Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/12/1995MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 12, 1995 F _ i CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Vice Chairman Huff. ROLL CALL: - Present: Commissioners: Chairman Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Huff, Commissioners Meyer, Schad and Fong. Also Present: Associate' Planner Robert Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Planning Intern Holly Rider; Public Works Department Adm_nistrative Assistant Tseday Aberra; Recording Secretary r T, Carol Dennis. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of May 8, 1995,and May 22, 1995. C/Meyer stated the Mag 22, 1995 minutes should be corrected as follows: Page 4, Paragraph 2, line 13, delete redundant "for the preparation" and change "ordinance to "resolution" in line 14, so the sentence (beginning on line 12) reads: "He further stated that there should be no mistake that his recommendation for the preparation of this resolution was to prohibit development on the grassy knoll." With respect to the May 8, 1995 minutes, C/Fong requested the following changes: On Page 14, Paragraph 1, line 2, change "to" to "and" so the sentence reads: "C/Fong suggested with respect to lots 3, 4 and 5 that the designer and consultants recheck their des: `_gn on the shear keys. C/Fong suggested the following changes for the minutes of May 22, 1995: On Page 10, Paragraph 1, Line 12, change "of" to "adjacent to" so the sentence reads: "In "-' addition, there should be more details and analysis to demonstrate the adequacy of the shear key located on the northwest boundary adjacent to the Las Brisas development. On Page 10, Paragraph 1, last sentence, June 12, 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission change "by" to "for" so the sentence reads: "Any remedial grading stipulated by the City should be self - supported 'for, the development and be supported by any additional investigation. Chair/Flamenbaum requested the following sentence be inserted into Paragraph 1 on. Page it as sentence' 2: "However, he also recognizes this is a transition area." A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to approve the minutes for May 8 and May 22, 1995 as amended. The motion,was approved 5-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer,- Schad, Fong, VC/Huff, Chair/Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Presentation on Neighborhood Traffic Study. Public Works Department Administrative Assistant, Tseday Aberra, stated the Public Works Department has undertaken a Neighborhood Traffic Management Study. This study is a response to residents' requests 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 the area as a whole andlin a systematic fashion., The Neighborhood Traffic Management Study is being conducted by DKS Associates, the City's Traffic Engineering Services consultant. 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. Approximately 592 residents in the study area were sent questionnaires in March and. May of 1995. Approximately 58 residents responded to the March questionnaire and 38 responded to the May questionnaire. Two workshops were conducted with residents at the April June 12, 1995 Page 3 Planning commission 14 and June 8, 1995 Traffic and Transportation Commission meetings. 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 the installation of stop signs and the enforcement of a 25 MPH speed limit of residential streets. During the June 8, 1995 Traffic and Transportation Commission received and reviewed the results of the study. The Commission had previously recommended to City Council that Fountain Springs Lane and Cold Springs Lane be returned to 25 MPH prima facia as residential streets. The Commission determined that the study should be completed prior to them making any further mitigation recommendations. In addition, the Commission requested that the study include recommendations and costs for both short term and long term solutions to the traffic problems. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, AA/Aberra stated the City has, over time, received numerous requests for stops signs, cul-de-sacs, etc. in various locations within the study area. The City determined there was a pattern of concern with respect to speed, cut -through traffic and truck traffic in the designated area. Rather than considering each request on a case-by-case basis, the City and the Traffic and Transportation Commission decided to look at the entire area as a whole. The next step is to see what short term and long term potential solutions will be proposed by DKS Associates. The Traffic and Transportation Commission will review the study when it is presented to them in July and determine what recommendations for mitigation, if any, should be recommended to City Council. If the DKS Associates study concludes there is a need for stop signs in the area, the City will not necessarily install stop signs. She stated her understanding is that stop signs are not necessarily utilized as a satisfactory means of decreasing speed. According to studies, stop signs may tend to have the reverse effect when motorists view them as an unnecessary nuisance. To date, no recommendations have been forwarded to the City Council from the Traffic and Transportation Commission. In response to VC/Huff, many residents from Fountain Springs Lane, Cold Springs Lane and Castle Rock Road have voiced their concerns about the cut -through