Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/15/1995CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW F MARCH 15, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Community Development Director James DeStefano called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. at the City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. ROLL CALL Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano, Assistant Planner Ann Lungu and Associate Planner Rob Searcy. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: i. Administrative Development Review No. 94-13. A request to construct a 6,911 square foot two story single family residence with a cellar, four car garage, tennis court and swimming pool. The project site, a vacant lot, is located at 2775 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Additionally, the proposed project requires the fallowing: Oak Tree Permit No. 94-5, To remove one oak tree which will i be replaced with four 24 inch box oak trees; and Yard Modification No. 94-17, to construct retaining walls - maximum height of 12 feet, in the 'rear and side portions of the lot. ` This public hearing is conitinued'from February 27, 1995. Property Owner/Applicant: Dr. Rashidi Ajani, 1010 Greenwich Court, Diamond Bar. AstP/Lungu stated that since February 27, 1995, the applicant has submitted revised plans to the City addressing the concerns previously stated by CDD/DeStefano. The first item involves the oak tree that is slated for removal. She further stated that the oak tree is multi -trunk and 24 inches in diameter and it appears to be in fair to poor condition. Pursuant to Code Section 22.56, it may be removed. If the tree is removed, it will be replaced with four 24 inch box oak trees in the front portion of the lot. Additionally, seven walnut trees will be removed. The second item deals with the possibility of relocating', the tennis court. However, the City's Engineering Department determined this is not advisable since it would disturb a buttress fill which was put in place to stabilize an ancient landslide. To mitigate the view of the retaining walls and th'e chain link fencing, the applicant has revised the plans to show a 6 1/2 foot planter area with shrubs and 10 fifteen gallon black walnut trees. In addition, f." there English Ivy will be growing above the wall. i AstP/Lunge continued that the height of the single family March 15, 1995 Page 2 ADR»u residence is 35 feet, two stories with a cellar, appropriate as pursuant to Code 22.21.10. It is 6.25 feet below the average finished grade and the City's Engineer Department has verified that portion of the project according to the revised drawings. There is a new addition of a small crib wall 2.5 feet high adjacent to the driveway area that will eliminate grading 'onto a neighboring' property' and will assist in maintaining the maximum 12 foot high 'retaining wall. The front driveway locations have been adjusted so that they do not interfere with the Southern California Edison Telephone Company and the Walnut Water District facilities': Staff recommends that the Community Development Director approve Administrative Development Review No. 94-13, Oak Tree Permit No. 94-5 and Yard Modification No. -94-18, Findings of Fact and conditions, -as listed with the resolution. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing re -opened. Pete Volbeda, architect for the applicant, explained that he moved the crib wall 6 1/2,'feet and reduced the tennis court approximately 10 feet in width for a total of 110`feet which ��:��'� allows for a landscaping strip between the ehain'link fencing and the crib wall. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Volbeda stated the run of the 12 foot high retaining wall is approximately 30 lineal feet. In response to CDD/DeStefano AstP/Lunge stated the applicant needs to submit landscape plans. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing closed. CDD/DeStefano stated he visited the site, and reviewed the staff report, the original drawings and the revised drawings and takes action to approve Administrative Development Review No. 94-13, Oak Tree Permit No. 94-5, and Yard Modification No. 94-17 for 2775 Shadow Canyon Drive, Diamond Bar with the Findings of Fact and conditions presented by staff with the notation that regarding Condition 5D, the height of the retaining wall is 12 feet for a run of approximately 30 feet at the easterly edge of the tennis court adjacent to the stairway only. In addition, the balance of the retaining wall plans will be developed in accordance with the site and grading plans date stamped 'March 8, 1995. Regarding the landscaping plan, Condition 5E, substantial landscaping will be implemented adjacent to the crib wall that is exposed on March 15, 1995 Page 3 ADR the west side of the project. He statedhis concerns regarding walnut trees in a six foot wide landscaped area. He stated he would not be opposed to locating the walnut trees outside of the crib wall. AstP/Lungu requested a $25.00 check from Mr. Volbeda payable to the Los Angeles County Recorder for recordation of the Environmental Determination. She stated this check must reach the County within five working days of approval of the project. 