Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/9/2004MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 9, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Tye led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Dan Nolan, Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka and Commissioners Ruth Low, Joe McManus and Steve Tye. Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Nancy Fong, Planning Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CONSENT CALENDAR: As Presented. 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 26, 2004. VC/Tanaka moved, C/Low seconded to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 26, 2004, as corrected to indicate that VC/Tanaka called to order and adjourned the meeting. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS; COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None VC/Tanaka, Low, McManus, Tye None Chair/Nolan None NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): None 7.1 Develol2ment Review No. 2004-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-11 Pursuant to Chapters 22.48 and 22.56 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval to construct an approximate 3,410 square foot addition (including a 1,209 square foot garage and 593 square feet of patio/balcony) to an existing 3,508 square foot two-story single-family dwelling. The request also included the construction of retaining walls with a maximum exposed height of six feet. Additionally, the applicant requested approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to continue a legal nonconforming front yard setback distance. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2151 Derringer Lane (Tract 23483, Lot 54) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Vishal Kaushal 2151 Derringer Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Pete Voibeda 615 N. Benson Avenue, Suite C Upland, CA 91786 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. DSA/Smith responded to C/Low that the 20 -foot setback was in accordance with the development code in effect at the time of construction, and therefore, a legal non -conforming setback. The 1998 Development Code currently in effect calls out a 30 -foot setback. Pete Volbeda, Architect, felt the modifications would improve the look of the house and asked for the Commission's approval. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. Carl Masnec, Jr., who resides at 2005 Indian Creek said he lived adjacent to the project site and was concerned about the survey stake inside his fence line. He said he put the fence up several years ago in accordance with a NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION variance he received because there was no bridle trail easement between the two properties and since that time, the easements were abolished. He asked on which side of the house the driveway would be located. DSA/Smith responded to Mr. Masnec that the driveway would be on the opposite or North side of the property from his house. Mr. Masnec wondered if the owner was aware that he was below the sewer line and would have to pump the sewer uphill. As an alternative, the owner could run a line down to the main line. Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/McManus moved, VC/Tanaka seconded to approve Development Review No. 2004-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Tanaka, Tye Low, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None/Nolan ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Develo ment Review No. 2004-01 and Minor Variance No. 2004-01 Pursuant to Chapters 22.48 and 22.52 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval to construct an approximate 10,867 square foot three-story dwelling (including a six car garage, patio and deck) on an existing vacant parcel. The request also included the construction of a tennis court, swimming pool and retaining walls with a maximum exposed height of six feet. Additionally, the applicant requested approval of a Minor Variance to permit a 24 -foot front yard setback in lieu of the Code required distance of 30 feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1741 Derringer Lane (Tract 24046, Lot 5) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNERS: Marie Bechara and Elie Nader 2059 E. Dei Amo Boulevard Rancho Dominguez, CA 90220 NOVEMBER 9, 2084 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 615 N. Benson Avenue, Suite C Upland, CA 91786 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report: Staff recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-01 and Minor Variance No. 2004-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Tanaka asked how long it would take to complete the preliminary grading on a lot of this size and topography. AssocP/Lungu suggested the applicant could speak to VC/Tanaka's question. C/Low felt that an excessive amount of fill was required for the minor variance. As VC/Tanaka indicated, the drop-off was very steep and the property was quite large. She questioned how the regulation was an unreasonable restriction given the natural topography of the land. AssocP/Lungu explained that if the house were located further back more fill and more retaining walls would likely be required. AssocP/Lungu responded that without the minor variance, the project would change. For example, the amount of grading and the design would change significantly in order to meet the 30 -foot front yard setback. Pete Volbeda, Architect, said that when he initially submitted plans for the project he was asking for both a height and front setback variance. In working with staff, a compromise was reached. Without the front setback variance there would likely be 9,000 or 10,000 yards of fill including fill for the tennis court. Mr. Volbeda indicated that the grading should be completed within two months. However, it could take longer to find dirt for the fill. Chair/Nolan asked Mr. Volbeda if he had worked on a project in "The Country Estates" with such a severe slope as this project. Mr. Volbeda cited two examples, one on Broken Twig and another at the back of "The Country Estates." He stated that his preference would have been to obtain a height variance to minimize the amount of fill. He confirmed that the project could be built without the variance and that it would require more fill. C/Low asked if the project had received approval from 'The Country Estates" Homeowners Association, Mr. Volbeda said that in accordance with his usual NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION practice he did not seek Association approval without City approval and felt there would be no problem obtaining the Association approval. C/Tye asked for what height variance Mr. Volbeda applied -and Mr. Volbeda responded that it would have been a 20 percent increase on a 30 -foot height limit (seven feet). If approved it would reduce the fill by about 2000 yards. Mr. Volbeda responded to Chair/Nolan that he had built in excess of 25 homes within "The Country Estates." Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/Tye asked if staff would have had a problem with the height variance absent the setback variance. AssocP/Lungu responded that staff would not encourage variances in either case. Findings allow staff to do variances related to topography or other unusual site features. In granting a height variance it means that it would be less likely that the house would be stepped down, a scenario that staff would encourage. Many homes in "The Country Estates" have between 20 and 30 -foot front setbacks. Chair/Nolan expressed that it was problematic for him if a number of projects were brought before the Commission that included requests for minor variances because he felt the Commission should attempt to comply with the code. DCM/DeStefano said this was not an easy lot on which to build. In fact, there were no "easy" lots left to build on in "The Country Estates." This applicant was requesting a front setback variance because of the size and shape of the lot, the significant topographic relief and because this was an almost 11,000 square foot house. Should the house be made smaller the setback could be improved and if the house were moved further back on the lot the front setback would be maintained. However, in that event as Mr. Volbeda indicated, the walls would get taller. in making its recommendations to the Commission Staff considers all characteristics including the prevailing character of "The Country Estates" in order to achieve all of the intended goals. From a technical standpoint the majority of issues could go away with a complete redesign. NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Tye felt that all things considered the Commission should lean on staff's expertise. C/Tye moved, VC/Tanaka seconded to approve Development Review No. 2004-01 and Minor Variance No. 2004-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval. Motion approved 4-1 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, VC/Tanaka, McManus, NOES:COMMISSIONERS: Lowir/Nolan ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C/I-ow explained that her reason for a "NO" vote was that based upon what the Commission heard it was her opinion that it was not impossible to build a home and respect the code that required the 30 -foot setback. Also, the additional fill was not unreasonable and the house could be made smaller. She was concerned that other variance requests would be ignored if the project were outside of "The Country Estates." The prior project under consideration this evening was an older project and the request was made on a legal non -conforming property rather than a vacant property. She felt the setback requirement was not an unreasonable restriction on this project rather on the topography itself and she would approve the project but would not approve the minor variance. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS: VC/Tanaka commented that the City's recognition of veterans that he and C/McManus attended was outstanding. Chair/Nolan recognized all veterans in the community and thanked C/McManus for his service. 9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS. DCM/DeStefano reported that the Commission's approved Best Western Hotel project would be considered by the City Council on Tuesday, November 16. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: NOVEMBER 9, 2004 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nolan adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Attest: Dan Nolan, Chairman