CE/Myers presented the Commission with a schedule of events and occurrences from the onset of the landslide May 19, 1995. He indicated the property owners have had geotechnical engineers on site since early Friday afternoon. As a preventative measure to further damage, earth movement began on Sunday, May 21. Although the property is privately owned., the City continues to monitor the May 22, 1995 Page 13 Planning Commission progress on an ongoing basis. The City of Diamond Bar and Los Angeles County have declared a local state of emergency enabling funding to flow to private property owners to assist in the defraying of costs for remedying the situation. He stated further updates will be forwarded to Commissioners as requested. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Robert Searcy Associate Planner Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: David. G. Liu, Senior Engineer IAI Tseday Aberra, Administrative Assistantl SUBJECT: Neighborhood Traffic Management Study DATE: June 8, 1995 INTRODUCTION: The Neighborhood Traffic Management Study is a response to residents' request to mitigate or resolve various traffic -related problems in the area 'bounded by Pathfinder Road, Diamond Bar Boulevard, and Brea Canyon Road. Instead of addressing each resident's concern on a case-by-case basis, the Traffic and Transportation Commission and the Department of Public Works determined it would be best to address the problems of said area as a whole or in a systematic fashion. The Neighborhood Traffic Management Study was conducted by DKS Associates, the City's Traffic Engineering Services consultant. GOAL: The goal of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Study is (1) to identify traffic -related problems such as cut -through traffic, speeding; and parking, (2) attempt to identify the specific location, nature, and cause of the problems, and (3) to develop a neighborhood traffic management plan to resolve the identified problems in a systematic manner. Goal of the Neighborhood Traffic Management Study will best be accomplished if residents are actively involved in identifying the problems and participating in exploring a resolution. REVIEWING BODY: The Neighborhood Traffic Management Study was reviewed by the Traffic and Transportation commission as well as the Public Works Department staff. STUDY PROCESS: Approximately 592 residents in the study area (area bounded by Pathfinder Road, Diamond Bar Boulevard, and Brea Canyon Road) were sent questionnaires in March and May of 1995. 58 residents responded to the March questionnaire and 38 responded to the May Page Two Neighborhood Traffic June 8, 1995 questionnaire. Two workshops were conducted with residents at the April 14 and June 8, 1995 Traffic and Transportation Commission meetings. The -intent of the first questionnaire was to give residents an opportunity to identify the problems they experience in their neighborhood. The intent of the second questionnaire was to explore the most acceptable and feasible solutions to the problems identified in the first questionnaire. In order of importance, the primary problems residents identified were excessive speeding, school -related traffic, combination of traffic -related noise and parking, cut -through traffic, and truck traffic. The solutions residents proposed to their neighborhood problems were installing stop signs and enforcing the 25 MPH speed limit of residential streets. A concise technical report summarizing data, findings, alternatives considered, and recommendations will be submitted to the Department of Public Works at a later date. DATE: June 8, 1995 TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Dir SUBJECT: REVIEW OF FY 1995-96 CAPITAL IMPROVEME PROGRAM (CIP) FOR CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN PURSUANT TO SECTION 65401 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE California Government Code Section 65401 requires the Planning Commission to review public works projects proposed for the ensuing fiscal year and determine compliance with the City's General Plan prior to the adoption of the CIP Program by the City Council. City staff has prepared the. attached CIP list which briefly outlines each proposed project. The project list includes park improvements and a variety of street improvement projects. The CIP has been developed by the Public Works Department and the Community Services Department reflecting capital improvement needs for . the upcoming year. According to the City Manager's budget message to the City Council, the total CIP appropriation is $5,351,359 for FY 95-96. Funds to support the CIP come from several sources including: General Fund, Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); Gas Tax; Proposition "A" and "C" (transportation); Proposition "A" (parks); Community Development Block Grant (CDBG); Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) grant; .Grand Avenue Traffic Mitigation Fund; Southern California Edison (Rule 20); and Development Impact Fees. The list of CIP projects has been reviewed relative to its conformity with the contemplated General Plan. The draft General Plan, revised May 9, 1995, and currently under study, contains a variety of goal and policy statements. The proposed FY; 95-96 CIP is consistent with numerous Goals, Objectives, and Strategies contained within the Draft (e.g. Circulation Element- Goal 1, Objective 1.2, Strategy 1.2.1 and Goal 3, Objective 3.1, Strategies 3.1.1 and 3.1.3, and 3.1.4; Resource Management Element- Goal 1, Objective 1.3, Strategy 1.3.7; and Land Use Element- Goal 3, Objective 3.2, Strategy 3.2.8, etc.). In addition the CIP is consistent with the "Vision Statement" of the current draft Plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX finding conformity with the contemplated General Plan and recommending City Council Approval of the FY 1995-96 CIP. Attachments:. Planning Commission Resolution JD:ls C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\CIPmemo.95 1 RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65401 PERTAINING TO THE CITY'S PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. A. _Recitals (i) California Government Code Section 65401 requires this Commission to review proposed public works projects for the ensuing fiscal year to determine compliance thereof with the City's General Plat. (ii) The City Manager of the City of Diamond Bar has heretofore prepared a proposed Capital Improvement Program and Budget for the City's 1995-96 Fiscal Year which briefly describes certain public works of improvement proposed to occur during the 1995-96 Fiscal Year.' Said Projects include, but are not limited to, street and highway improvements, traffic signal installations and modifications and park improvements. This commission conducted a duly noticed public meeting on June 12, 1995 on the City of Diamond -Bar Fiscal Year 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program, and the projects contained therein, and concluded said discussions prior to the adoption of this Resolution. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning commission of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: 1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution. 2. The City of Diamond Bar was incorporated on April 18, 1989 and is.proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of a General Plan. 3. Based upon the facts and evidence presented during the public meeting conducted by this Commission regarding the City's Fiscal Year 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program, including oral and documentary evidence provided by City staff, this Commission, in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code Section 65360 and 65361, hereby finds as follows: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the public works projects identified in the City's proposed Fiscal Year 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program will be consistent with the General Plan proposal being considered and studied by the City; (b) There is little or no probability that -the public works projects identified in the City's Fiscal Year 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program will be of substantial detriment to, or interfere with, the proposed General Plan; and (c) The proposed public works projects comply with all other applicable requirements of State law and -local ordinances, regulations and standards. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program as proposed has been determined to be categorically Exempt, pursuant to Section 15301, from the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and; V 5. This Resolution shall serve as the Planning Commission's report to the City Council regarding the conformity of the public works projects proposed in the City's Fiscal Year 1995-96 Program as required by California Government Code Section 65401. 6. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 above, this Planning'Commission hereby approves the 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program as proposed which conforms to Exhibit "All dated June 8, 1995. 7. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify as to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy hereof to the City.Council of the City of Diamond Bar for.use in its deliberations regarding said Budget. ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 12TH DAY *OF JUNE, 1995; BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of.the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of June, 1995, by the following vote to wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: "SENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS: 6CHRD) F: -0A/&) Meye)e VCIHUFFP Cf41F1-AM,51V)6AVM ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary EXHIBIT "AR Capital Improvement Program (FY 1995-96) STREET IMPROVEMENTS 1. Area 6 Slurry Seal 2. Diamond Bar Boulevard: Grand Ave. to SR -60 3. Brea Canyon Blvd: Golden Springs Dr. to Northerly City Limit 4. Sunset Crossing Rd.: Golden springs Dr. to SR -57 5. Pathfinder Rd.: Shaded WoodRd. to Diamond Bar Blvd. June 8, 19915 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Slurry Seal Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Rehabilitation Rehabilitation 6. Sunset Crossing Road: Western Terminus Cul-de-sac 7. Golden Springs Drive/Sylvan Glen Road Drainage System 8. Diamond Bar Boulevard Rule 20A Under - grounding: Temple Avenue to Goldrush Drive TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS 9. SIB Golden Springs Drive/Diamond Bar Boulevard 10. N/B Diamond Bar Boulevard/Pathfinder Road 11. N/B & SIB Brea Canyon Road/Golden Springs Drive Pavement Seepage Utilities Under - grounding Left -Turn Signal Left -Turn Signal Left -Turn Signal 12. N/B & SIB Diamond Bar Blvd./Mt. Laurel Left -Turn Signal way 13. Three (3) Traffic Signals - To be Determined Based on priority list as follows: 1. Diamond Bar Boulevard @ Palomino Drive 2. Diamond Bar Boulevard 9 Goldrush Drive 3. Golden Springs Drive 9 Calbourne Drive 4. Golden Springs Drive 9 Racquet Club Road 5. Sunset Crossing Road 9 SR -57 SIB on/off ramp NOTA: At the intersection of Brea Canyon Cut-off Road and Fallowfield Drive, development occurring in Los Angeles County may requires construction of a traffic signal in the City (50% County and 50% City). This signal project, is programmed for construction by the developer for FY 1995-96. 