Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/8/2000MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Headquarters Building Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner McManus. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Tye, Vice Chairman Steve Nelson, and Commissioners 2. 3. 4. 5. j George Kuo, Joe McManus, and Joe Ruzicka. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu.As-sociate Planner, Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the January 25, 2000 meeting. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of the meeting of January 25, 2000 as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, VC/Nelson, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: McManus ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OLD BUSINESS: None FEBRUARY S, 2000 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 1� 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 General Plan Annual Report: Government Code Section 65400 (b) requires that anannual report on the status of the General Plan be presented to the local legislative body, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The annual report.shall include the progress in the General Plan's implementation, and in meeting its share of regional housing needs, pursuant to Government Code Section 65584, and local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement and development of housing, pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (c) of Section 65583. DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive a presentation from staff, and review'and file the General Plan Annual Report.' C/Ruzicka said he is proud to have been a part of the Parks Master Plan process when he was a Parks and Recreation Commissioner. DCM/DeStefano confirmed to C/Ruzicka that the correct date to the adoption of the City's General Plan is July 25, 1995. VC/Nelson asked what effect the Wildlands Conservancy proposal to purchase the Boy Scout property might have on the Four Corners Study. DCM/DeStefano responded that the City is aware that a purchase proposal is underway. The City is studying what impacts a purchase by certain groups may have on the Four Corners group. The Four Corners group has identified objectives that would eventually create some type of bypass roadway through the area around the City of Diamond Bar. The exact alignment of such a road is yet to be determined. Chair/Tye asked if the either the Resource Management or Public Services and Facilities portion of the General Plan should indicate that the City has assumed control of its Parks and Recreation services rather than contracting with an outside city. DCM/DeStefano responded that the service received from the City of Brea was excellent. The - decision to bring the program in-house was not service related. The in-house program 'continues to deliver a high quality of service that meets the defined needs of the community. The, goal to bring the program in-house was a direct goal of the Parks Master Plan and not of the General Plan. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None FEBRUARY 8, 2000 PAGE 3 ' " PLANNING COMMISSION 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 Development Review No. 200-01, Variance No. 2000-01. Minor Variance No. 2000-01 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020, 22.54.020 and 22.52.020) is a request to construct a two- story single family residence of approximately 15,602 square feet with a basement, balcony, six - car garage and indoor swimming pool. Additionally, the request includes an outdoor swimming pool/spa, pool equipment/restroom structure, trellis, and tennis court with fencing and lighting; tennis court fencing height in excess of 6 feet; and retaining wall height in excess of 42 inches within the front yard setback. The Minor Variance request is to construct two cupolas that extend 3.5 feet above the maximum 35 -foot height permitted for a residence. PROPERTY ADDRESS: 22840 Ridgeline Road (Tract No. 30091, Lot 156) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. And Mrs. Wen Chang 1011 Summitridge Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Ku and Associates, Inc. Habitant Development Corporation 18725 E. Gale Avenue #217 City of Industry, CA 91748 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-01, Variance No. 2000-01, and Minor Variance No. 2000-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. C/Ruzicka asked if the cupolas serve a function. He also asked if the fire caused any geotechnical problems that should be mitigated through this project. DCM/DeStefano indicated that the cupolas would provide additional light to the inside of the structure. Staff is not aware of any subsurface issues as a result of the fire. The applicant is required, through the City's Building and Safety Division and through the Public Works Division, to provide soils and geotechnical reports and design to support the proposed structures. C/McManus said he is concerned about the lower driveway on the westerly side of the property. He asked if a guardrail is proposed to prevent vehicles from leaving the roadway. I FEBRUARY 8, 2000 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION 0"I" AssocP/Lungu indicated that the proposed retaining wall would be constructed toward the back by the gate rather than at street level. VC/Nelson asked about the difference in elevation between the house to the west of the project and the project's driveway. DCM/DeStefano indicated that the two-story house to the west has a pad elevation of approximately 1160 feet. The driveway immediately adjacent to the house is at 1172 feet. Edgar Aramani, Habitant Development, stated that the main reason for the cupolas is to bring natural light into the structure. Secondarily, the cupolas compliment the structure and help to obscure the view of the 40 -foot high water tank at the rear of the property. C/Ruzicka asked if the roof could be lowered to accommodate the cupolas, which would eliminate the need for a Minor Variance. Mr. Armani reiterated that the cupolas also serve to soften the architectural look of the house and attempt to obscure the view of the water tanks. i` Tom Lau, Architect, stated that in addition to bringing in fight, the cupolas soften the overall mass of the structure. C/Ruzicka asked if the cupolas could be incorporated