2. Administrative Development Review No. 95-3. A request to construct a first and second story addition of approximately 2,377 square feet and two car garage to an existing two story single family residence of 3,086 square feet and retaining walls - maximum height of six feet in side and rear yards. This request also includes exterior remodeling. Additionally, the proposed project requires Oak Tree Permit No. 95-1 to protect and, preserve existing oak trees during the site's - development and relocate one oak tree. Project site: 23500 Mirage Lane, Diamond Bar. Property owner: James Bolotin, 23500 Mirage Lane, Diamond Bar. Applicant: Pete Volbeda, WDS Development, Inc., 5206 Benito Street, Montclair, CA 91763. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff and the applicant have requested this item be continued to the March 27, 1995. He declared the public hearing continued to Monday, March 27, 1995 at 6:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865, E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. 3. Administrative Development Review No. 95-4. Application to construct a new two story single family residence of approximately 4,000 square feet in size. The residence is designed in an English Country architectural style and proposes amenities which include a pool and spa. Project site: 2114 Indian Creek, Diamond Bar. Property owner: Mr. & Mrs. Gasparian, 13608 E. Terrace Place, Whittier, CA. 90601. Applicant: Gary Jackson, Newcastle, 167 N. 3rd avenue #G, �! i 1IwllIll� A[I6'1"`--- 1 l.'"_"" 'i --i 7-7 � I�,i11 .111. 1 1111 1! 11 March 15, 1995 Page 4 ADR 1 Upland, CA 91786. Architect: Pete Volbeda, WDS Development, Inc., 5206 Benito Street, Montclair, CA 91763. AP/Searcy reported that since February 27, two additional meetings between the applicant and City's staff for the Public Works Department and the Planning Division have taken place. The conditions have been revised to reflect staff's concerns and the applicant and the City have concurred on the additional conditions. He highlighted the following changes: Condition 13, "This grant shall be effective until the lot line adjustment application is approved by the City Engineering and the Community Development Director." The addition to the condition is "No building permit shall be issued prior to recordation of shared access agreements". Condition f9' is added to read: "If the lot line adjustment application is not approved the 'applicant is required to submit and acquire approval of arevised site plan via amendment to this grant."' Condition #10 is added to read: "All grading for this residence and site shall be accomplished g g P pursuant to the approved grading plan with no importation of material off the grading project site area. This includes Lots #13, 14, 15 and 16 of Tract No. 30093." Condition #11 is added as follows: "The method of sewage disposal must be approved by the Los Angeles County Health Department, Diamond Bar Division of Building and, Safety, and the applicant must execute the required agreement not to protest the Sewer Assessment District pursuant to ,the Public Works Department." AP/Searcy addressed his concern regarding the basement improvement area which was not included in the original submission. The area on the ,back side of the garage is denoted as a private shooting range. He stated there are no special requirements based,upon what the design features of the area will be. He further stated he has requested the applicant to provide a set, of elevations and floor plans that are reflective of the project currently before the City. He indicated he has received a revision of the floor plan, however it is not reflective of the site plan which must be updated according to Condition #2 and include the change in the square footage calculations. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Volbeda stated that the private shooting range is buried below the ground with nine feet of retaining wall surrounding the area and eight inches of concrete over the top. There will be an approved bullet ��rPTISJ .uA, March 15, 1995 Page 5 ADR trap submitted to the Building Department. There is an exhaust vent and a fresh air vent built into the area. In response to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Gasparian stated that the room off of the study is an area like a library for valuables. CDD/DeStefano commented "that is a lot of valuables". Mr. Volbeda added this will be a storage area for more rifles and pistols. Mr. Gasparian stated he has a gun collection. Mr. Volbeda further stated they are concerned with security. There is a bookcase in the room which hides an opening to the security room. He pointed out the gun and ammunition storage area and the work area. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Volbeda stated the cooking oven had been removed from the recreation room and replaced with a microwave. The area also includes a refrigerator, dishwasher and wet bar which are to be removed. CDD/DeStefano asked about the area between the utility room and the security room. Mr. Volbeda responded that it is a maid's room. Mr. Gasparian stated, in response to CDD/DeStefano, that the "Western Room" contains western memorabilia. Mr. Volbeda stated there will be four pieces of equipment including barbells, treadmill, bench press and bicycle in the exercise room. CDD/DeStefano indicated some confusion regarding the use of the rooms. The applicant presented a synopsis of the room usage. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, AP/Searcy stated that he is not certain that the Building and Safety Department was aware that the plans included a firing range and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department did not receive a copy of the plans. CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing re -opened and stated that the only members of the audience are the architect, the '. k developer/contractor and the property owner. } Mr. Jackson stated that the project includes Lot 113, the proposed residence for the property owner and Lot #14, which F will be developed as a future sight for a single family. The f! project will meet the standards set by the grading department with respect to landscaping, drainage and irrigation. Lots March 15, 1995 Page 6 ADR`,'n #15 and #16 are being used to cut the dirt and export it to Lot #13. CDD/DeStefano stated the project involves a probable lot line adjustment, an access easement, grading permits, retaining walls and approximately 15,000 yards of cut from Lots 115 and #16. Mr. Jackson indicated that there is approximately 4,000 cubic yards of'cut on Lots #13 and #14. There will be a balanced cut/fill. CDD/DeStefano stated he is being asked to review a house that currently straddles the lot line between Lots #13 and #14. In order to eliminate this area of concern, the project will require a lot line adjustment or relocation of'the residence to meet the setback requirements for Lot #13. Mr. Jackson concurred indicating a lot line adjustment is currently being processed through the City's Engineering Department. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Jackson stated the house could be moved and meet the setback requirements within Lot #13 which would impact only the sides of the house, not the front and the back. The east side would be reduced from 25 to 30 feet,down to 15 feet and the west side would .be 10 feet from the property line. Mr. Jackson further responded,that the project has been approved by "The Country Estates" architectural committee. AP/Searcy stated he does not have a stamped set of plans indicating the approval. CDD/DeStefano asked if there issues of concern from the City's Engineering Department. AP/Searcy responded that these issues are outlined in Conditions #9, #10, and #11 and relate to the lot line adjustment, grading of the project and the method of sewage disposal. CDD/DeStefano reiterated that he is being asked to review only Lot #13, 2112 Indian Creek Road, Diamond_ Bar. AP/Searcy, responding to CDD/DeStefano, stated the project was noticed to 13 residents withina 300 foot radius of the project via the mail on February 17, 1995. The applicant, property owner and contractor indicated they have reviewed the proposed resolution of approval and its conditions and findings. Mr. Jackson responded that he had no questions and corrected the Tract No. to 30093. AP/Searcy, addressing the applicant, indicated a separate r'{{ approval will be necessary for the pool because of its proximity to the slope. 1 ",. . — . -. y . -.M, . ,,.. 111 11 w4 se . ,., "A. Ax— , , , — l I-- —,"7"Ir R `lr ";'_ _,. !- �'f` I , Pd!., . T".I 1I �f �IH March 15, 1995 Responding tc understanding the grading approval. Page 7 ADR CDD/DeStefano, the applicant indicated his and acceptance of the risks involved in pursuing operation absent of a lot line adjustment CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing closed. CDD/DeStefano stated that this is a proposed single family home on an existing vacant property with three associated lots that are necessary for completion of the proposed grading operation that establishes the - pad for the house under consideration. He further stated he is aware of the lot line adjustment issues and the possibility of an access easement issue. He indicated he has visited the site for Lot 113 and #14 in particular and has read staff's report and reviewed the drawings. In addition the project was discussed with the applicant and the developer at the project site on February 27 and during a briefing on March 15. He stated his concern that some of the rooms were not appropriately identified to him as the decision maker on this project. However, he stated he is not sufficiently stressed to cause a continuance for clarification. He requested appropriate documentation with respect to what will occur with the rooms and approval for the uses from the various agencies. He stated he understands that while grading will occur on other lots in connection with this project that this is not a part of the process for consideration under this public hearing. He acknowledged the attempt by the applicant to comply with the Hillside Management ordinance with respect to the curved linear nature of the drive, the contour, gra ding techniques proposed above and below the home and with some of the, pads propo'sed'on Lot #14 for future house and equestrian uses. He indicated he is aware that some of these pads'may become a part',of'Lot 113 as a result of the lot line adjustment. He noted by the contour grading proposed and by the curvilinear nature of the streets the traditional straight perpendicular driveway approaches from the street are eliminated in this instance. In addition, the large box structure supported by a basement'is eliminated in this sense by creating some larger pads to' support the home respecting'the contours of the ,property. The recommended conditions include incorporating review by the City's Engineering Department with respect to the grading; the lot line adjustment and the sewage dis I osal'system. This property is within the sewer district/septic tank study area and the City's Engineer 'Department' has indicated no apparent concerns regarding this project's proposal for use of a septic system. The retaining walls proposed indicate a',maximum height of five �� Ind Illoll'�J ILII'., �I_ --7-7---7 —1� March 15, 1995 Page 8 ADR 1,',ul 1 feet adjacent to the drive and the proposed home. ' The driveway access appears to be appropriate for this home and the future proposed home on Lot #14. Having reviewed the site, the drawings and the conditions, CDD/DeStefano took action to approve the project subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and the following amendments: The approval is for the single family home proposed on Lot Ji3 at 2112 Indian Creek Road. In his view, this is a discretionary permit. The grading associated'with Lot #13' is an issue for the City's Engineering Department and he is not taking 'action on the grading portion of the project. He stated his review and approval of the home is based upon the plans that have been presented as amended by drawings received this date 'and any additional modifications that substantially alter this proposal must again be reviewed by CDD/DeStefano. The proposal is now for a home that -is approximately 8600 square feet which is appropriate for the site and the proposed pad. He indicated the architecture is also appropriat'e4and consistent with homes in the area. He floor with appropriate security which r requested a revised plan identifies each and every room with its intended use. He further requested that the floor plans be reviewed by the Sheriff's Department with respect to the identified uses and security issues. In addition, he requested that the floor plans be reviewed by the City's Building and Safety Department to insure that the appropriate building and safety related systems are built into the project. If the Sheriff's Department has any issues related to an elimination of a _ proposed use, he'"requested the item be returned to him for consideration. The proposal is that no building permits will be issued prior,', to the recordation of the shared access agreement and he ',requested that a condition stating that "No building permits will be issued unless the lot line adjustment is approved,or,, in the absence of a lot line adjustment approval, that the home be reoriented, meeting the setback requirements, within Lot #13." With respect to the grading, the new condition states that the site is going to be graded with dirt from,Lots #13, #14, #15, and #16, and that no additional dirt will be imported or exported. He asked the applicant if he understands this condition and the applicant responded affirmatively. He noted that if the retaining wall height is proposed to be five feet there should be two feet added on ''top to deal with the slough that may occur from the ''�`�.� hill that it is intended to support. Mr. Jackson responded that there is a v'ditch and a drainage device behind the wall +' incorporated within the five feet. CDD/DeStefano stated he is �i .,, .._„»,_ ..,.�....�.„� .. ,... e,,. i�,W �%�'�. `°i e,,. ,..,4„ � ,_... _.. �.. _. �_._. _. �.tl •�".i '"' �,, _.L�I `�`�'��"I^'" iP �r'.lad I P'l ii 1. `=Y:__M q� -___ __ _ _ _ ____ _ _ - a ___-_.�d_.tl=4_L LifWYWS'awni.auu. d,agiur.a-uia..,-r::�..dt'-;=,-U-W.+n-;l�t•_xl^hv2v�J��','4:_ _ _ rLLa�.,.rIW.Itw.yu.tJmanuwatl mtlWlw�arwuuN. .� - __ __ __ _ ______ March 15, 1995 Page 9 ADR I not opposed to incorporating two extra feet of retaining wall for purposes of dealing with the runoff. Prior to the issuance of building permits, CDD/DeStefano requested evidence of "The Country Estates" approval of this proposal. In addition, he requested that staff review the landscaping plans. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Jackson indicated he understands the condition regarding the required approval from the Health Department and the Building and Safety Department regarding the sewage disposal system. CDD/DeStefano stated he approves the project based upon the drawings presented within the packet as amended by the clarifications at this meeting and subject to the conditions outlined and any substantial deviation to that proposal will necessitate a second review and approval by the Community Development Director. He indicated the project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood and with "The Country Estates" in terms of size and scale. The bulk and mass is appropriate for the proposed pad. The grading, the retaining walls and the drive access, ultimately serving two dwelling units, is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Hillside Management Ordinance and achieves the goals set forth within the Ordinance, as well as the City's Development- Review Ordinance. With that, he approved Administrative Development Review 95-4. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, CDD/DeStefano adjourned the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Respectively, ies DeStef ano Community Development Director