1 I 'ARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS 14. Pantera Park Completion of Park Development 15. Peterson Park Installation of Ballfield Lights 16. Maple Hill Park Completion of ADA Retro -fit 17. Sycamore Canyon Park Landslide Repair 18. Peterson Park Athletic Field Drainage Correction 19. Sycamore Canyon Park Construction of Picnic Shelter 20. Sycamore Canyon Park Repair of Storm Damaged Creek Bed, 21. Lorbeer Jr. High School Athletic Field Lighting 22. Peterson Park Concession Stand Improvements 23. Sycamore Canyon Park Concession Stand Improvements MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES 24. Sidewalk Improvements as follows: 1. On EIS Diamond Bar Blvd. from Goldrush Dr. to Golden Springs Dr. 2. On EIS Diamond Bar Blvd. from Highland Valley Rd. to Temple Ave. 3. On WIS Diamond Bar Blvd. adjacent to Sycamore Canyon Park 4. On WIS Diamond Bar.Blvd. from Crooked Creek Drive to Cold Spring Lane 25. Diamond Bar Boulevard Park -N -Ride Lot (Northeasterly corner O'/C SR -60 and Diamond Bar Boulevard) -Expand existing lot * Indicates Projects carried over from FY.1994-95 CIP C:\WP60\L1NDAKAY\CIP95_96 2 City of Diamond Bar ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT OF APPEAL: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: BACKGROUND: Staff Report 6.1 June 7, 1995 June 12, 19955 Appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 95-7 A request to appeal Administrative Development No. 95-7 which permits the expansion of the cellar and first floor and adds a second floor to an existing 2,749 square foot single family residence. The expansion of approximately 4,444 square feet, includes a four car garage and exterior remodeling. 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Ron Everett 2618 Rocky Trail Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. R. Sodhi 2619 Rocky Trail Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Pete Volbeda 22640 Golden Springs Drive, Suite #B Diamond Bar, CA 91765 On May 12, 1995 Mr. Ron Everett filed a request for the appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 95-7. The property owner, Mr R. Sodhi, and applicant, Pete Volbeda requested an Administrative Development Review. The Administrative Development Review, pursuant to Code Section 22.72.020.B, requested the approval to expand the cellar and first floor and add a second floor to an existing 2,749 square, foot single family residence. The expansion of approximately 4,444 square feet, includes a four car garage and exterior remodeling. The site is 30,830 gross square feet with 27,330 net square feet. There is a 3,500 square foot private street dedication for Rocky Trail. Road. There are no other easements or building rights restrictions at the site. The project site is located within a "gated" community identified as "The Country Estates" at 2619 Rocky Trail Road (Lot 88 of Tract 30578). The project site is zoned Single Family Residential - Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet (R-1720,000). It has a draft General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR). Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north, south, west and east is the R-1-20,000 Zone. At the April 10, 1995 public hearing Mr. Ronald Everett, the appellant, residing at 2618 Rocky Trail Road, discussed the following concerns: 1. The potentially adverse effects that this expansion will have on the surrounding properties; and 2. That the expansion will conflict with the Housing Element and Resource Management Element of the Draft General Plan. He quoted Goal 3 of the Housing Element stating that "it talks about property values and residents' quality of life". However, the first objective states: Maintain and encourage the improvement of the quality and integrity of existing residential neighborhoods. The Resource Management Element is also quoted by Mr. Everett as "the protection of views for existing development and retaining opportunities for views from dwelling units". However, Section 1.1.7 reads: To the greatest extent possible, require that dwelling units structures and landscaping be sited in a manner which: * Protects views for existing development * Retains opportunities for views from dwellings. This portion of the Resource Management Element does support the maintenance of existing vista to 'the greatest extent possible. Mr Sodhi has satisfied the Los Angeles County Code for height and setback 4 requirements. At the April 10, 1995 public hearing a meeting between the two property owners and Pete Volbeda, the architect on the project, was arranged for April 19, 1995. However, no agreement was made that would satisfy both Mr. Everett and Mr. Sodhi. On April 24, 1995 the public hearing was continued without discussion to April 26, 1995. On April 26, 1.995 the public hearing was again continued without discussion to May 2, 1995. On May 2, 1995 the Community Development Director approved Administrative Development Review No. 95-7. The approval included the following conditions: 1) The tower roof line shall have a pitch of 4:12; 2) The tower roof line shall be consistent with the structure's main roof line in pitch and height; 3) The structure height shall not exceed 27.5 feet above the average finish grade. On May 12, 1995 Mr. Ron Everett filed a request for the appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 95-7. Exhibit "A" reflects what the applicant and owner originally submitted for approval. Therefore, the Conditions of Approval are not incorporated in the attached drawings. ANALYSIS: Administrative Development Review: The purpose of Administrative Development Review is to ensure that development projects comply with all applicable local design guidelines, standards, and ordinances; minimize adverse effects on surrounding properties .and the environment; ensure consistency with the General Plan; and promote high aesthetic and functional standards that will compliment and add to the physical, economic, and social character of Diamond Bar. Pursuant to the requirements of Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990), the purposed project is required to obtain approval for construction through the Administrative. Development Review process. The appellant is concerned that the second floor of the addition will impair his current and potential "sunset" views. Currently, Mr. Everett resides in a single story structure. He is concerned that the addition will obstruct the evening view that exists from his porch and front rooms within the structure. Mr. Everett is also troubled that the proposed second story will inhibit the potential views from a possible second story of his structure. The proposed second floor addition is 1,155 square feet of the 4,444 square foot addition. A field survey has indicated that the view in question will be minimally impaired by the addition of a second floor. The two structure are approximately at the same elevation lccated across Rocky Trail Road. Currently, the view. from the front of the single family residence located at 2618 Rocky Trail Road is impaired by several tall trees. If these trees were removed, the existing structure at 2619 Rocky Trail Road inhibits any view of the topographic features of the canyon below. Therefore, the addition of a second- story will. limit. the_." sunset_'__ views_minimally_(by a few minutes daily).. Project Characteristics: The following is a comparison of required development standards for R-1-20,000 Zone and the proposed project's development standards. City's Development Standards Project's Development Standard 1. Setbacks: Front - 20'; Side - 5'. & 10'; 1. Setbacks: Front - 20'; Side - 10' &.10'; Rear - 15'; Rear - 100'; 2. Height: 35' - 2 stories; 2. Height: 29'-6" - 2 story; 3. Cellar: A floor having more than 3. Cellar: AFG - 996.0; Finish Grade 50 % below. the AFG; 989.0 and 991.0; Ceiling Height 999.0; 7.0' & 5.0' below AFG; 4. Parking: Minimum - 2 covered; 4. Parking: 4 car garage; 5. Pool/Spa: Minimum - 5' set -back from 5. Pool/Spa: None; any lot line; 6. Pool Equipment/AC Unit: 6. Pool Equipment/AC Unit: Minimum 2.5' from any lot AC unit not indicated on the line; site plan; 7. Accessory Structure: 7. Accessory Structures: Not closer than 5' to any lot None. line; The proposed project complies with the City's required development standards for the R-1-20,000 Zone. Architectural approval was obtained from "The Country Estates" homeowners' association. The proposed architectural style is "Mediterranean" and compatible with existing residences within "The Country Estates". The proposed materials and colors. are as follows (see materials board): roof file - "Deleo" - Peach - light terracotta; stucco - "La Habra" - Eggshell #X-73 - off-white; fascia - "Dunn Edwards" - Taffy Crunch Q4 -15D - terracotta; and garage door - "Dunn Edwards" - Bone White #1427 - 4 off-white. .Cellar* The existing single-family structure has a 1,328 square foot cellar. The proposed cellar adds 856 square feet a total of 2,184 square feet. The proposed cellar has a game-roorn, four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a laundry room, and storage area. pursuant to the Los Angeles County Code definitions, in order for a level to be considered a cellar, the portion between the floor and ceiling shall be wholly or partly below the Average Finish Grade (AFG). Z2 Located so the vertical distance from AFG to floor below is I equal to or greater than the vertical distance from AFG to ceiling. Pursuant to Code, the AFG is calculated by averaging the grade at the midpoints of the single family structure -walls. Each mid -point measured is identified on the site plan. This project's calculated* AFG is 996.0. The finish grade of the cellar floor is 989.0 in the game room with a total vertical distance of nine feet. Throughout the remainder of the.cellar the finish grade is 991.0 with a total vertical distance of eight feet. This allows* for a seven foot and five foot vertical distance from AFG to floor, and a two foot and three foot vertical distance from' AFG to ceiling. Therefore, the cellar, as proposed, complies with the Code. Retaining Walls: There is one retaining wall that will be constructed as a part of this project. It is incorporated as a part of the structure located at the southeast end of the cellar. Oak Trees/1-andscgping: There are no oak trees at the project site. Existing landscaping will be destroyed during the site's development. As a result, the applicant is required to submit a landscap irrigation plan for review and approval by the City. - I The proposed quantity of earth movernem, for this project is limited to 25 cubic yards of fill. 7-= E is located west Of the structure, in the rea: -yard and is not beneath the stDaicalre. Building and Safety Division's Review: 0. C�_ The City's Building official conducted a p -t-11 =.-arY revieA'01 L__ protect. -I't. Att-ch March 20, 1995 with the Bu,:11din7 C.:--_,1C:;:1's comments. 5 Conclusion: Administrative Development Review No., 95-7 has been approved by the Community Development Director for a two story addition with a reduced roof line and roof pitch. The purpose of the appeal is to omit the second floor of the addition. Staff has visited the site and has determined that the views from 2618 Rocky Trail Road will be insignificantly altered. The view is primarily "sunset' views and will be reduced a few minutes daily. The appellant will continue to have a viewshed from the rear (east) of his structure. The proposed project, as approved by the Community Development Director, is in conformance with the design standards and guidelines for the City, and has been approved by the Architecture Review Committee of "The Country Estates". PUBLIC HEARING: This item was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune - and the InlandValleyDaily Bulletin on June 2, 1995. Notices were mailed to twenty-two property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site on May 30, 1995. - The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt according to guidelines of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301, Class 1. RECONDUNDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director approve Administrative Development Review No. 95-7, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Planning Intern 1.1 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the Community Development Director's approval. 