Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/27/2000MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 27, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:05 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 Ruzicka. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners George Kuo, Joe Ruzicka Commissioner Steve Tye was excused. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the June 13, 2000, meeting. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of the meeting of June 13, 2000, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, VCIZirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tye 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano stated that the Housing Element Update study session has been moved to the July 11, 2000, meeting. JUNE 27, 2000 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As presented with the following change: The second item should read as follows: CITY COUNCIL MEETING - Friday, June 30, 2000 - 2:00 p.m., City Hall Conference Room, 21660 E. Copley Drive. The following item is added to the Schedule of Future Events: SKATEBOARD PARK GRAND OPENING - Saturday, July 15, 2000 - 10:00 a.m., Peterson Park (All Commissioners are invited to attend) 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.2 Variance No. 2000-04, Development Review No. 2000-06, Minor Variance No. 2000-09, Tree Permit No. 2000-01. and Negative Declaration No. 2000-03 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.54, 22.48, 22.52, and 22.38) is a rcqucst to construct a two-story, single family residence, of approximately 11,427 square feet, with a basement, balconies, porch, and five -car garage. Additionally, the request includes accessory structures: Tennis court, swimming pool and gazebo. The Variance is a request for a rear setback reduction for the tennis court and tennis court lighting. The Minor Variance request is to construct chimneys that extend 3.5 feet above the maximum 35 - foot height permitted for a residence. The Tree Permit is requested to allow replacement trees as a mitigation measure for the removal of two native California Walnut trees currently on site. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNERS: APPLICANT: 2515 Crowfoot Drive (Tract No. 30577, Lot 62) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mark and Tara Kuo P.O. Box 50907 Irvine, CA 92619 Twen Ma Architects 195 Mt. Olive Drive Bradbury, CA 91010 JUNE 27, 2000 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2000-04, Development Review No-. 2000-06, Minor Variance No. 2000-09, Tree Permit No. 2000-01, and Negative Declaration No. 2000-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. DSA/Smith responded to VC/Zirbes that many of the variances are requested by applicant and represent self imposed variance request. However, staff is able to support the variance since this is a good place for the tennis court to be located because it abuts another tennis court and in accordance with the Development Code requires less grading of the site. The applicant has sufficient room for a tennis court at the rear of the property. However, if the applicant was required to move the tennis court to that location, he would be chopping up the hill. The project location is not a square lot and requires special consideration. These are the reasons that a finding can be made to place the tennis court in the proposed location. VC/Zirbes said he is concerned about encroaching into the neighbor's setback to the rear of the proposed project. DCM/DeStefano stated that in this particular circumstances it could be concluded that this is a self-imposed hardship because there is no right to a tennis court. The applicant has requested approval for the construction of a tennis court, and in order to appropriately align the tennis court to the site and to deal with sun angles, etc. on an almost triangular shaped piece of property, it creates difficulties when attempting to add such an amenity to the project. The project does not require a tennis court but the denial of such a request could create a situation where this particular property is being treated differently than similarly situated neighboring properties in "The Country Estates" where similar tennis courts are found in front yard or side yard areas. The property owner is asking for a right or privilege similar to what other property owners in "The Country Estates" have enjoyed. VC/Zirbes asked where a septic tank should be placed on the site in relationship to the house. DSA/Smith responded that because of the new requirements with the Los Angeles County Health Department septic tanks are often not located until some grading occurs. It is at the applicant's risk that the septic tank is not located on the property at this time. When the applicant conducts the test pits and produces the findings that are necessary, engineers and the County of Los Angeles will decide the placement of the septic tank. She said she suspects that it will leech out near the pool area. If a septic tank is necessary, it will likely be pumped to the top. JUNE 27, 2000 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION DSA/Smith stated in response to VC/Zirbes that the two native California Walnut trees will be fenced during grading. If it is necessary to protect the trees, grading will be done by hand rather than by machine, The California Pepper trees fall within the realm of acceptable replacement trees. However, staff would like to see like for like trees included in the replacement program. C/Ruzicka said he does not favor variances. The Planning Commission spent many hours formulating the current Development Code. However, there are instances when the rules should be bent to provide an owner a right to enjoyment of his property. Did staff or the applicant's representative check with the applicant's neighbors to determine whether they are in favor of this proposed variance? He said he did not find anything in the resolution that protects the California Walnut tree stands. DCM/DcStefano stated that Condition 5. (d) at the top of page 9 of the resolution talks about the need to protect the trees as called out in the City's ordinance. Staff did not specifically solicit ;input from any of the neighbors. However, staff observed the property posting of the property and notices were sent to approximately 50 neighbors surrounding this project that included notice of the variance request. With respect to working through architecture to deal with the variance, the project design's sub floor has a' about a an 8 foot floor to ceiling height; the central floor has a floor to ceiling height of about 10 feet and the upper floor has about a 9 foot floor to ceiling height. Most houses in Diamond Bar are running about 8 feet between floors. However, most houses in "The Country Estates" have about 10 feet floor to ceiling height. The project could be architecturally