traffic to -. the CountyY Hills Towne Center. The center has been invited to participate in the study and some preliminary recommendations have been made by DKS Associates and the June 12, 1995 Page 4 Planning Commission residents regarding the shopping center driveway on Fountain Springs Lane. C/Meyer stated that, in his opinion, the cut -through traffic in the neighborhood is an indication that the arterial highway system is non-functional. He cited the problem in the Rolling Knoll Road area. If Diamond Bar Boulevard functioned at a normal capacity it would relieve the need for motorists to cut --through the neighborhoods. He further stated it is ludicrous to have a signal at a T -Intersection with numerous warning signs and no -right -turn at certain hours. In an effort 1 to eliminate the cut -through traffic theresidents have been penalized" 2. Review of Fiscal Year 95-96 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for conformity with the General Plan pursuant to Section 65401 of the GovernmehtCode. AA/Aberra stated that the California Government Code 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 C,IP Program by the City Council. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adept Resolution No. 95 -XX finding conformity with the contemplated General Plan and,recommending City Council Approval of the�Fiscal Year 1995-1996 CIP. Responding'to C/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated the Grand Avenue Rehabilitation Project is approved for the current fiscal year and the project will begin immediately after ,the July 4, 1995 holiday. The 'project will include the resurfacing and w:idening+ of Grand Avenue at Golden Springs Drive and Diamond +Bari Boulevard, as,well asthe traffic signal 'synchronization at these intersections. With respect to Item #21,1 Athletic Field Lighting for Lorbeer Jr. High School, AP/ Searcy stated this is part of the City programs reciprocal agreement with the school district. CDD/DeStefano joined the Planning Commission meeting. In response to C/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated the Peterson Park Concession Stand Improvements (Item #22) involves $10,000 which has been set aside for a shade structure. This is in addition to the capital improvements completed during the past year which were as a result of prior CIPS. Approximately $200,000 is being received byithe City as a result of the Safe Parks Act (Prop A money) Ifor the athletic field lighting for Lorbeer Jr. High School. The Safe Parks Act fund is the same pool of money that is 1 11 -1 June 12, 1995 Page 5 Planning Commission being utilized to assist in the construction of Pantera Park. CDD/DeStefano stated that an agenda item the City Council is considering tonight is the acceptance of the right-of- way from Calvary Chapel. This item is directly related to the ! improvement project for Grand Avenue. CDD/DeStefano, responding to C/Meyer, stated he would return to the Commission later in the evening with information regarding the left -turn pocket issue for Grand Avenue. Responding to VC/Huff, CDD/DeStefano stated Item 14 is for Phase I construction of Pantera Park. Regarding Item #8, CDD/DeStefano responded to Chair/Flamenbaum that this type of undergrounding does not occur within the sidewalk area. It normally occurs within the asphalt paved area a few feet outside of the curb and gutter. CDD/DeStefano reiterated the Planning Commission's issue of whether the proposed projects are consistent with the Draft General Plan. CDD/DeStefano left the Planning Commission meeting and returned to the City Council meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: 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) Property Owner: Mr. R. Sodhi, 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar. Applicant: Pete Volbeda, 22640 Golden Springs Drive, Suite B, Diamond Bar. Property Address: 2619 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar. Applicant for Appeal: Ron Everett, 2618 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar. AstP/Lungu stated the site is approximately 27,330 net square feet. The project site is located with a "gated" community identified as "The Country Estates". The site is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square Feet (R-1-20,000). It has a draft General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR). - - --- - _- -- - - ­ - - - .,_ . ..IF --- T: I!I, il7-.._1..,.-i. ".._�,.._,=-f-. ,--T 1 11 1i,u, ! 1 r 11 1 _ -_.a_ _--_._-..___.._o. _­ June 12, 1995 Page 6 Planning commission At the April 10, 1995 public hearing, the appellant, Ronald Everett, discussed the following concerns: I' 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 stated 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. At the April 10, 1995 public hearing, a meeting between the two property owners and Pete Volbeda, the project's architect; was arranged for April 19, 1995. At the april 19, 1995 meeting, 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, 1995 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; f I, June 12, 1995 Page 7- Planning Commission 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 finish grade. On -May 12, 1995 Mr. Everett filed a request for the appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 95-7. The appellant resides in a single story structure. He is concerned that the applicant's addition will obstruct the evening view that exists from his porch and the front rooms of his home. Mr. Everett is also troubled that the proposed second story will inhibit the potential view from a possible second story addition he is contemplating. The applicants proposed second floor addition is 1,155 square feet. AstP/Lungu continued that a field survey indicated that the view in question will be minimally impaired by the addition of a second floor. The two structures are approximately at the same elevation located 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). 