2. ADR Staff Report dated April 10, 1995. 3. Interoffice Memorandum dated April 19, 1995. 4. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations; sections dated June 12, 1995. 5. Materials board 6. Site photographs 7. Public Hearing Minutes dated April 10, and May 2, 1995. 8. Letter from Mf. Everett dated May 3, and May 11, 1995. C:\WP60\HOLLY\STAFREPT\ADR95-72.APL 7 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 95-71 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - SECTION 15301, CLASS 1, AN APPLICATION TO APPEAL THE EXPANSION OF THE CELLAR AND FIRST FLOOR AND ADD A SECOND FLOOR TO AN EXISTING 2,749 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE EXPANSION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,444 SQUARE FEET, INCLUDES A FOUR CAR GARAGE AND EXTERIOR REMODELING. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 2619 ROCKY TRAIL ROAD (LOT 88 of TRACT 30578). A. Recitals 1. Mr. Ron Everett has filed .an application requesting an appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 95-7 and Categorical Exemption Section 15301, Class 1 located at 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Administrative Development Review application is referred to as the "Application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14 (1989); thereby adopting the Los Angeles County, Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently _applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of.Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action gyrus taken on the subject Application, as to consistency to the' future adopted General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Office of Planning and Research extension granted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65361. 4. On April 10, 1995 the Community Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public 11 hearing on the Application and continued said public hearing to April 24, 1995. On April 24, 1995 the public hearing was continued to April 26, 1995. On April 26, 1995 said public hearing was continued to May 2, 1995. On May 2, 1995 the Community Development Director approved Administrative Development Review No. 55-7. On June 12, 1995 the Planning Commission of, the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on June 2,1995. Thirty- three property owners within a 30'0 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on June 2, 1995. 6. All legal prerequisites of this adoption have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. 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, as amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of Article 19 of Division 13 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The . Planning Commission specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole, including the finding 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 as proposed by the Application, and conditioned for approval herein, will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before the Planning commission, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of regulations. - 2 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission, hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a lot of 30,830 gross square feet (27,330 net square feet) developed with a 2,749 square foot one story single family ,residence with a cellar. The project site is located within a "gated" community identified as "The Country Estates" at 2619 Rocky Trail Road, City of Diamond Bar, California. The project site is within the R-1-20,000 (Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot -Size 20,000 Square Feet) Zone and has a draft General Plan Land Use Designation of RR (Rural Residential). (b) The project involves the expansion of the cellar and first floor and the addition of a second floor to an existing 2,149 square foot single family residence. The expansion of approximately 4,444 square feet, includes a four car garage and exterior remodeling. (c) Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north, south, west, and east is the R-1-20,000 Zone. (d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered. The project site is adequate in size to accommodate the use. (e) This project is in compliance with Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990). (f) Substantial evidence exists, considering the record as a whole, to determine,that the proposed project will not be detrimental to or interfere with the draft General Plan. (g) Approval of this project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (h) Approval of the design and layout of the project will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. (i) The architectural design of this project is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the 3 (j) harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.72 of Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990). The design of this project will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and vis I iting ­ public as well - as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture-, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. (k) The project site is adequately served by Rocky Trail Road -and Wagon Train Lane. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby denies the subject appeal and sustains the action of the Community Development Director subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, grading -plan, landscape/irrigation, plan, floor plan, sections, and elevations, collectively labeled as Exhibit "All dated April 24, 1995 as submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. (b) The subject site shall be maintained in a condition which 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, applican t or by duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City 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) Within 30 days of this grant's approval and before building construction plan check, the applicant shall submit revised plans to the City, for review and approval, indicating the following: 1) The tower roof line shall have a pitch of 4:12; V. 2) The tower roof line shall be consistent with the structure's main roof line in pitch and height; and 3) The structure height shall not exceed 27.5' from the average finish grade. (d) Within 60 days of this grant's approval, the applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation plan to the City for review and approval. (e) Provisions shall be made which collect and convey all drainage to a discharge point, which is approximately within the flood hazard area, at the southwest corner of the project site, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (f) The Applicant shall obtain a final for the permit issued in 1979 for the existing single family structure before the issuance of any City permits for the addition/remodel. (g) The applicant shall comply with Planning and Zoning, Building and Safety, and Engineering requirements. (h) This grant is valid for one (1) year and be exercised (i.e. construction within that period) or this grant shall expire. A one (1) year extension may be requested in writing and submitted to the City 30 days prior to the expiration date of this grant. (i) 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 Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of 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. (j) Notwithstanding any previous subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment therefore shall be made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. 5 The Planning Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to Mr. Ron Everett, 2618 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765, Mr. Pete Volbeda, 22640 Golden Springs Drive, #B, Diamond Bar, CA 91765, and Mr. R. Sodhi, 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DENIED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 1995, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman I, James DeStef ano, Secretary of the Plaaning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting for Administrative Development Review held on the 12th day of June 1995: ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: (COMMISSIONERS:) CAWP60\H0LLY\R.ES0\ADR95-7.APL R ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution denying the appeal and sustaining the Community Development Director's approval. I ADR Staff Report dated April 10, 1995. 3. Interoffice Memorandum datedApril 19, 1995. 4. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations, sections dated June 12, 1995. 5. Materials board 6. Site photographs 7. Public Hearing Minutes dated April 10, and May 2, 1995. 8. Letter from Mr. Everett dated May 3, and May 11, 1995. C:\WP60\HOLLY\STAFREPT\ADR95-72.APL w U-0 04 1191 N-1 1 11A.V4 9 MA M - 13 okyj D1 "i W 04 1 LF4 0 0 W ZIA Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 2 REPORT DATE: March 29, 1995 MEETING DATE: April 10, 1995 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Administrative Development Review No. 95-7 APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to expand the cellar and first floor and add a second floor to an existing 2,749 square foot single family residence. The expansion of approximately 4,444 square feet, includes - a four car garage and exterior remodeling. PROPERTY LOCATION: 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. R. Sodhi 2619 Rocky Trail Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 22640 Golden Springs Drive, Suite #B Diamond Bar, CA 91765 BACKGROUND: The property owner, Mr R. Sodhi, and applicant, Pete Volbeda are requesting an Administrative Development Review. The Administrative Development Review, pursuant to Code Section 22.72.020.B, is a request to obtain approval to expand the cellar and first floor and add a second floor to an existing 2,749 square foot single family residence. The expansion of approximately 4,444 square feet, includes a four car garage and exterior remodeling. The project site is located within a "gated" community identified as "The Country Estates" at 2619 Rocky Trail Road (Lot 88 of Tract 30578). The project site is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum I Lot Size FA 6. Pool Equipment/AC Unit: 6. Pool Equipment/AC Unit: AC Minimum 2.51 from any lot unit not indicated on the line; site plan; 7. Accessory Structure: Not 7. Accessory Structures.: None; closer than 51 to any lot I line; I proposed project complies with the City's required development standards for the R-1-20,000 Zone. Architectural- approval was obtained from "The Country Estates" homeowners' -association. The proposed architectural style is "Mediterranean" and compatible with existing residences within "The Country Estates". The proposed materials and colors are as follows (see materials. board) : roof tile - "Deleoll - Peach - light terracotta; stucco - "La Habra" - Eggshell #X-73 - off-white; fascia - "Dunn Edwards" - Taffy Crunch Q4 -15D - terracotta; and garage door - "Dunn Edwards" - Bone White #427 - off-white. cellar: The existing single family structure has a 1,328 square foot cellar. The proposed cellar adds 856 square feet, a total of 2,184 square feet. The proposed cellar has a 'game room, four bedrooms, three bathrooms, a laundry room, and storage area. Pursuant to the Los Angeles County Code definitions, in order for a level to be considered a cellar, the portion' between the floor and ceiling shall be wholly or partly below the Average Finish Grade (AFG) . Located so the vertical distance from AFG to floor below is equal to or greater than the vertical distance from AFG to ceiling. Pursuant to Code, the AFG is calculated by averaging the grade at the midpoints of the.single family structure walls. Each mid -point measured is identified on the site plan. This project's calculated AFG is 996.0. The finish grade of the cellar floor is 989.0 in the game room with a total vertical distance of nine feet. Throughout the remainder of the cellar the finish grade is 991.0 with a total vertical distance of eight feet. This allows for a seven foot and five foot vertical distance from AFG to floor, and a two foot and three foot vertical distance from AFG to ceiling. Therefore, the cellar, as proposed, complies with the code. Retaining Walls: There is one retaining wall that will be constructed as a part of this project. It is incorporated as a part of the structure located at the southeast end of the cellar. 