modified. Based upon the roof 'pitch and material, the City's Building Division is satisfied with the architecture. The pad could be lowered by afew feet thereby reducing the mass of the house. Based upon the design of the chimney and the pitch of the house, the chimney is about six inches taller than it needs to be. Twen Ma, project architect, said that with respect to building height, approximately 65 percent of the perimeter at the rear of the house will appear to be two stories high plus about 4 feet to accommodate high windows in order to gain light and ventilation for the basement. The structure will be 35 feet high from the garage pad and from the front entry. The pad will be placed as low as possible to minimize the amount of grading and to try to maintain the natural topography. The neighbor's tennis court is about 4 feet from the property line. The applicant's tennis court will be about 12 feet from the property line. He said he believes that he can lower the height of the chimney by about six inches in order to comply with the building code. The proposed tennis court location will provide the minimum amount of visual sight and lighting impact to the street. The applicant will comply with the appropriate replacement tree ratio. 0 -�_____• '___u,�__.L� �.wxitiuu.i�xwu.,.wig.�..n�__,.��-:a.���o-�>__..,...i�r,�i�.::,e ��r__-.. y�n�w�r��,�.��.��,,.��.�.��..�.,,,.�...� -._ - _____ �r_�____ JUNE 27, 2000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Twen Ma responded to C/Ruzicka that 6 inches is the maximum amount that can be eliminated from the chimney height. He indicate that he believes he can reduce the overall height of the structure from 381/2 feet to 37 feet by reducing the height of the pad by 12 inches and reducing the height of the chimney by 6 inches. Twen Ma indicated to VC/Zirbes that the interior dimension of the tennis court is proposed to be 5,000 square feet which is the minimum size for a tennis court. The height of the chain link fence at the rear of the tennis court is proposed to be no more than 6 feet. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka said that although he does not generally favor variances, he appreciates what staff goes through with respect to project variances. He hopes that the Commission can r incorporate the architect's proposal to lower the pad by 12 inches and to lower the chimney by 6 inches. Chair/Nelson agreed with C/Ruzicka about variances. He said he is concerned about the cost to lower the pad by a foot and he does not know what that would achieve. Reduction of the chimney by 6 inches sends a message that the Commission does not like variances and people should not expect to be granted variances. He also agreed that staff works very hard to eliminate variances wherever possible. He favors "like for like" for replacement trees. However, native trees in back yards do not necessarily hold the importance of native trees in natural settings. In the past, he has supported the removal of native trees and setting the appropriate monies aside in a street tree fund. Twen Ma indicated to the Commission that there is relative location with respect to the tennis court and the building. Lowering of the building pad by one foot would require an addition of one foot to the retaining wall height for a total of seven feet which he believes is unacceptable to the city. In addition, the reduction of the building pad would require approximately 13,000 feet of dirt export from the premises which he does not believe would improve the natural setting. C/Kuo indicated even though Mr. Ma has indicated he can lower the building pad by one foot and the chimney height by 6 inches he still needs a variance. In the past, the T city has issued a number of variances to homeowners and business owners and he does not understand why this variance is different. If the chimney is treated as an architectural feature instead of included as part of the building height this case would be much simpler and the Commission could focus on the big picture of the total structure. JUNE 27, 2000 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Zirbes moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve Variance No. 2000-04, Development Review No. 2000-06, Minor Variance No. 2000-09 with the chimney height being at 3 feet instead of 3'/2 feet, Tree Permit No. 2000-01, and Negative Declaration No. 2000- 03. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tye 8.1 Development Review No. 200-07 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a two-story single family residence with a five -car garage, balconies and patio for a total of approximately 12,525 square feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: 2800 Crystal Ridge Road (Lot 29 of Tract No. 47850) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar West, LLC 3480 Torrance boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90503 DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-07, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Ruzicka that typically the applicant to submit the architectural plan for staff's review and approval. However, it is the Commission's discretion as to whether it wishes to review the plan. Kurt Nelson, Diamond Bar West, LLC, stated he read staff's report and concurs with the conditions of approval. He sits on the Board of Directors for the Crystal Ridge Homeowners Association which reviews all architectural plans for aesthetics and city requirements that are built into the CC&R's for all of the project within the Crystal Ridge project. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. t Ii There being no one who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the public - hearing. Ll JUNE 27, 2000 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Ruzicka move, C/Kuo seconded, to approve Development review No. 2000-07, - Findings of Fact approval conditions of a roval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tye 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: VC/Zirbes said that his questions this evening regarding Agenda Item 8.2 were not meant to cast aspersions upon staff's ability to refine a project to meet the City's codes. He took this opportunity to ask questions of staff with respect to what the Commission's obligations might be. Staff's performance is phenomenal. C/Ruzicka stated that in no way does he question staff's performance. He wants it on the record that he does not believe consideration of variances is a "walk-through" and each project stands on its own merits. Staff does a fine job in presenting Commissioners with sufficient "- information to justify a project or to question a project. -~ Chair/Nelson said that C/Ruzicka is an example of a "Green Bay Packer" fan with respect to the City of Diamond Bar. ADJOURNMENT: C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Ja s DeStefano Deputy City Manag r Attest: Steve Nelson Chairman