Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/2002MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 12, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the South Coast Air Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, C 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Tye led the pledge of allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Joe Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Steve Tye, Commissioners Steve Nelson, Dan Nolan and Jack Tanaka. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, Assoc Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, S Marquez, Administrative Assistant; Dave Meyer and Milan Garr. LDM Associates. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offe 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of Study Session of November 12, 2002. C/Tanaka moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve the Study Session Minutes October 8, 2002, as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. 4.2 Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 22, 2002. C/Nolan moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve the Regular Meeting minutes October 22, 2002. as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None G' of of NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 6. 7. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Presentation by Barbara Shull, Executive Director of the Fair Housing Foundation — Overview of Services — Continued to a future date to be determined. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. 2002-09 Minor Conditional Use Permit 2002-09 and Tree Permit No. 2002-07. Pursuant to Chapters 22.48, 22.56 and 22.38 of the Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant has requested approval of plans to remodel and construct an approximate 4,743 square foot addition to an existing 4,902 square foot three (3) story single-family resident to total 9,645 square feet of combined gross floor area (including covered porches, balconies, patios and a 5 -car garage). The project also includes a detached covered patio structure, swimming pool, tennis court and retaining walls with a maximum exposed height of six feet. Additionally, the applicant requests approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow for the continuation of a legal nonconforming 22 -foot front yard setback distance, and a ten foot high tennis court fence. The applicant is also seeking approval of a Tree Permit to remove and replace a protected tree species. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2909 Wagon Train Lane (APN 8713-014-011) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Ezzat Seif 2909 Wagon Train Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 615 N. Benson Avenue, Unit D Upland, CA 91786 PC/Garrison presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2002-09 and Tree Permit No. 2002-07, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nelson asked staff to correct the tree preservation statement to reflect that there are protected trees on-site. Responding to C/Nelson, Mr. Garrison explained that during staff's review, it was discovered that the site contained protected trees. Subsequently, the applicant filed a Tree Permit application. An Arborist was called in to provide a report that was received after Commission packets were distributed. Staff reviewed the report and J 1 NOVEMBER 12, 2042 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION recommended that the five trees would have to be removed in order to accommc the tennis court. The Arborist report indicated that the trees that are being rem( are not acceptable to relocation. In accordance with the City's Development C staff recommended replacement at a 3:1 ration with 24 -inch box trees. A landscape plan must be submitted as part of the approval. At that time staff w determine whether alternate replacement tree sizes would be appropriate. Upon a finding, the matter would then be returned to the Planning Commission approval. Chair Ruzicka asked if it would be appropriate to increase the ratio to 4:1 or 5 15- gallon trees were recommended. PC/Garrison believed that a 3:1 ratio would be acceptable for either 15- 24 -inch box. Since this is a discretionary approval, the Commission may require a great replacement ratio. Pete Volbeda, applicant, said he read staff's report and concurred with the con of approval. He pointed out that the 24 -foot setback applies only to the portion of the structure. Chair Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair Ruzicka the public hearing. VC/Tye asked C/Nelson to express his thoughts on the proposed tree replac ratio. C/Nelson said that the younger the tree the better able it is to adapt to environments. He is not an expert on Walnut Trees. However, DR. Ronald Quii CalPoly has conducted a significant amount of restoration research. In speaking Dr. Quinn, he indicated that the best long-term prospects come from planting sE Obviously, that is not an alternative in this case. Therefore, he agreed with ( Ruzicka about substituting number for size because the objective is to create bio: to contribute to replacement on-site. Accordingly, more of the smaller tree: required to equal the biomass of a large tree. He suggested that staff co Dr. Quinn about providing decision-making guidelines for tree replacement. for :1 if or to of are C/Nelson moved, VC/Tye seconded, to approve Development Review No. 200 -09 and Tree Permit No. 2002-07, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as I I sted NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION within the resolution with the additional condition that the Planning Commission be allowed to review and approve the final landscape plan for this project. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, V/C Tye, Nolan, Tanaka, Chair Ruzicka None None 7.2 Development Review No. 2002-28 Pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020.A. this is a request to construct a first and second story addition of approximately 914 square feet to an existing single family residence of approximately 1,722 square feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1808 S. Fern Hollow Drive (Lot 200, Tract No. 28579) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Juan A. and Maria S. Vidal APPLICANT: 1808 South Fern Hollow Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2002-28, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Maria Vidal, owner/applicant, said she read staff's report and concurs with the conditions of approval as listed. Chair Ruzicka reopened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2002-28, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Tanaka, Nelson, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka None None 1 NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.3 Tree Permit No. 2000-01(l Pursuant to Code Sections 22.66.060 and 22.38 applicant is a request to change an approved project by permitting the removal replacement of preserved and protected Walnut Trees. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2515 Crowfoot Drive (Lot 62, Tract No. 30577) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Mark and Tara Kuo APPLICANT: P.O. Box 5406 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commis ion approve Tree Permit No. 2000-01(1), the Findings of Fact, and condition of approval as listed within the resolution. In response to C/Nelson, DSA/Smith indicated that staff has asked for Sycam Arroyo Willow or Oak to be proffered as replacement trees. DSA/Smith responded to C/Nolan that according to the Arborist's report the tree did not occur as a result of grading, it was merely lack of water due to drol conditions. VC/Tye asked if the construction debris piled around the tree could have Pad something to do with its demise to which DSA/Smith said it likely would ave contributed. Mark Kuo; property owner and applicant, said he had no objections to stff's conditions. C/Nelson asked Mr. Kuo if there were provisions made during construction to have the tree fenced or flagged to which Mr. Kuo responded there was a fence around the tree during a portion of the construction. There was no construction debris thrown under the tree. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. VC/Tye moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Tree Permit No. 2000-01(1), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Tye, Nelson, Nolan, Tanaka, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.4 Development Review No. 2002-26 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-11 Pursuant to Code Sections22.48.020.A., 22.20 and 22.52, this application is a request to demolish an existing two-story single family residence of approximately 4,000 square feet and construct a two-story single family residence with a basement, five -car garage, balconies, and patio for a total of approximately 14,800 square feet. Additionally, the request includes a swimming pool/spa, gazebo with barbecue, tennis court with fencing and lighting and retaining walls with a maximum exposed height of six feet within the front, side and rear yards. Development Review is an architecturallsite design review. The Minor Conditional Use Permit is for tennis court fencing taller than six feet. The Minor Variance is for a 20 percent reduction in rear yard setback for the tennis court. PROJECT ADDRESS: 23980 Falcons View Drive (Lot 20 of Tract No. 30577) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Dr. and Mrs. Chuahan 23980 Falcons View Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Jerry Yeh Horizon Pacific 2707 Diamond Bar Boulevard, #202 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2002-26, and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-11, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. .ferry Yeh, applicant, stated he reviewed staff's report and concurs with the conditions of approval. He asked that the Commission approve the tennis court setback as proposed. Mr. Yeh responded to Chair/Ruzicka that the applicant wants to acquire a limousine. The applicant will not be conducting business at the site. NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION i 7.5 1 1 Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Ruzicka the public hearing. C/Nolari moved, VC/Tye seconded, to approve Development Review No. and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-11, the Findings of Fact, and c as listed in the resolution. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: CONMSSIONERS: Nolan, VC/Tye, Nelson, Tanaka, Chair/Ruzicka None None Development Review No. 2002-21 Pursuant to Code Sections 22.58.020, 22.54 and 22.48.020 is a request to add a portable classroom at the rear of the shop center proposed be used for the Montessori Academy's computer lab for an unlir period of time. The Variance is a required for a retaining wall of varying height to 13 feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: Diamond Bar Village Shopping Center 367 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: The Abbey Company 12383 Lewis Street, #200 Garden Grove, CA 92840 APPLICANT: Diamond Bar Montessori Academy 23555 Palomino Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Plan Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-13, Variance No. 200: and Administrative Development Review No. 2002-21, Findings of Fact, conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Ruzicka was concerned about including an "unlimited" period of time. Tige Licato, Co-owner, Montessori Academy, said he read staff's report and with the conditions of approval. School officials considered the proposed la sed 26, and to NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 8 PLANNING COMNIISSION be the best for the students and least intrusive for the neighboring residents. in addition, existing precious playground area would be preserved. Mr. Licato responded to C/Nelson that a chain link fence is located about 100 yards above the school. When the school