3 Oak Trees/Landscaping: There are no oak trees at the project site. Existing landscaping will be destroyed during the site's development. As a -result, the applicant is required to submit a landscape/irrigation plan for review and approval by the City. Grading:_ T . he proposed quantity of•earth movement for this project is limited to 25 cubic yards of fill. The fill is located we * st of the structure, in the rear yard and is not directly beneath the structure. Building and Safety Division's Review The City' I s Building official conducted a preliminary review of this project. Attached is a memorandum dated March 20, 1995 with the Building Official's comments. PUBLIC HEARING: This item was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune - and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on March 27, 1995. Notices were mailed to twenty-two property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site on -March 27, 1995. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt according to guidelines of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15301, Class 1. , RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director approve Administrative Development Review No. 95-7, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Prep r H6111 Rider, Planning Intern 4 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Application 3. Exhibit "All - site plan, floor plan, elevations, sections dated April 10, 1995 4. materials board 5. Site photographs 6. Preliminary review comments from Dennis Tarango, Building official dated March 20, 1995. 9 ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. 95-15 A RESOLUTION OF I THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 95-7p AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - SECTION 15301, CLASS 1, AN APPLICATION TO EXPAND THE CELLAR AND FIRST FLOOR AND ADD A SECOND FLOOR TO AN EXISTING 2,749 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE EXPANSION OF APPROXIMATELY 4,444 SQUARE FEET, INCLUDES A FOUR CAR GARAGE AND EXTERIOR REMODELING. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT .2619 ROCKY TRAIL ROAD (LOT 88 of TRACT 30578). A.- Recitals 1. The property owners, Mr. R. Sodhi and applicant, 'Pete Volbeda, have filed an application for Administrative Development Review No. 95-7 to expand the cellar and first floor and add a second floor to an existing 2,749 square foot single family residence. The expansion of approximat ely 4,444 square 'feet, includes a -four car garage and exterior remodeling. The project' site is located at 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Administrative Development Review application is referred to as the ".Application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization of the State of California. on said date, pursuant to the ' requirements' of the California Government Code .Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its ordinance No. 14 (1989), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond ' Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the county of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. The ci-L%--y of Diamond Sar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject Application, as to consistency 'Co the future adopted General Plan, pursuant to the 4C-er-ras and provisions or the office of Planning and Resea-rch extension granted pursuant to Calif-c--n-ia Governnen Code Section 65361. 1 4. On April 10, 1995 the community Development Director of the city of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application and continued said public hearing to April 24, 1995. On April 24, 1995 the public hearing was continued to April '26, 1995. On April 26, 1995 said public hearing was continued to May 2, 1995. 5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on March 27,1995. Twenty-two property owners within a 300 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on March 27, 1995: B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Community Development Director of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Community Development Director hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Community Development Director hereby determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301, Class 1 of Article 19 of Division 13 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The Community Development Director specifically finds' and determines that, having considered the record as a whole, including the finding 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 Community Development Director that the project as proposed by the Application, and conditioned for approval herein, will have the potential of an adverse effect on -wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before the Community Development Director, the Community Development Director hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (a) of Title 14 of the California Code of regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Com_�un_JtCy Develop -Ment Director, hereby finds as follows: ON (a) The project relates to a lot of 30,830 gross square feet (27,330 net square feet) developed with a 2,749 square foot one story single family residence with a cellar. The project site is located within a "gated" community identified as "The Country Estates" at 2619 Rocky Trail Road, City of Diamond Bar, California. The project site is within the R-1-20,000 (Single . Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet) Zone and has a draft General Plan Land Use Designation of RR (Rural Residential). (b) The project involves the expansion of the cellar and first floor and the addition of a second floor to an existing 2,749 square foot single family residence. The expansion of approximately 4,444 square feet, includes a four car garage and exterior remodeling. (c) Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north, south, west, and east is the R-1-20,000 Zone. (d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered. The project site is adequate in size to accommodate the use. (e) This project is in - compliance with Development Review ordinance No. 5 (1990). (f) Substantial evidence exists, considering the record as a whole, to determine that the proposed project will not be detrimental to or interfere with the draft General Plan. (g) Approval of this project will not be detrimental .-to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially - injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (h) Approval of the design and layout - of the project will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. (i) The architectural desig-, of this project is compatible kith the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will -maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter, 22.72 of Development Review Ordinance No. 5 3 (j) The design of this project 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 and will. retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. (k) The project site is adequately served by Rocky Trail Road and Wagon Train Lane. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Community Development Director hereby approves this Application subject to thd following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, grading plan, landscape/irrigation plan, floor plan, sections, and elevations, collectively labeled as Exhibit "All dated April 24, 1995 as submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director. (b) The subject site .shall be maintained in a condition which 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 to provide collection, transportationt 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) Within 30 days of this grant's approval and before building construction plan check, the applicant shall submit revised plans to the City, for review and approval, indicating the following: 1) The "Cower roof line shall have a pitch of 4:12 pitch; 2) The tower roof line shall be consistent with the structure's main roof line in pitch and height; and 3) The structure height shall not exceed 27.5.' from the average finish grade. 51 (d) ' Within 60 days of this grant's approval, the applicant shall submit a, landscape and irrigation plan to the city for review and approval. (e) Provisions shall be made which collect and convey all drainage to a discharge point, which is approximately within the flood hazard area, at the southwest corner of the project site, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (f) The Applicant shall obtain a final for the permit issued in 1979 for the existing single family structure before the issuance of any City permits for the addition/remodel. g) The "applicant shall comply with Planning and Zoning, Building and safety, and Engineering requirements. (h) This grant is valid for one (1) year and be exercised (i.e. construction within that period) . or this grant shall expire. A one (1) year extension may be . requested in writing and submitted to the City 30 days prior to the expiration date of this grant. (i) This grant shall ,not be effective for any purpose until the per-nittee 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 Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permit -tee . pays remaining city processing fees. (j) Notwithstanding any previous subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to 'Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment therefore shall be made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. The Community Development Director shall; (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified nail to Mr. SOdhi, 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Die- ..d Bar, C= 91765 and A Pete Volbeda, 22640 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 1995, BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. I, James DeStef ano, Community -Development Director -of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby' certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting for Administrative DevelopmeA Review held on the 2nd day of May 1995: BY: Jain estef ano, c mmunity Development Director c:\N,?60 j-'0LLYUZF_S0\ADR95-7.RES R CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 Fax (714)860-3117 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Record Owner(s) Applicant Case/ 7 / r,,cV- 9 Recvd Fee $ JJ00 Receipt_Lf By Applicant's Agent Name MR. R. SODHI SAME PETE VOLBEDA-ARCHITECT (Last name first) Address 2619 ROCKY TRAIL RD. AS OWNER 22640 GOIDEN SPRINGS DR. #B DIAMND , CA 91765 City—DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 OBAR Zip (Attach separate sheet if, necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations) CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this request Signed —Date 9 S, (All recorded owners) Certification 1, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name: Signed— or (AppLicint or Agent) Location 2619 ROCKY TRAIL, RD. - DIAMOND BAR, CA (street address or tract and Lot nuTber) Zoning R-1 HNH Previous Cases EXISTING RESIDENCES Present Use pf Site EXISTING RESIDENCE Use applied for ADDITION TO RESIDENCE Date LEGAL DESCRIPTION (all ownership comprising the proposed lot(s)/parcel(s) Area devoted to structures 4,033 S.F. Landscaping/open space 23,292,S.F. Proposed density 1 ACRE (Units/Acres) .Style of Architecture SPANISH 3 4:12 & 5:12 Number of Floors Provosed Slope of R. f F3 01PE FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Holly Ride -r Dennis A. March 20, 199 gvp• �" "Nim"I Intern 0, Building Official 2619 Rocky Trail (ADR 95-007) Per your request, the Building Division has reviewed the subject plans and is making the following recommendations: 1. The addition of 1,575 sq. ft. to the first floor bring the total first floor to 3,000 sq. ft. which requires two(2) exits per 1991 U.B.C. It appears that the second exit will be from the new deck. Show stairway. 