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. The proposed quantity of earth movement for this project is limited to 25 cubic yards of fill. The fill is located west of the structure, in the rear yard and is not directly beneath the structure. The City's Building Official conducted a preliminary review of this project and his comments are attached to the staff report for the Commission's review. AstP/Lungu concluded that 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 determined that the views `¢ from 2618 Rocky Trail Road will be insignificantly altered. The view is primarily "sunset" views which will be reduced a few minutes daily. The appellant will continue to have a viewshed from the rear (east) of his -- 1I�III ul June 12, 1995 Page 8 Planning commission 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". The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt according to the guidelines of California Environmental Quality Act (,CEQA), Section,15301, Class 1. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission sustain the Community Development Director'sapproval and deny the appeal of Administrative Development Review No. 95-7, and sustain the Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the resolution. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, PI/Rider stated the difference in elevation between the applicant and appellant's homes is between 5 and 10 feet. AstP/Lungu, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum indicated the homes in the area range between 4,000 and 8,000 square feet. Most of the homes in the area have been rebuilt over time which is usual to dwelling structures in "The Country Estates". In response to C/Schad, AP/Searcy stated the appellant's privacy is not an issue with respect to the proposed addition. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, AstP/Lungu stated the applicant's front yard setback is 20 feet. AP/Searcy stated the appellant's front yard setback should be a minimum of 20 feet. Approximately 100 feet separates the two dwelling units. AP/Searcy, responding to VC/Huff, stated the criteria for view is whether there is an impact. In his opinion, the evaluation of the impact is subjective as to whether it is dramatic or not. Staff has to balance the rights of both property owners by using experience and common logic in weighing the applicant's right to construct within development code and the appellant's right to preserve a quality aesthetic view. Staff has determined that since the applicant's proposed structure height is so far below the maximum allowed the applicant has done everything possible to minimize the impact to the ,view enjoyed by the appellant. Responding to C/Fong, AstP/Lungu stated the proposed _ construction will be over an existing foundation and cellar area. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing open. June 12, 1995 Page 9 Planning commission r� Ron Everett, 2618 Rocky Trail Road, Diamond Bar, stated that he has been encouraged by his family and neighbors to address his concerns. He indicated he believes there is a significant turning point of setting rules and guidelines for remodeling and expansion that are significantly different than the new development that has been occurring for the last couple of decades in Diamond Bar. He stated this is his purpose for getting the facts and issues before the Commission and before the community and work toward a reasonable resolution that will benefit all of the residents of Diamond Bar. Mr. Everett referred the Commission to his letter of May 11, 1995 addressed to the Community Development Director. Regarding Page 2 of the staff report, he stated he is concerned with the phrase "To the greatest extent possible, require that dwelling unit structure and landscaping be sited in a manner which protects views for existing development and retains opportunities for views from dwellings". He indicated his second concern is to maintain and encourage the improvement of the quality and integrity of existing residential neighborhoods. He again stated this is as important with respect to remodels as compared to new development. He stated he holds that this property and the plans proposed have a 6,000 square foot improvement for the existing floors. He supports the first two floors of remodel and expansion. In his observation, the exclusive criteria for remodel and expansion is what meets code. He stated that, in his opinion, the code is only a starting point. It is a minor, but necessary requirement consideration. The proposed General Plan is very significant. An additional consideration is reasonable expectation from a neighbor. With respect to Page 3 of staff"s report, the second paragraph under Analysis talks about his concern for the second story edition will impair current and potential sunset views. In addition to the sunset view, he is concerned with the developing ridgeline view from his second story. He presented