first opened they were concerned about vehicles conning off of the freeway down into the school area. Since the school opened, there had been no such incident. Such an occurrence would equally affect the current school, playground and mobile unit. C/Nelson felt that some type of barrier should be installed between the freeway and the site. W. Licato said that he would absolutely explore the possibility of installing a barrier to protect the safety of the children even though it would be a financial burden to the school. DCM/DeStefano was uncertain if staff took that safety issue into consideration. From a staff perspective, what would an appropriate design be to attempt to protect structures from vehicles leaving the freeway. Perhaps the applicant could work with CalTrans engineers to determine an appropriate design. Mr. Licato pointed out that the property is adjacent to a freeway on-ramp and not adjacent to the main thoroughfare. It is a fairly long distance from the freeway to the school. DCM/DeStefano responded to VC/Tye that the current property owner also owns the portion upon which the trailer is proposed to reside. The CalTrans right-of-way begins at about the on-ramp. CalTrans would not necessarily be involved in the actual design but could be involved as a consultant. VC/Tye asked Mr. Licato how many computer stations the mobile is proposed to house. Mr. Licato responded that the school's objective is to house as many computer workstations as possible, up to 15 or 16, depending on the fire department's approval. The ingress/egress area is completely secure within the gated facility. The unit was designed to provide a direct benefit to the current student body. Enrollment will not be increased. C/Nolan observed that the on-ramp veers away from the school property toward the freeway. It seemed to him that it would be difficult for a vehicle to reach the school -- property from the throughway. l! NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Ruzicka asked that the record reflect the Commission's primary concern fo the safety of the children and the fact that it noted the remote possibility tha an automobile or flying object could move from the freeway to the school building and cause injury. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. Christy Licato spoke in support of the Diamond Bar Montesonri Academy's prop sed project and respectfully requested Commission approval. The proposal addresses the best interest of the students and the community. Manny Gonzales, 4031 Zion Court, Chino, has two children that currently Montessori Academy. He supported the project. He felt the computer lab benefit his children and would be a positive addition to the school. Michele Cambrono, 620 Skycourt, spoke in support of the proposed project. s a faculty member of the Coast Community College District, she was definitely a are of the importance of computer technology as a part of the curriculum. Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. VC/Tye commended Mr. Licato on his successful business venture evidenced b his wish to expand. He recalled that his most important concern in kindergarten as a blanket and cookies. Now kids are concerned with greater issues such as whether to bring a floppy disk or compact disk. VC/Tye moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-13, Variance No. 2002-05 and Administrative Development Review No. 2002-21, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion approved by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Tye, Tanaka, Nelson, Nolan, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMIISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chair/Ruzicka reiterated his concern for approving an "unlimited" time for use f the building. 7.6 Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-12 Pursuant to Code Section 22.58, this proposed project is a request to install an exercise facility for women identifi d as "Curves" in an existing shopping center. NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: Diamond Bar Village Shopping Center 367 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: DB V Star, LLC 11747 Valley EI Monte, CA 91732 Geraldine Conley 15189 Palisade Street Chino Hill, CA 91709 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-12, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Gerry Conley said she read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval as stated. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. AssocP/Lungu responded to VC/Tye that this is a simple and quick low -impact exercise program that does not require shower facilities. C/Nelson moved, VC/Tye seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-12, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, VC/Tye, Nolan, Tanaka, Chair/Ruzicka None None 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: VC/Tye praised the City Council for their recognition of Veterans. Even though he never served in the armed forces, he considered it a privilege to stand for a photograph with his fellow Commissioners Nolan and Tanaka and Chair/Ruzicka who did serve in the military. NOVEMBER 12, 2002 Page 11 1 PLANNING COMMISSI 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano reported that earlier this eN during the Administrative Review process, he approved two homes for constructio3 November 21 there will be a meeting with the developer and residents living adjacent Walnut Valley Trailer Park property for the purpose of discussing the proposed Ext Stay America project in greater detail. Chair/Ruzicka felt he might not be able to attend the meeting because of prior DCMIDeStefano said it would not be necessary for the Commissioners to attend the and that staff would provide a detailed report to the Commissioners at the Dece meeting. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As presented in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/Ruzicka the meeting at 8:45 p.m. Attest: C rman Jo Ruzi a J Deputy City Submitted, On the 10