2. Cross section "C" on page 9 should show bathroom #2.. 3. Per Building Code, the proposed residence is a three (3) story structure. 4. The single family structure shall meet the 1991 U.B.C., U.P.C., U.M.C. and the 1990 National Electric code requirements 5. The minimum design wind pressure are: 80 miles per hour & exposure.. 6. This single family home is located in "Fire Zone 411 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. .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. 7. This *residence shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards. 8. Check drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Water must drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope. - nlo=Cn elnntAnt me. if vou have any questions. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: James DeStefano, Community Development Director FROM: Holly Rider, Planning Intern SUBJECT: Administrative Development Review No. 95-7 located at 2619 Rocky Trail Road DATE: April 19, 1995 The Above mentioned project was on the April 10, 1995 Administrative Development Review Agenda. At that time, the public hearing for this project was continued to April 24, 1995 to allow the property owner to meet with an opposing neighbor. At the April 10, 1995 public hearing Mr. Ronald Everett, .a neighb or residing at 2618 Rocky Trail Road, discussed the following concerns: 1. ' The potentially adverse effects that this expansion will have on the surrounding properties; and 2. That the. expansion will conflict with the Housing Element and Resource Management Element of -the Draft General Plan. He quotes Goal 3 of the Housing Element stating• that "it talks about property values and residents' quality of life". However, the first objective states: Maintain and encourage the improvement of the quality and integrity'of existing residential neighborhoods. The Resource Management Element is also quoted by Mr. Everett as "the protection of views for existing development and retaining opportunities for views from dwelling units". However, Section 1.1.7 reads: To the greatest extent possible, require that dwelling units structures and landscaping be sited in a manner which: * Protects views for existing.development * Retains opportunities -for views from dwellings. This Portion of the Resource Management Element does support the maintenance of existing vista to the greatest extent possible. Mr Sodhi has satisfied the Los Angeles County Code for height and setback requirements. A meeting between the two property owners and Pete Volbeda, the architect on the project, followed the April 1.0, 1995 public hearing on April 19, 1995. This meeting did not seem to alter either the applicant or his neighbor's stand on the issue. The neighbor is concerned that the second floor of the addition will impair his current views. The proposed second floor addition, is 1,155 square feet of the 4,444 square foot addition. The applicant and architect have determined that the slope will not permit more square footage than has been proposed to the cellar andfirst floor. Therefore, to add the desired master bedroom a second floor is required. A field survey has indicated that the view in question will be minimally impaired by the addition of ' a second floor. Currently, the view from the front of the house located at 2618 Rocky Trail Road is impaired by several tall trees. If ' these trees were removed, the existing structure at 2619. Rocky Trail Road blocks the view of the topographic features of the canyon below. The addition of a second floor limits the Viewer minimally. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Community Development Director approve Administrative Development Review No. 95-7, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Attachments: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Staff Report dated March 29, 1995 for hearing 3. original plans (site plan, floor plan, submitted with the application 4. Draft minutes from the April 10, Development Review public hearing 5. Memorandum from the Building official April 10, 1995 public elevations, sections) 1995 Administrative dated March 20, 1995 imp MR.. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APRIL 10, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Community Development Director James DeStef ano called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. nti'JL CALL Present: community Development Director James DeS4%---efanot Assistant Planner Ann tungu and Associate Planner Rob Searcy. PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Administrative Development Review No. 95-12 is a request to construct a new entry (vestibule) to an existing restaurant Of approximately 3,863 square feet. Additionally, this request includes the existing entry's demolition, the addition of 65 square feet, remodel existing restrooms and . changing the restaurant's exterior color. Property Location: 21130 E. Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar , av Property owner: Joseph Christopher Tambe, 20303 East Holt Avenue, Covina 91724 Applicant: Carrows Restaurants, Inc., -18831 Von Barman, Irvine n reported that Carrows Restaurants, Inc. complies AstP/Lu gu rep t. with all of the City's development standards. -Parking is not a problem, since the restaurant is not adding seating. In addition, there is currently sufficient parking for the 'L occupancy. However/ it- is apparent the site needs some upgrades such as repair of the parking lot surface, restriping of the parking stalls, repair of the trash enclosure, addition of a recycling bin, and addition of screening for mechanical equipment. staff recon -mends that these upgrades be a condition of approval. Staff further recommends that the Community Development Director approve Administrative Development Review No. 95-12, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed in the resolution. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing open. Jeffery Clark, Family Restaurants, it'_ne appi-,--ant-'s agent the staff repor_4�;_- a stated he had read . ed an error on the .1 e a_C_liC=­-n He noted %_ has been co—z'_zu. the property owner Which- 11 ADR Page 2 April 10, 199 CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing closed. CDD/Destefano stated he has reviewed the drawings, staff report and conditions and agree with observations made by members of the staff and the conditions that have been imposed upon the project.. He indicated he feels it is a nice remodeling and will add a lot to the character of the immediate area and hopes it will persuade , other business owners in the area to remodel some of their aging structures. He approved Administrative Development Review No. 95-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed in the resolution with the modification to the listing of the property owner. He advised the applicant that there is a filing fee that must be provided to the City . within 24 hours. 2. Administrative Development Review No. 95-7. A request to, expand the cellar and first floor and add a second floor to an existing 2,749 'Square foot single family residence.. The expansion of approximately 4,444 square feet includes a four car garage and exterior remodeling. Project Location: 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar. Property owner: Mr. R. Sodhi, 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar. .Applicant: Pete Volbeda, 22640 Golden,springs Drive, Suite -OB, Diamond Bar. Ir 1. Astp/Luncfu stated ADR 95 -7 is a request to obtain approval to expand the cellar and first floor and add a second floor to an existing 2,749 square foot single family residence. The ely 4,444 square feet, includes a four expansion of approximately 7 - car garage and exterior remodeling. The project com-Dlies with all of the city's development standards and has obtained approval from "The Country Estates" homeowners association. The pro -Dosed cellar is 50% or-m,.:r,- below the average finished grade' which complies Wi1C.'r) the -City's Code. 0-.r.e retaining wall, which is part oz� structure, will be constructed. ' - There are no oak trees c. -i the site. Lands --;::: r,9 °gill be it, a landscaping plan ant- irrigation_destroyed. As a result, I %- r date. The plan should be submitted to the city at a late_ proposed grading involves 25 cubic yards of fill dirl-• The -L L Is reviewed this The City's Building Depa --- e- ; - the st-a-c-f report. Th e preliminary review is _cached to L =I, - present structure was h-11314-- in compliance- w1 -%*-"h T.rs f r;='I le rt n07 County codes. However, 4, ---he building permil- April lot 1995 Page 3 ADR and the applicant needs to obtain the f inal permit before proceeding with the proposed addition. Staff recommends that Administrative Development- Review No 95-7 be approved with Findings of Fact,. and . conditions as listed within the resolution. CDDJ . Destef ano declared the public hearing open. He asked if the applicant has any questionsabout the staff report, the proposed conditions of approval or any aspect of the project. Mr. Volbeda indicated the only problem. anticipated' is obtaining the final permit prior to any other permits being issued. If the requirement for final is based upon a visual inspection, there would not be a problem. . However, if the requirement includes plan check and plan check fee, it would be more efficient to combine this requirement with a permit. for construction. Ronald Everett, 1 2618 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar, stated he ria objects to the project for two reasons.. First, this expansion in his has a major effect on the surrounding properties and, opinion the request is in conflict with the Resource the Geral Plan. He referred to the General Management Element of , first two bullets under Strategy - 1.1.6 or 1.1.7, Page ent an111-9d for existing developm that states protection of views second opportunities for views from dwellings. The sec retaining of objection is based