into the structure in a different manner while meeting the code of 35 feet in height. Mr. Lau stated that with the height of 38 feet, the water tank is still visible. Therefore, it appears to be more compatible with the existing mass of the tank to the structure. Mr. Armani showed a rendering that better exemplified the true design of the cupolas and the relationship of the structure to the water tank. There are many methods for adding light into a building such as skylights. In the opinion of the architect and the development company, it is believed that the cupolas provide the best method to accomplish the interior and exterior architectural design. In spite of the fact that the design exceeds the 35 -foot maximum height, we strongly believe that these elements are an integral part of the general design. C/Ruzicka said that the water towers are so high that the height of the cupolas does not matter. The only function left is to provide indoor light and is there another way to accomplish bringing light into the structure. If one of the aims of the City is to minimize variances, perhaps there is an alternative to the cupolas. 01 FEBRUARY 8, 2000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION i Chair/Tye asked if the purpose of the cupolas was to hide the water tower. Mr. Armani said he does not believe it was intended that the cupolas would hide the water tower. However, the cupolas are designed in a manner to compliment the architecture and obscure the view of the water towers. C/Ruzicka again asked if the light could be brought into the structure in another manner in order to avoid the variance. Mr. Armani responded that the cupolas are not only just for light. The cupolas were also designed to complement the whole design of the structure, which we feel very strongly about. it is part of the design and complements the facade. This issue was explored with the property owner and the City's Planning Division many times during this process. VC/Nelson said that notwithstanding the desire to reduce the number of major and minor variances in the City, it is his understanding that this site is in a location where the additional 3.5 feet will not have any aesthetic impact whatsoever. The neighbors have been notified and they are comfortable with the proposal. Therefore, is there really an issue regarding the height of the structure including the cupolas. DCM/DeStefano responded that from staff's perspective, there is no issue with this application at this address for the reasons stated by VC/Nelson. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. Glenn Grissom, 22847 E. Lazy Trail, stated that his property backs up to the proposed project. His concern has been addressed by the Commission, which was the illegal grading that took place a few years ago so long as the City can assure him that when there is a large rainstorm that the property will not slide down on his property. He has horses and a barn down the hill from the project. AssocP/Lungu responded to Mr. Grissom that the Resolution contains a condition of approval related to the submittal of a geotechnical report. The report will be required to address the illegal grading and fill and provide design recommendations and/or mitigation measures to render the property safe. DCM/DeStefano stated that Mr. Grissom may have been one of the co -applicants of a four lot project that was processed by the prior owner of this site under consideration. The four lot project involved approval of the grading plan in order to allow a substantial amount of fill to come on to this site. Mr. Grissom is adjacent to the fill site. Mr. Williams who previously owned this property received approval from the City and was, over a long period of time, ---r — -- -x-w® FEBRUARY S, 2000 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION bringing dirt in through the dirt pathway in order to fill the site. At the time, there were code enforcement issues regarding the certification necessary for that fill. Not all of that matter was resolved. This project, like any other project, will be required to provide soils and geotechnical reports that are stamped by a registered soils and geotechnical engineer to prove that the project proposed will work on that site and that the site's slopes will not fail as a result of activity that has either taken place or will take place. In addition, the City has an independent geotechnical engineer that will look at the documents and critique the submittals. If the City's Engineer is not satisfied, changes will be made to the documents prior to construction. During construction, the application is inspected at regular intervals. Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. C/McManus moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-01, Variance No. 2000-01, and Minor Variance No. 2000-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, McManus, Ruzicka, VC/Nelson, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Kuo stated that last Saturday began the Chinese New Year which will be celebrated on Saturday, February 12 at Diamond Bar High School. He invited all to attend the celebration. 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing Dates for Future Projects - as- listed. DCM/DeStefano stated that at its February 15 meeting, the City Council will be considering re- appointments for all Commissioners. All Commission appointments expire at the end of February. Some of the Commissioners will be able to attend the Planners Institute the first part of March. If Commissioners are unable to attend but have an interest in the subject matter, please advise staff. The SunCal project appears to be near construction. The City Council is scheduled to look at the Final Map on February 15. C/McManus asked if the project had a problem with the Walnut Water District. DCM/DeStefano stated that the water district had issue with its co -property owner which appear to have been resolved. Pulte, the property developer, has submitted the model units to the City of Diamond Bar. It is likely that the Planning Commission will discuss this matter some time in March. FEBRUARY 8, 2000 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Tye adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. I Respectfully Submitted, t James DeStefano Deputy City Manager -� Attest: Ste Ty-�a jet Chairman