photographs from his property toward the project site. Stating his desire to maintain the ridgeline view, he cited the photograph taken from the roof of his garage. He stated that ten feet of additional elevation on top of the existing roof line of the project site will eliminate any view. He further stated that the sunset is a non -issue at the horizon. He referred the Commission to the second paragraph, second sentence, under Analysis, on Page 3, which states "currently, Mr. Everett resides in a single story structure." He indicated this needs to be corrected because he has a two story house. He further stated that as soon as he is relieved of the expenses involved with having several children, he intends to expand his second story to the front and to the garage. With regard to the last item on Page 3, "the proposed June 12, 1995 Page 10 Planning Commission l+ second floor addition is 1,155 square feet, he stated it is important to note that 1100 square feet lis approximately 80 percent of the total project site width. It is not just one-fourth of the proposed property expansion. The added elevation of 10 feet wipes out his total view from any location on his lot. Mr. Everett continued to Page 4 of staff's report citing the view from his home is impaired by several tall trees and the minimal impact of this project to his home. The trees are deciduous. Therefore, one-half to two-thirds of the year, in his opinion, there is no obstruction of his view because of the trees. He stated that the trees protect him from,smog and the blinding suns of summer. He invited the Pommissioners to visit his, property 'Iso they could see ''that al; 10 foot addition of,the project site overlaps his„ June 12, 1995 Page 11 - Planning Commission other residents, and the evidence in good judgement, that for the benefit of all Diamond Bar residents, that the proper disposition or resolution is to modify Draft Resolution 95 -XX, as prepared for the Planning Commission tonight, to approve this project, as well as any other project like this project, for the existing two floors only as proposed in ADR 95-7 for 2619 Rocky Trail Road and deny any additional levels to a third story or any additional vertical height increase above the primary roofline that exists today and is estimated to be at about 1,013 1/2 feet above sea level. Responding to VC/Huff, Mr. Everett stated he took the picture from his garage to simulate what the view would be from a proposed second story addition to his property. In response to C/Schad, Mr. Everett indicated the view from all of the windows in the front of his house is the sunset view. C/Meyer asked Mr. Everett if he enjoyed any dramatic view from his property other than in the direction of the project site. Mr. Everett responded that he can see the mountains and east to the rising sun from the rear of the house which overlooks the canyon. Mr. Everett, responding to C/Fong stated he would lose his westerly view. There is a vacant lot to the north of his property which may eventually be built out. He has a commanding view of Mt. Baldy, Mt. Cucamonga and the area to the east. The potential view to the south is blocked by development. In his opinion, any addition to his current second story will not impact the view from the project site. In response to VC/Huff, Mr. Everett stated he did not know the height of his house to the roofline. He estimated' it to be approximately 1,022 feet which is about the, same height as the proposed project site. Pete Volbeda, architect for the project stated he is surprised that they are before the Commission tonight. He indicated that immediately after the initial ADR hearing, he accompanied Mr. Sodhi to the site and they determined, that by standing in the driveway of Mr. Sodhi's property, they could see a house behind trees across the street. He further stated they could not understand Mr. Everett's complaint. He pointed out that when Mr. Everett builds his second story addition it will block as much of Mr. Sodhi's sunrise view as it will block Mr. Everett's view of the sunset. Currently, there are no windows on Mr. Everett's second story which face the project site. In addition, Mr. Everett stated that the proposed addition will reduce property values in the June 12, 1995 Page 12 Planning Commission ';wZ area. Mr. Volbeda stated that any time additions are completed in this area of "The -,Country Estates", the property values increase. He pointed out that in the approximately 20 building projects he has completed lin "The Country Estates", the project, goes to the legal height 'limit of 35 feet from average finish grade. The project owner made a great effort to minimize the height increase since this project proposes to build five and one-half feet below the limit. The Community Development Director' suggested the project be lowered to 27 1/2 feet. The applicant does not agree with the ruling and would like to have the Planning Commission approve the project at the originally proposed height of 29 1/2 feet. In his opinion,' Mr. Everett's proposal that the applicant add to the first floor only is not feasible. In fact, the applicant could add additional area to the second floor and still be underlthe rheight envelope and within the intent of the proposed General Plan. Mr. Everett has presentedthat he is acting on behalf of the neighbors and the community. However, there has been no petition received for this ADR. Twenty-two area residents were notified' of