upon the. Housing Element of the area General Plan, Goal 3 which talks about property values and quality of life -He further stated he purchased of these aspects, as well as the his home considering all his TADCO. Today his specific objections and promotion of opposition are based upon these two elements of the General has Plan. He continued that his westerly view, which he this enjoyed for many years, will be severely impacted by his view from his second project as proposed and neighbor's destroyed. What is essentially a third story story will be addition will negatively impact his and his• adjacent neighbor's view and is not justified. In order to maintain the in the General .L. integrity of Diamond Bar, presentation ,..he :-: - views, the other promotion for pro'�ect-- �)n of Plan an�d, all of ze 0-1-2 opportunities, maintenance f view o retention 0 pportun Communi-4%--y Deve1opment property values, he reaues ted that the A dm.i-,)istrative Development 95-7 Director disapprove presented. -Irie stated he is respec`----full-,r making as currently " this request on behalf o= himself and his ne-igzor, v,2628 Rocky TraiRoad oad, Dianonf' Bar. rs. Mal April 10, 1995 Page 4 ADR Responding to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Everett stated he looked at the drawings for the proposed site. -However, he has not discussed his concerns regarding the project with the architect or the property owner. In response to Mr. Everett/ Mr. Volbeda stated the application for the maximum height of the permitted residence is 35 feet. The applicant will be building to 29 feet 6 inches which will be 5 feet 6 inches below the permitted height. He stated he has worked on other residences in "The Country Estates" which are usually built to a height of 35 feet. In this instance, the project is quite .a bit below the acceptable height in "The d Country Estates". In addition, there is a 28 foot fron yar-L setback which is larger than the minimum. required on one site. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing closed. Responding to CDD/DeStefanOY AstPJLungu stated that the applicant is expanding the current existing cellar. The average finished grade 'is calculated by taking the elevation of each of the walls at their center point, adding then together and dividing by the number of readings taken. In order for a floor to be considered a cellar which is allowed by the Code, 50 percent or more of the distance between the ceiling and the floor must be below the average finished grade. The average finished grade for this cellar is 989. The finished grade is 991 with a total vertical distance of eight feetother allows for seven feet in one area and feet in an area of the . e cellar to be below the average finished grade. CDD/De-Stefano proposed that, with regard to this application, the architect -and/or property owner respond to some of the building and safety requirements with respect to the need for L the second exit and meet ,- with . the adjacent property owner 4o review the drawings further and determine whether or not there is any point at which both parties night agree. He proposed .L o two weeks for the discussion review. He - continued, the item C Monday, April 24 at 6:00 -,,.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. He stated this project would be the first- -agenda item. 11. 3. Administrative Development Review No. 95-8, 9, io and request to construct =cur new two story proposed with:- the Crystal- -_,�Iidae rr-c2ect- 10 c;z residences - , - j within "The Country Eszat=s"- April lot 1995 Page. 5 ADR Applicant/owner: Diamond Bar East Partners, 3480 Torrance Boulevard ff-2300, Torrance, CA 90503 Administrative * Development Review 95-8 is a 7500 square foot home proposed on Lot No. 3 of Tract 47851. AP/Searcy reported that Lot No. 3 'is. a 1.86 acre lot located in the northern portion of the subdivision just *inside the entrance_ to the site. As an interior lot within the development, the topography of the lot is relatively f lat with .2% slopes at the rear and the standard 2 to I slopes around the perimeter of the pad. The proposed iDroject is a two story 7, 663 square foot Mediterranean house designed with a four car garage. .-The interior floor* plan features a living room, rumpus room, kitchen, dining room, two bedrooms and a library. The upper floor includes six bedrooms including the master bedroom suite. I The exterior of the project is designed with a'Glacier White stucco and a Bala White trim with Sandstone wood .finish on the exterior garage doors and Milky- Way White - Fill balustrades and columns. The roof is a 6 and 12 pitch and will feature a Terra Cotta Gold concrete the which is light orange in color. There are also 12 inch precast columns with Corinthian details at the front. The applicant has provided in excess of 10 and 15 mini -mum setbacks for the project. The north side will provide an 11 foot setback from the slope and 40 feet from the southern slope. The area of the residence will be located 50 f eet from the rear slope area. This project has I s been determined to be.Categorically Exempt L under CEQA Section 15303 which is a new home of less than the required nupber for another type Of environmental determination. Staff recommends that the community Development Director approve Administrative Development Review No. 95-8, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within,the resolution. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing open. Richard Gould, Diamond Bar East Partners, 3480 Torrance Boulevard 7300, Torrance, stated he read and concurs with zn=- 'ion. With respeciz to the 90 daJ? conditions with one except implementation of landscaping, he asked that U -11--s be revised to 120 -days so the owner has time to work with t -he landscape architect to get the plans approved by the. C_Jk­Y, 'nave to hire a contractor and get the landscaping page ADR April 10# 1995 CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing closed. CDD/DeS-tef ano stated he is not .opposed -to extending the He approved landscaping implementation time to 120 days. Administrative Development Review No. 95-8 with the Findings of Fact - and conditions as listed and the modification to Condition 15 changing the work implementation from 90 days. to 120 days for final inspection. No. 9 is a 7'271 Administrative DeveloNmoen22 omevie7, 27 1 square foot T home proposed on Loof Tract 47851. Property Address: 2873 Woodbridge Court, Diamond Bar. AP/Searcy reported that this residence is proposed to be constructed on a 24,500 square foot lot which is one of the smallest in the tract. The lot is accorded some flexibility in the strict compliance with the development standards related to the lo6ation of the residence on the pad'. The physical formation of the site does not exhibit extensive 2 to 1 slopes and is required, therefore, to maintain the setback than the slope. The proposed rather t .from the property line *square feet in size and the project is approximately 7,442 design is - consistent with the previous application in the area of this 'home. The first floor of this residence is designed with the kitchen, dining room, nook, family room, bedroom, maids quarters and garage. The second, floor exhibits the master bedroom With a steam room and sauna adjacent to the maids quarters. The second floor is also designed with amenities for the master bedroom including a balcony and large walk-in bathroom and walk-in closet.' The exterior of the residence is proposed with a Glacier White stucco with White Quartz and Chalky white trim around the windows. The facade L t of the residence will exhibit extensive use of one in the front portion and a wrap stone on some pork' -ions of a colt= ­ to the side. The columns supporting the front entrance. are designed to match the primary exterior colors and materials. The roof is designed at a 5 and 1 12 pitch which will, be constructed with a dark gray to match the platinl= g' -'ay '-he garage doors. Although "Che lot . is one of the sma-Iller in the tract, it is primarily flat and will exhibit sethacks which J_ inch setback. Fa recommended include a 9 foot and a 2 * 2 , foot 6 least a the footprin-IC to at that the applicant shift k_ -7 side 10 foot minimum side yard setback on the inter_=_ slue. front yard requires a 25 f_cot setback. The OPOS` o rd has a 50 foot­ ack. The _r -=7-r yard a 35 fool setb property line. The height- of the residence is '-:-z feet and it April 10, 1995 Page 7 ADR provides for covered parking. The environmental determination for this project is Categorically Exempt, pursuant to CEQk Section 15303. staff recommends that the applicant relocate the footprint of the structure. at least a minimum of one foot to the south. Mr. Gould requested 120 days for landscaping implementation for this project. He indicated he read staff's report and concurs with the conditions. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Gould stated he did not believe this site is part of the proposed lot line adjustment. AP/Searcy stated that this lot is located at the mid Dor--ic" t - of the tract and will provide one o -F the bet-er views inli__o Tonner Canyon. The site Is One of the shorter to s wizn 0-= of the shorter side yards, 172 feet in length. S na 1 i p o rC. i o n s are of the site on the north. and southeastern elev•tions 1-o 1 downslope. The rema4-der of the constructed with a 2 %_ - L. - site is developable and contains ' no restrict Lons. T-:= proposed residence is an.:;roxint ately 7, 1,04 SUU,=-= i. -I si Z= CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing open and seeing no one who wished to speaki he declared the public hearing closed. CDD/DeStefano stated this project is beginning to reflect more of the comments that he outlined previously. He indicated he likes the way this house mass is broken on two major sides :;N3 that will be viewed by the public. He also indicated he likes the way the driveway -is put up against the J small slope bank where the garage is located. The project will ultimately have varying setbacks from the front. This is the first rst house presented to the city with a 35 foot setback when the minimum . is 25 feet. He stated he expe cts to see more similar setbacks as the streetscape is varied. With respect to the issues discussed for the last project, this project neets those issues. With that, he took action to approve Administrative Development Review No. 95-9 with the Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the staff report with the exception of Condition 7-15 regarding the submittal of a landscaping irrigation plan and its incorporation from go days to 120 days. Administrative Development Review No. 95-10, is'a 6,600 square foot home at 2839 Bent -ley Way, Lot 28, Tract 47851. AP/Searcy stated that this lot is located at the mid Dor--ic" t - of the tract and will provide one o -F the bet-er views inli__o Tonner Canyon. The site Is One of the shorter to s wizn 0-= of the shorter side yards, 172 feet in length. S na 1 i p o rC. i o n s are of the site on the north. and southeastern elev•tions 1-o 1 downslope. The rema4-der of the constructed with a 2 %_ - L. - site is developable and contains ' no restrict Lons. T-:= proposed residence is an.:;roxint ately 7, 1,04 SUU,=-= i. -I si Z= April 101 1995 Page 8 ADR The footprint is approximately 4,F400 'square feet in size. Upon entry into the residence, one is met by the , library, quest room and family room to the left. Straight ahead is the great room . and to the right is the kitchen morning room and dining room. A two car garage is designed on either side of the entrance to the residence. Thi garage to the right of the front entrance is connected to' Ththe residence and provides into the house. e garage to the left of the access directly front entrance is connected to the house via a covered portico. The -second f loor is dominated by the master bedroom and balcony. The master bedroom features a walk-in closet in the ante room followed by the master bath. The master bedroom also has an exercise room designed on the far side of the bath area. There are two additional bedrooms located on the second floor adjacent to the bonus room. The exterior of the project features a Pink Hist 'stucco with light pink Peach Hist trim on the facia and wood trim. Sedona, a dark peach, will be placed on the wood trim around the garage and exterior doors. Terra Cotta Gold will be incorporated into the rooftop material extensive use Of structural The house exhibits Cructural pop outs and architectural features and trim to reduce the mass and add character to the design. Setbacks for this project are 11 and 20 feet on the side yards, 25 feet onthe front yard and 39 feet on the rear yard. The house is 35 feet in height, features two stories and provides for covered parking. This project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA Section 15303. Staff recommends that the community Development director approve Administrative Development Review No. 95-10, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the resolution. Mr. . Gould stated he read the staff report and concurs with the conditions. He further stated that "The Country Est-a-'Cesll homeowners association has approved this project as submitted. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, AP/Searcy stated the City's Engineering Department determined that the access is private and , dedicated and they have no comment regarding the application other than that the owner will be liable for any type of action that may occur as a -result of the construction. CDD/ . DeStefano declared the public hearing open and se.eing no one who wished to speak, he closed the public hearing. QDD/DeStefano stated he reviewed the drawings and , report and visited the see. His 0:111Y a_-aestic is regard He stat -ed. he wants t_o he assurez the primary color of P . - home will be colo--ized using the coio--:--- renreser�=_ that the h I April lot 1995 Page 9 ADR xa on the chip board. CDD/DeStefano declared Administrative Development Review No. 95-10 approved with the Findings of Facts and conditions as listed with the change to Condition 95 of 90 days to 120 days for implementation of landscaping. Administrative Development Review No. 95-11, for a 5,200 square foot home at 2831 Be . ntley Way, Lot No. 30 of Tract 47851. AP/ Searcy stated that Lot No. 30 is located Bentley Way on the interior portion of this street approximately at mid-block. The site is approximately 1/2 acre in . size and it is one of the shorter lots with the shortest side.yard length of 125.25 feet in length. Small portions of the site on the north and southeast elevations exhibit a 2. to 1 slope to the adjacent pada The remainder of the site is developable, and contains no restrictions. The residence as proposed has a footprint of 3,869-square feet and a total habitable area of 5,750 square feet. The architecture is modern Mediterranean. The first floor exhibits a garage, rumpus room, maids room, library, living room, kitchen, nook alcove anddiningroom. The second floor exhibits the master bedroom and balcony with walk-in closet. There are three additional bedrooms with - two balconies on the second floor. The exterior design features three arched entry windows above the door. The master bedroom and guest bedroom on the second floor provide balconies onto the front elevation. Additionally, there are white concrete balustrades around the balcony area. The exterior finish is taupe with a bone colored trim over the fascia, the window molding and trim. The exterior finish on the doors is proposed as a bone white. The applicant has incorporated an ample amount of stone on the front elevation in addition to four precast columns at the entrance. Lompoc brown concrete roof tiles are proposed for the roof. The application provides a 20 foot and a 23 foot respective side yard setbacks and concursw! 'th the 25 -foot minimum front yard setback. It %_ . provides a 39 foot rear setback. The house is two stories with a 34 foot Overall height and three covered parking spaces. The environment-al assessment is Categorically I Exem-'O-c under CEQA Section 15303(a). ed the public asked i. CDD,/DeStefano declared the II hearing open the applicant has any cruest ions or co=ents w--t'h s--== Richard Gould stated he has read and concurs pro-cosp-S a report and conditions. He noted that turn-in garage wnIch a-_�'-_4s a varia_ April 10, 1995 Page 10 setbacks. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing closed. ADR CDD/DeStefano indicated he noted the variation in the front yard setback stating the garage is setbacke 25 feet and 20 feet -on the side. The rest of the home is 50 plus foot from the front property line which will add to the streetscape. The architecture, materialsdesign is consistent with the theme of the tract and consistent with the character of the. neighborhood and "The Country Estates". CDD/DeStef ano, stated the Administrative Development Review No 95-10 is approved subject L. to the Findings of Fact and conditions as listed in the staff report and the change to Condition 15 from go days to .120 days for implementation of landscaping. He commented that this group of four homes was overall a much better presentation anresponse to concerns with the previous group of four new hodmes. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business*tO conduct, CDD/DeStefano adjourned the public hearing at 7:03 p.m. to April 24, 1995. Respectively.,,espectively- a s DeStefanC� Lm Community Deve - ent Director- E�; MINUTES OF CALL TO ORDER CITY OF DIAMOND THE ADMINISTRATIVE MAY 21 1995 Bilft DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Community Development Director James DeStefano called the neeting to order at 5:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 21660 E. Copley Drive, -A-ite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765. , - J ROLL CALL Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano, and . Assistant Planner Ann Lungu- CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Administrative Development Review NO. 95-7. (Continued from April 24 and April 2 6) A request* to expand. the cellar and first floor and add a second floor to an existing 2,749 square foot single family residence. The expansion of approximately 4,444 square feet includes a four . car garage and exterior remodeling. Project Location: 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond tar. Property owner: Mr. R. Sodhi, 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar. Applicant: Pete Volbeda, 2264 . 0 Golden Springs Drive, Suite --�B, Diamond Bar. 3r AstP/Lungu stated that Ronald Everett, 2618 Rocky Trail, neighbor to the project, objected to the addition as it was designed because he is concerned about the addition blocking his view. The continuation was for the purpose of allowing Mr. Everett, the applicant and the property owner time to meet to see if they could come to a satisfactory resolution. in the meantime, staff revisited the site. Staff feels that Mr. Everett's vision would be minimally impaired because 6- .th ere are tree's on the property that currently block his view. if the trees were cut down, the proposed addition would block hi %5 view to some degree. Staff reco=ends the add- -ion he approved as shown on the drawings. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing reopened and requested to knowthe ou"C-come of the res"Cin= bet -ween YZ Everett and the property caner and applicant. Mrvoibede stated th�- in viewzrg May 2, 1995 Page 2 ADR determined that Mr. Everett's property was located behind trees. They met with Mr. Everett on April 19 at 9:.00 p.m. Mr. Volbeda stated both houses are level on the street. Mr. Everett has windows on the street side and the views are mostly obscured by the trees. Mr. Everett voiced his concern that if he were �to build a s * econd story,' the applicant's second story would block his view. The applicant feels that if Mr. Everett builds a second story it will his view so it's a trade-off. Mr. Volbeda further stated that the allowable height limit from average finished grade is actually 35 feet. The property *owner is proposing 29 1/2 feet, limiting the height in comparison to other projects in the City. Ronald Everett 2618 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar,'stated he depended on the city to keep things in order in the He is convinced that there infrastructure of Diamond Bar. should be a clarifying distinction between new development and re -development, more specifically, remodeling, expansion, etc. The rules and implementation seems to be changing to where the proposed project is going to damage his quality of life and negatively impact him financially. He further stated that he considered three questions that he believes are relevant to the weighting of each side: What is fair, reasonable and necessary; what is a reasonable expectation of and for residents; and what is a reasonable interpretation of thele -IT applicable rules or guidelines? A two ' story at 2619 Roc.._, Trail Road is and has been vacant. He would like to see it occupied. .The two story house was built including a ground level of a master bedroom suite, -family- bedroom wi-'%--h fireplaces, an additional bedroom, an office and exercise room and laundry. The top level includes a kitchen, dining room, it living room, two additional bedrooms and a bath. No cellar was referenced or included. The proposed remodel and expansion called ADR No. 95-7 to expand the first story to 2,184 square feet and the second story (street level) to over 3, 000 square feet for a total of around 5,100 to 6,000 square feet is fair, reasonable and to be expected. However, referring to the Planning Intern's report; to -,"-he Con-mun-i-;1--y Development Director, dated April 19, 1995, the -first issue is with regard to what is cruoted as a desired master bedroom C- 1,-155 square feet recruires an additional floor. In - opinion, this is not the only alternative. It. is r! o reasonable and really does not fit the integrity Of the General Plan as he previously stated on April 10, 1995. example, the referenced slope in the --rear o -F the Proper Y to 12 feet-) to an exiisIting lower level pad offers sc alternatives. In a -= U addition, J on, a true an*,-"� c. more traditana- Page 3 ADR .L4 May 21 1995rq option is that a cellar could be considered or, the nearly 6,000 square feet could be reconfigured. He indicated there may be other alternatives that could be considered at this design stage. He stated his second issue is the hedge and the existing trees across the front of his property have been incorrectly portrayed. The top of the hedge parallels the current subject property's primary roof line. Even before the Spring cutting, his property offers a complete, beautiful sunset view from the front porch, entry, living room, dining room and kitchen. The proposed third story master bedroom height will leave only a sky view and essentially eliminate the sunset view. The trees referred to in the report are deciduous offering a planned, desirable and unobstructed view from Fall through Winter into Spring for the best sunsets just described above. The developing western ridge view he expected to obtain by his second floor expansion would be obstructed by the proposed third story master bedroom. Contrary to the report, he stated he believes it is not quite true that the view in question is minimally impaired. The proposed addition of another floor does limit the ridge views significantly. The last item on the report discusses a view res of the canyon below. He indicated of the topographic features there is no such view from his property. It has not. existed, nor does it potentially exist. That is not an, issue. In summary, he stated he believes that redefining the ground level f loor to a cellar is unrealistic and unexpected, and exploits the technicalities at the expense of the project's neighbors. Additionally, it is further exposing the integrity of biamond Bar J . n the documented General Plan-. in his opinion, the momentum of "cellar" has gone' -far beyond the L .original intent. The City of Diamond Bar has a chance to rein in and get on track with thoughtful and well planned redevelopment for ,the benefit of all Diamond Ba--r-residents. Therefore, for this project and other expansion remodeling projects, he strongly supports the plans for the expansion of the existing two stories as proposed in ADRITo. 