The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5/24/1994CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW MAY 24, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Community Development Director James DeStefano called the meeting to order at 6:10 p.m. at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano and Assistant Planner Ann Lungu, and property owner Shahin Behdin. Absent: None - MINUTES 1. April 5, 1994 CDD/DeStefano approved the minutes of April 5, 1994 as submitted. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 2. Administrative Development Review No. 94-3 A request to construct a first and second story, addition of approximately 1,291 square feet and deck/patio cover to an existing 1,750 square foot two-story residence located at 1243 S. Deerfield Place, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AP/Lungu reported that the subject property is located in the RPD -20,000 zoning classification, with a maximum of two units per acre. After reviewing the plans and visiting the site, she stated that the project appears to meet all development standards for the zone. She then advised that since the first floor addition would be built adjacent to the south property line, leaving only a five foot setback, this design would not conform with other side yard setbacks in the neighborhood, most being at least ten feet. AP/Lungu reported concern with the existing character of the neighbor -hood, as well as privacy considerations for the southerly neighbor. The staff recommends that the applicant use a wing -type stucco wall on the rear balcony at the area facing the south property line, and to observe the ten foot side yard setback prevailing in the neighborhood. She stated that neighbors had complained about the size of the addition and the possible obstruction by the proposed landscaping of the view from Deerfield onto Longview, creating a potentially hazardous traffic situation. She suggested May 24, 1994 Page 2 ADR that the applicant trim the landscaping to a point sufficient to alleviate the view issue. She added that City of Diamond Bar Building Official Dennis Tarango has review the plans, and concurs with staff recommendation regarding the wing -type stucco wall and observance of the ten -foot setback. Staff recommendation is for approval of the project per the resolution and conditions of approval. - CDD/DeStefano the declared open the public hearing. Shahin Behdin stated that his home is no longer large enough to suit the needs of his family. Faced with either moving or adding on, they have chosen the latter. He said the mortgage lien is greater than the home's current market value, but instead of walking away from the home, he is seeking to make a positive change for himself and the good of the community. With that in mind, he sought out the necessary development standards and designed the proposed addition accordingly. He then submitted for the record photographs of prevailing setbacks in the subject and adjacent tracts which support his position that the south property line setback of five feet was, in fact, not static, and ranged as high as twelve feet. The proposed site plan indicates that the garage area, is ten feet from the property line, and the closest distance between the adjacent homes is seventeen feet. He claimed that this compared favorably with adjacent properties on Deerfield and other neighborhood streets. The southerly adjacent property is also set seven feet higher on its pad than his property, already providing some degree of privacy. He closed by saying that the staff -recommended setbacks would place his project in jeopardy. CDD/DeStefano asked for clarification of Mr. Behdin's photos, which Mr. Behdin provided. Mr. Behdin showed through the photos that his second story roof elevation was nearly level with that of the southerly neighbor's first story because of the difference in pad elevations. CDD/DeStefano inquired as to whether or not the southerly neighbor had expressed any privacy concerns about the proposed addition. AP/Lungu stated that there was no input from the neighbor, and wondered if a language barrier may have posed an impediment to full understanding of the subject. However, other residents in the immediate neighborhood expressed concerns about the resulting intensity of the addition and the aforementioned traffic considerations. Mr. Behdin referred to the lack of first floor windows on the south side of the addition, but stated that it was his intention to add a window on the south and street -facing sides of the second floor which did not yet appear on the plans. He also clarified the intended purposes of some of the additional rooms. CDD/DeStefano asked Mr. Behdin if he wished to add any more comments or questions. Mr. Behdin explained that he submitted to Los Angeles County an easement - -- „ r-- _r— -.. -- - - _- � _ _s.__�i �,.r d.m��. �m�NJul�•AAllh.�m .. ,.r -I.-, �.,uon.-.,--:..b.,.- -, �.. �-rv.. rv+ia�n�i.M..�.�w�n...«.rym�«ii.ri..ii.. »....��.ewa - __r__ __ May 24, 1994 Page 3 ADR encompassing part of his property along Longview Dr. AP/Lungu said she had a conversation with Bob Rose, Community Services Director, and discovered that the City was doing some research into this area. She requested from Mr. Behdin copies of his documentation regarding the easements. In response to AP/Lungu's question, Mr. Behdin indicated that the shape of the project's columns wfas cylindrical, not square. AP/Lungu expressed concern that most of the columns on homes in the area were square, not cylinndrical. Mr. Behdin stated that cylindrical columns were the preferred esthetic choice for the project, but offered to change them if so ordered. ' CDD/DeStefano asked Mr. Behdin if the columns were to be of stucco construction, to which Mr. Behdin answered affirmatively. CDD/DeStefano explained that upon reviewing the case materials, he had no major problems with the plans as submitted. Mr. Behdin's revelation about the second floor window plan has raised the issue of proper window placement. CDD/DeStefano pointed out that not only were five feet necessary between the new construction and the side wall, but another three feet between the side wall and the neighboring retaining wall. Mr. Behdin concurred, and added that he would have the foundation plans drawn up with the required setbacks from both the structure and retaining wall. CDD/DeStefano added that Mr. Behdin's home is one of the smaller models in the tract at around 1,750 sq. ft. Even though the addition would bring total square footage to around 3,000 sq. ft., the placement and design of the addition would not cause any serious incompatibilities with the immediate neighborhood. The proposed architectural style is also not incompatible with the neighborhood, and the columns as designed do not pose any problem. He sought clarification about the balcony and privacy wall on the second floor. He did not see how either of the possible placements of the balcony and wall would impact the view or privacy concerns of the neighbor. He did voice concerns about the placement of the window in the proposed master bedroom which would overlook the south neighbor's home. Mr. Behdin pointed out that the neighbor has only one first floor window opposite the planned additional bedroom window, and it is offset laterally by a distance sufficient to prevent a loss of privacy. CDD/DeStefano declared closed the public hearing. CDD/DeStefano approved Administrative Development Review 94-3 per the resolution May -24,1994 Page 4 and conditions, eliminating condition D on page 5 relating to the wing wall, and permission of the window plan in bedroom three as shown on the amended drawing. He left open the window plan for the master bedroom until staff is given time to review that proposal in light of the changes suggested by Mr. Behdin, and make a decision accordingly within thirty days of this specific approval. CDD/DeStefano reiterated his direction that the construction be separated from the side yard wall by five feet, and the side wall from the retaining wall by a minimum of three feet. He also stipulated that the second sentence of condition G, page 5 be removed; if it is acertained that the landscaping to which the condition refers is actually the.responsibility of the applicant, the City Code Enforcement Officer may take appropriate action to ensure proper maintenance. He informed Mr. Behdin of the procedures for submittal of the plans to the Buiding Official, and advised him about the appeals process should- his project come into such question. In response to Mr. Behdin's question, he reiterated direction for staff to research the compatibility of the bedroom window plan with surrounding and/or neighborhood residences. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to conduct, CDD/DeStefano adjourned the meeting at 6:50 p.m. Respectively, PamesDeStefano Community Development Director - . , - .:, I-1"P'P"Y'iiRw.•�,�.Iw�„�„ ,_ ,��,�F,. ,�r I,-, 1-.-,-[ . _T. .117 MT.17717 17-1".„, -__- -I -- -- -_, - -- - - -- -- --