this project and only Mr. Everett has responded. It seems that Mr. Everett expects none of his view tobe' blocked. Any buyer of property in "The r. Country Estates" must assume that at a point in time, residents will build on surrounding properties. In accordance with the, General Plan, these properties could be built to a height of 35 feet. In this instance,he applicant is proposing to build under the height limit and the Planning staff supports the proposal. Mr. Volbeda requested that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and;approve the project as presented. A. C. Kaushal, 1245 S. Mahogany Court, Diamond Bar stated he is a licensed Real Estate Broker. He has been practicing his real estate profession in Diamond Bar for approximately nine years. In addition, he is' a consultant for the Sodhi project. In his many visits to the project site, he has determinedl that the project will not disturb, Mr. Everett's views. Mr. Everett has good canyon views from the back (east) of his property. He believes Mr. Everett has contradicted himself by stating he has deciduous trees on the west side of his house and at the same time is concerned about his sunset view. He also stated that the deciduous trees are on his property to protect his house from the glaring rays of the sun. At the same time he is saying he would like to see those rays. In his opinion, the project should be alloyed. The project is within the codes. The applicant has1cut the height of the project and also attempted to work with Mr. Everett. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed., June 12, 1995 Page 13 Planning commission AP/Searcy stated that with respect to Mr. Volbeda's u request to the Planning Commission to approve the application as submitted to the Community Development Director, the applicant did not submit an appeal of the Planning Director's decision. What is before the Planning Commission this evening is whether to grant the appeal by the appellant or to sustain the action by the Community Development Director. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum, AP/Searcy stated the project site currently incorporates a cellar area which, by code, is habitable. AstP/Lungu stated the existing cellar contains a master bedroom suite, a family room with fireplace and one additional bedroom.- C/Meyer stated this is a circumstance that is indicative of working with a set of development standards that the City would like to throw out and which is one of the reasons the City incorporated. To date, there is not a foundation available to create the development standards that would reflect division for Diamond Bar. If a General Plan is not passed, there is no Development Code. Therefore, the City must deal with the rules that have been established and that the City accepted when it incorporated. He stated he visited the project site and the neighborhood is developed with two story homes which are larger than the proposed project. The development of "The' Country Estates" was based on building on the ridgelines. Mr. Everett's house would be the biggest offender under most hillside development standards. His property is right on top of the hillside. and he has development opportunities to build up to 35 feet. Therefore, his would be a significant structure on top of a knoll or ridgeline. These are the issues that the City has determined to avoid in any future development standards. In terms of a view, it is difficult to determine "view" when there is no definition of "view". To some extent, the definition is subjective as to whether it is measured from the finish grade or from the ridge beam of a structure. Buying property in hillside development is advantageous and can provide a view of surrounding area and the views afforded from property can add a great deal of value to the property. The relationship between the two properties under consideration is not unusual throughout the neighborhood and "The Country Estates". He indicated that from his perspective, the view from Mr. Everett's house is to the east rather than to the west. The panoramic view to the east is worth preserving. In terms of equal application of the Development Code that the City has, Mr. Everett 4^ possesses the structure that the applicants are attempting to build on their property. He stated he sees nothing unusual about the proposed project. The project will have some impact as a consequence of urbanization. June 12, 1995 Page 14 Planning Commission C/Meyer stated that, in his judgement, the view from Mr. Everett's property is not being impacted because the view is to the east. Although Mr. Everett made a very eloquent case, viewshed is not a private domain. The development proposal approved by the Community Development Director is as sensitive to the impact of the surrounding area as can be made given the existing development standards. He stated he does not support the appeal. C/Schad stated he concurs with vC/Huff and C/Meyer.- The City does not have a Development Code and 'therefore must work within the legal means available at this time. The visibility factor -is serious and depends on each individual point of view. In this instance, Mr: Everett has an equal opportunity with the applicant to increase his structure. He stated he would not support ',Mr. Everett's appeal. C/Fong stated he does not see any reason to deny the applicant and concurs with the other Commissioners. Mr. '`i` Everett has equal opportunity to develop his property. Mr. Everett lives in an urban area -where others have the right to build and a compromise is called for. If the City of Diamond Bar had a Development Code, C/Fong stated .,-..