95-7 for 2619 Rocky Trail Road. However, he stated *Q he ODO-==-s any additional levels to a third story upon review o-ff all of the information available to him at this time. mr. Volbeda responded that he takes exception to H--. E-verett-ls I claim that the proposed addition would depreciate the value of his property by interfering with his view. he view Hr. ' Everett referred to during. their meeting was "s-09set". He stated he had completed an addition next" door an -7 his op-in-lon is that any addition t -o the neig�rorhiood o -.-,y help - oall of the hoes -Y increase the values L May 2, 1995 Page 4 ADR buyer of Mr. Everett's property may be as interested in protecting the sunrise as the sunset. He still has the . d advantage of tat sHe further setrate only oneopposneighboride . hasof appeared sin opposition of the project. In response to CDD/Destefano, Mr. Everett stated his home is approximately 2600 to.2800 square feet in size. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, 'Mr. Volbeda stated he completed an addition for Mr. Ma, 2628 Rocky Trail Road, approximately three years ago. AstP/Lunqu responded to CDD/DeStefano that she did no . t have the pad elevation for Mr. Everett's house. Mr. Volbeda pointed out the exit area on the plans to CDD/DeStefano and stated he. had resubmitted drawings which designated this area. In response to CDD/DeStefano, AgtP/Lungu stated the total built out square footage for the project would be 7,493 including the garage of 858 square feet. The homes in a reasonable vicinity of the project are 5,000 square feet and larger. some of the homes which have been in the area for many years may tend to be smaller. However, the trend is toward larger dwellings. The existing height to the pitch of the roof from grade is 20 feet. The proposed roof line is approximately 24.6 from grade. AstP/Lungu stated in response to CDD/DeStefano, that Diamond Bar utilizes a code which permits only two stories for a maximum height of 35 feet. A third level is permitted if it is a cellar. In order for a third level to be a cellar, 50 percent of the ceiling to floor area must be at or below the average finished grade. In order to calculate the average finished grade, the average of the total elevation of the mid- point is h int fron. which the height point of each wall is the point T.O=or f measured pursuant to the Zoning Code (April, 1:89) for - - P-ngeles County which is in. effect for the City cf Diamond Bar. The application for a cellar is the same in 19c-5 that it was in 1989. The applicant's drawings comply with the Code applicable to a cellar rather than a basement. The Code does 11 s of cellar. The c --de does not restrict the use �- the = n o t the r- 4-- t- t ficol- I :-- restrict habitable space ir a cellar. Th.e bo�-�- 0- L is a cellar because five to six.feet is below project site I L. average finished grade ar-A three feet is abo-,,-=- average May 21 1995 page 5 ADR finished grade. Therefore, more than 50 percent of the area is below the average finished grade which constitutes a "cellar" under the definition of the code. Mr. Volbeda. stated that the design of the house is a Mediterranean style with a clay roof tile above the circular entry parlor, typical for a Mediterranean style, with a large archway opening over the doors and with a circular dome roof above the entry. The roof pitch is 4:12 with the tower at 5:12 pitch. Mr. Volbeda responded to CDD/DeStefano that the porch wall could be lowered in addition to the foot it has already been lowered. In addition, the entry walls could be lowered which reduces the overall height by approximately two, feet for a maximum height of 23.5 feet from the front I door grade to the top of the roof. Mr. Volbeda stated that the project was reviewed and approved - by "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association based upon the drawings as submitted to the PlanningDepartment. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, AstP/Lungu stated that the City has approved projects similar to this project. Mr. Everett stated that his number one concern is the extra 10 feet in height. He feels that this is stretching the limit. He believes a reasonable expectation is to expand what is there and not overwhelm the area. He indicated he prefers a horizontal expansion rather than a vertical expansion. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing closed.. CDD/Destefano stated he reviewed the drawings and the staff report, and visited the site and saw this project in relationship to other products in the surrounding area. Fie further stated his conclusions are that it is a project that should be approved because it is consistent with the character of the movement of "The Country Estat-es". , New products for "The'Country Estates" are coming in at 5,000 to 10,000 square feet. The City sees a lot -of new .'nomes ar,(i re -models t1rat­ finish at around 7,000 salaare feet which may have begun as a 3, 000 square foot home with a 4,000 to 5,000 square foot addition. He continued that while Mr. Ever et"t: I S home may ze in the area: of 2,700 scare feet, there are a n=-" e r 0 examples in the immediate proximity c -_f two stcr_,7 plus ce1'1=- product which are in the range of 5,0�.-_, to 10,Gr`0 s : .:are -:- May 21 1995 Page 6 Mou The size (bulk and mass) is consistent with the character of "The country Estates', and the direction in which it has been moving in the past few years. He indicated he finds the architecture and the building materials consistent with the general direction of "The Country Estates" within the immediate area. While he believes the view may be impaired with respect to the size of the project's vertical increase., he does not feel that it is Of such an impact that it would warrant a complete reconsideration of the architectural product proposed for the site. He stated he believes the project should move forward with some conditions that would modify the project based upon the discussions that have been held. CDD/DeStefano approved Administrative Development Review No. 95-7 with the Findings of Fact, and conditions as presented by staff subject to the following changes to the drawings and to the conditions. He further requested a new set of conditions that incorporates the changes herein set forth, and that a new set of drawings be provided to the Planning staff by the applicant prior to distribution to the Building and Engineering staff to insure that the applicant complies with the conditions: Based upon the applicant's statement that the existing roof line is approximately 20 feet from grade at the face of the existing home and based upon the drawings indicating a proposed roof line at approximately 29.5 feet, conversations indicate that the roof pitch could be lowered above the main front entry and by lowering the roof pitch, the dominant entry roof feature, can be reduced in height from about 29.5 feet to- 27.5 fe ee't--. He ireto 27.ct that 5 tfeehe coconsistent- ndition be placed that this featurbe lowerded t with the major roof line of the proposed home which should equal an overall building height of about 23.5 feet from that elevation. with these changes, the project is reasonably conditioned to meet the needs of the property owner and the resident' most directly impacted by the addition to the existing home. ADjOUR."NRKENT: May 21 1995 Page 7 ADR With no -further business to conduct, 'CDD/DeStefano adjourned the continued public hearing at 6:20 p.m. Respectively, J es Destefdno Community Development Director 9 nECE`^-- - M ������T ~_- 0:�\ _i = , ^. k..o May 3, 1995 Mr. James DeStefano Community Development Director City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Re: ADR 95-7; Public Hearing, May 2, 1995 Dear Mr. DeStefano: I have been impressed with your efforts in perfor.mance of your duties as Community Development Director, and I appreciate your- ' Ieadership style. You appear very interested in your job responsibilities and the direction and welfare of Diamond Bar, within established city guidelines. Thanks for your example as a thoughtful public employee. I respect your attitude and evaluation, even though you appear to disagree with my request for denial of any additional vertical hei.ght, including a third story, in the expansion and remodel of the house at 2619 Rocky Trail Road, I would appreciate a copy of the minutes, your analysis and recommendations from the hearing. Additionally, I would appreciate a copy of'the applicable forms for appeal. Please send this material to the address below, o�- call me if there are any questions. Sincerely, / R. M. Everett 2619 Rock T �l � ad Rocky r� o Diamond Bar, C� 91765 (909)B6l-3_-330 cc- Mr. Bruc2 Flamenbau:n. -_;-�airmen Planning Comm iss_ ��� Mrs; Phyllis E. Pap=-:-!, Nayor A��c/ ��/V�n ^^ '~"COMMUNITY Ronald�� ���n���NT 2619 Rocky.Jrail Road Diamoni 'Ba* r,'e^��134�� ' �_� (9Og) B61-3330 u May 11, 1995 Mr. James DeStefano m�unity Development Director y of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Subject: Appeal approval of ADR 95-7 Dear Mr. DeStefano: I believe the subject request must be reviewed and alter -=d for the best interests and mutual benefit of all parties, based on the merits and consideration of: 1- the owner(s) and neighbors at 2619 Rocky Trail Road - Quality of life - Risk of negative financial damages 2. the intent and integrity of the Diamond Bar General Plan - Resource Management EIeiment * Protects views for existing development * Retains opportunities for views from dwellings - Housing Element, property values and residents" _ quality of life 3. the `rules` and guidelines fdr remodeling and expansion projects, separate from new development.. I strongly support plans for the remodel and expansion o -F the existing 2 storiesi as proposed in ADR 95-7; but I'oppose any additional vertical elevation (to 1823 feet, and 3 stories) upon review of all the information available at this time, including the e public hearings. I -feel the enclosed $500 fee for the subjectappeal is excessive for due process; however, I feel this request is pivotal for me and the direction of our community. Please contact me regarding any q�_iestions, and to proceed for appropriate resolution ofj this aizpeal. Sincer�_- / _~~ \/9v�-`��/� -~ - Appeal Fe=_ encloSed Plans and additional attachments found in project file. File revi w d bYanTd eady f r on destruction by City Clerk