HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/2/1995CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
MAY 2, 1995
CALL TO ORDER
Community Development Director James DeStefano called the meeting
to order at 5:30 p.m. at the City Hall, 21660 E. Copley Drive,
Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
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 26) 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
#B, Diamond Bar.
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 there are
trees on the property that currently block his view. If the
trees were cut down, the proposed addition would block his
view to some degree. Staff recommends the addition be
approved as shown on the drawings.
CDD/DeStefano declared the public hearing reopened and
requested to know the outcome of the meeting between Mr. -
Everett and the property owner and applicant.
Mr. Volbeda stated that,
in viewing a photograph, he
1111111777 7a n3
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 second 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
infrastructure of Diamond Bar. He is convinced that there
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 Rl;'
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 the
applicable rules or guidelines? A two story at 2619 Rocky
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 with
fireplaces, an additional bedroom, an office and exercise room
and laundry. The top level includes a kitchen, dining room,
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 the Community
Development Director, dated April, 19, 1995, the first issue is
with regard to what is quoted as a desired master bedroom at
1,155 square feet requires an additional floor. In his
opinion, this is not the only alternative. It. is not
reasonable and really does not fit the integrity of the
General Plan as he previously stated on April 10, 1995. For
example, the referenced slope in the rear of the property (8
to 12 feet) to an existing lower level pad, offers some
alternatives. In addition, a true and more traditional
1 _..,,.....1i it
f-- --
May 2, 1995 Page 3 ADR
I-sJ
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
of the topographic features of the canyon below. He indicated
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 floor 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 Diamond Bar in the documented General Pian. In his
opinion, the momentum of "cellar" has gone far beyond the
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 Bar 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 ADR No. 195-7 for 2619
Rocky Trail Road. However, he stated he -opposes any
additional levels to a third story upon review of all of the
information available to him at this time.
Mr. Volbeda responded that he takes exception to Mr. Everett's
claim that the proposed addition would depreciate the value of
his property' by interfering with his view. The view Mr.
Everett referred to during their meeting was "smogset". He
stated he had completed an addition next door and his opinion
is that any addition to the neighborhood will only help
increase the values of all of the homes in the area. Any
,. 11, 11111 i 111bi 1_7�,77- - - ,.�.�7717I77II'i 'f771—rw—:.-,,
II,
May 2, 1995 Page 4 ADR ap
buyer of Mr. Everett's property may be as interested in
protecting the sunrise as 'the sunset. He still has the
advantage of,the�sunrise on the opposite side of the house.
He further stated that only one neighbor has appeared in
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.
A'stP/Lunge responded to CDD/DeStefano that she did not 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, AstP/Lungu stated the total J'
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/Lunge 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 th'e,cei',ling to floor area must be at or+below the
average finished grade. In order to calculate the average
finished gradey the average of the total elevation of the mid-
point of each' wall is the, point from which the height is
measured pursuant to the Zoning Code (April, 1989) for Los
Angeles County which is in effect for the City of Diamond Bar.
The application for a cellar is the same in 1995 that it was
in 1989. The applicant's drawings, comply with the Code
applicable to a cellar rather than a basement. The Code does
not 'restrict, the uses of the cellar. The code does not
restrict habitable space in a cellar. The bottom floor of the
project site is a cellar because five to six feet is below the
average finished grade and three feet is above the average
-, May 2, 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 door grade to the
top of the roof.
Mr. Volbeda stated that the project was reviewed and approved
r, by "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association based upon the
drawings as submitted to the Planning Department.
Responding to CDD/DeStefano, AstP/Lunge 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. He
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 Estates". New products for
"The Country Estates" are coming in at 5,000 to 10,000 square
feet. The City sees a lot of new homes and remodels that
finish at around 7,000 square 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. Everett's home may be
" in the area of 2,700 square feet, there are a number of
examples in the immediate proximity of two story plus cellar
product which are in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 square feet.
yj'rligt�w
May 2, 1995 Page 6 ADR lij!Ir!;
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 believesthe
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 py lowering the roof pitch, the
dominant ,entry roof feature can be reduced in height from
about 29.5 feet to 27.5 feet. He direct that the condition be
placed that this feature,be lowered to 27.5 feet consistent
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.
ADJOURNMENT:
A ....� R �.� i -
.fir_.... 41 I � �.�m'.:�.,�. I ,. 4 ��:... k H. a ir�w•��l4k
May 2, 1995 Page 7 ADR
With no further business to conduct, CDD/DeStefano adjourned
the continued public hearing at 6:20 p.m.
Respectively,
J s DeStefano
Community Development Director