>. .. ,, a ,. _ ., .,F-•,�, .. �- .i .� � �- I�._ _ :� _I L.. ..,,'� � ._..I� ; . ; i. _;_°'J tll a t�2"µ,u .� ���'-+i e�.,�� <�'�r�,..�.4ah�': m_ vC%Huff stated he agrees with C/Meyer's comments. Mr. Everett was indicating that the codes should be a starting point. Codes work both for and against a property owner because it allows Mr. Everett to buildup to a 35 foot level which would give him asimilar view Ito what he enjoys now. He indicated he viewed the property and just as Mr. Everett'S view will be impacted by the proposed project, the applicant will be impacted when Mr. Everett elevates his property. This places -the City in the position of having to determine who's view is most important. The truth is, they are both important. The City does not have objective criteria, it is subjective. He stated that it is also his opinion that Mr. Everett's primary view is to the east. If he wishes a perennial view of the sunset it would have been better for him to reside on the other side of the street. That is not to say that one -view is better than the other. At this time, Mr. Everett enjoys two views. It is fair to say that any property can be developed at any time, such'as the property to the northeast of Mr. Everett which, is currently undeveloped. The land outstrips the value of the smaller homes that were originally built in the area. Cellar as opposed to basement has a legal meaning to the ja City and these are the guidelines under which development in Diamond Bar is considered. -The builder is making a good faith effort by reducing the height of the structure which will help preserve some view for Mr.. Everett. 'He stated he does not support the appeal. C/Schad stated he concurs with vC/Huff and C/Meyer.- The City does not have a Development Code and 'therefore must work within the legal means available at this time. The visibility factor -is serious and depends on each individual point of view. In this instance, Mr: Everett has an equal opportunity with the applicant to increase his structure. He stated he would not support ',Mr. Everett's appeal. C/Fong stated he does not see any reason to deny the applicant and concurs with the other Commissioners. Mr. '`i` Everett has equal opportunity to develop his property. Mr. Everett lives in an urban area -where others have the right to build and a compromise is called for. If the City of Diamond Bar had a Development Code, C/Fong stated .,-..>. .. ,, a ,. _ ., .,F-•,�, .. �- .i .� � �- I�._ _ :� _I L.. ..,,'� � ._..I� ; . ; i. _;_°'J tll a t�2"µ,u .� ���'-+i e�.,�� <�'�r�,..�.4ah�': m_ June 12, 1995 Page 15 Planning Commission he believes it might not allow building where Mr. Everett's dwelling is located. The City would encourage building on the hillsides and not on the ridge tops. The City would preserve the ridge tops. Los Angeles County continues to allow ridge top building and the -ridge tops - and valleys are being lost. When Mr. Everett bought the property there were no controls to restrict the surrounding development. In this case, C/Fong stated he feels the applicant is making every effort to give Mr. Everett as much view as possible. He further stated he sees no reason grant denial of this project: A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by VC/Huff to sustain the Community Development Director's approval of Administrative Development Review -No. 95-7. Chair/Flamenbaum stated he is tired of the mansionization of the country. C/Fong stated he agrees with Chair/Flamenbaum. The motion was approved 5-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, VC/Huff, Schad, Fong, Chair/Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS: Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8',:45 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: 2. Review of Fiscal Year 1995-96 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for conformity with the General Plan pursuant to Section 65401 of the Government Code, continued: Responding to previous Planning Commission questions, AP/Searcy stated the Grand Avenue Rehabilitation Project is included in the current fiscal year.This project includes improvements related to the Calvary Chapel and the proposed Grand Avenue Hospital improvements as conditioned by the Planning Commission. The undergrounding will occur before the sidewalks are constructed. This is also a part of the current year budget. Both school districts have a reciprocal agreement with the City. The Lorbeer Junior High School improvement will allow the City access to ]urger acreage and additional time for use of the school facilities. The primary uses will be for soccer and football league. A motion was made by C/Meyer and secondedi,by VC/Huff to adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX finding conformity with the June 12, 1995 Page 16 Planning Commission contemplated General Plan and recommending City Council Approval of the Fiscal Year 1995-1996 CIP. The motion was approved 5-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, VC/Huff, Schad, Fong, Chair/Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None ANNOUNCEMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 9:100 p.m. Respectfully Sub ted, a R bent L. Sea Associate Planner Attest: Lam" Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman