Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/11/2004MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 11, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:05 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: Dan Nolan, Chairman; Jack Tanaka, Vice Chairman; and Commissioners Ruth Low; Joe McManus; and Steve Tye. Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair/Nolan requested that Item 8.3 be moved to the end of the meeting. The Commission concurred. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the April 7, 2004, Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission, Traffic and Transportation Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission C/Tanaka moved, C/Low seconded, to approve the April 7, 2004, Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission, Traffic and Transportation Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered with C/Tye abstaining. 4.2 Minutes of the April 27, 2004, Study Session. C/Tye moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve the April 27, 2004, Study Session minutes as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered with VC/Tanaka abstaining. MAY 11, 2004 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 4.3 Minutes of the April 27, 2004, Regular Meeting. C/Low moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve the Aril 27, 2004, Regular Meeting as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered with VC/Tanaka abstaining. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. 2004-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-05 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020, 22.30.080 and 22.56) is a request to construct a two-story, single family residence of approximately 10,344 gross square feet including porches, porte cochere, balconies, and three car garage, site improvements including retaining walls to a maximum six foot exposed height and a Minor Conditional Use Permit approval for a circular driveway. PROJECT ADDRESS: 3109 Windmill Drive (Lot 6, Tract 50314) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Windmill Estates, LLC and APPLICANT: Richard Gould 3480 Torrance Boulevard #300 Torrance, CA 90503 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. DSA/Smith responded to C/Low that she was correct in assuming that this project involved a private street that the owner owned to its mid -point. The dedicated asphalt portion of the street was calculated from a point 30 feet from the centerline of the street where the setbacks are included and it is not included in the 50 percent of the front yard. MAY 11, 2004 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Kurt Nelson, Windmill Estates, LLC, appreciated staff's revision for the SUSMP recommendations to reflect review by the City's Public Works Director. With respect to Condition (m), page 8, this project includes a drainage plan for this tract that is designed to carry drainage down a swale where there is a rear pad and a slope, and the drainage plan is such that it is suppose to and ultimately would drain the swale to a man-made catch basin and tract drainage system. In so doing it crosses adjacent Lot 7. Strictly speaking, it would drain over an adjoining parcel in accordance with the approved drainage plan. He approved of the balance of staff's proposed conditions. AssocP/Lungu recommended that "if applicable" be added to the end of Condition (m), page 8. C/Tye wondered if the drainage crossing Lot 7 would be an easement. Kurt Nelson responded that there were easements reserved for drainage to cross the lots. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/McManus moved, VC/Tanaka seconded to approve Development Review No. 2004-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution subject to the aforementioned addition of "if applicable" to Condition (m), page 8 of the draft resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, V/C Tanaka, Low, Tye Chair/Nolan NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review No. 2004-03 and Tree Permit No. 2004-02, (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020(a)(1) and 22.38) is a request to construct a four- story (split-level) single family residence of approximately 11,300 square feet including a four -car garage, balconies, veranda and deck. The request also includes retaining walls of varying height not to exceed an exposed eight -foot height as well as removal, replacement and protection of oak and walnut trees. MAY 11, 2004 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: 2557 Blaze Trail (Lot 138, Tract No. 30578) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Nasser Ahmadi 127 S. Brand Avenue Glendale, CA 91204 Mark Sebeti 147 Islington Drive Irving, CA 92620 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-03 and Tree Permit No. 2004-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Tanaka asked if the eight foot high retaining wall required a Minor Variance to which AssocP/Lungu responded, no. The Code dictates six feet exposed height as the typical requirement and eight feet was permitted at the rear of the site as long as it related to the topography. Nasser Ahmadi, project engineer and owner said he read and concurred with staff's conditions of approval as outlined in the resolution. The project was designed on a 20 percent slope lot and conformed to the City's guidelines for design. He presented,a design concept rendering for the Commission's consideration Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. May Yu said she was very concerned that the proposed structure would be built in front of her house and wanted to know if she would have a direct view of the retaining wall. She also wanted to know if trees measuring 8 inches across were protected and whether there were specific trees identified to be protected on the site. She wanted to know how she could show her parents, the actual property owners, how the proposed project would appear. AssocP/Lungu responded to Ms. Yu that she would be able to see the 42 -inch high retaining walls that would be placed in the front yard setback. The highest point of a retaining wall was in the rear yard area and the MAY 11, 2004 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION highest point of those walls would not be in Ms. Yu's view. The Code requires that oak, walnut sycamore and willow that have an eight -inch diameter at breast height and pepper trees of the same size where appropriate be protected and preserved. Further, the Code gives leeway to remove those trees when they appear to frustrate the development of a lot and must be replaced at a 3:1 ratio on the site. In staff's opinion, the designer did the best possible job to build the house into the terrain and maintained the greatest portion of the lot as it was presented prior to construction. AssocP/Lungu said Ms. Yu would be provided a copy of the meeting minutes, staff report and reduced drawings and that the full-sized drawings could be reviewed at City Hall. She explained that the approved minutes would be available in two weeks with copy of the meeting's audiotape available upon request at a cost of $5. Staff's report and the reduced drawings would be available tomorrow. Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/Low asked if the replacement trees were included in the landscape plan. DCM/DeStefano responded yes. Included in the packet is a conceptual landscape plan showing placement of the coast live oaks. C/Tye moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2004-03 and Tree Permit No. 2004-02, 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 Tye, Low, McManus, WC Tanaka Chair/Nolan None None 7.4 Development Review No. 2004-13 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48) is a request to remodel and construct an approximate 713 square foot second story addition to an existing 1,205 livable square foot one story single-family residence with a two -car garage. PROJECT ADRESS: 20316 Flintgate Drive (Lot 69, T28258) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 MAY 11, 2004 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: Lily W. Zheng 20316 Flintgate Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Rupert Mok 829 S. Lemon Avenue #A11-13 Walnut, CA 91789 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-13, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Rupert Mok, applicant, said he highly appreciated what DSA/Smith told him when he first presented this project to the City. Because the owner was frustrated she decided to withdraw the project but DSA/Smith worked with them to show how the applicant could meet her needs and move the project forward. He indicated that he read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval as outlined in the resolution. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. Helen Almaraz, 20319 Flintgate Drive, objected to the project because she did not believe it was intended to be a single-family home. There are always four cars parked at the location, two in front of her house and two on the opposite side with one parked against the side hill. She also felt the property owner might be running a business out of the home and in her opinion, the property was not well maintained. Chair/Nolan thanked Ms. Almaraz for advising the Commission of possible Code violations. The draft resolution states that the project is a single-family residence. Bill Becker, 20311 Flintgate Drive, across the street from the project, also felt that this was not a single-family residence. He presented a photograph of the project site that showed five spill over vehicles parked at the residence on Sunday at a three- bedroom home where five people reside. He felt there would be additional people living at the house and vehicles parked at the residence if two bedrooms were permitted. Years ago he was reprimanded by the City for parking off of his paved driveway on his side lot which is a MAY 11, 2004 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION constant circumstance at the project site. Vehicles in disrepair are parked at the site for long periods of time. He emphasized his feeling that this was not a single-family residence and that it was more like an apartment complex. Evie Becker, 20311 Flintgate Drive, asked the Commission to tell her what would happen if this was not, in fact, a single-family residence? DSA/Smith stated that when she visited the site it was obvious to her that a mother, a son and the property owner occupied the dwelling stairs. The addition provided for two new bedrooms and a sitting room up front. It was a very small home and the addition of the 713 square feet would necessarily not add room for additional dwellers. Further, she witnessed nothing business-related in the garage area. There was room for a vehicle and there were some boxes visible. The car in the driveway was previously the subject of a code violation that was addressed by the property owner. DCM/DeStefano explained that the Commission was considering whether this home should be permitted to expand its size. Staff provided a technical report that spoke to the issue of the physical development proposal that met the requirements of the City's Code. The issue of cars parked on the street was sometimes difficult in Diamond Bar based on the size of families and occupants of homes who were of driving age. As long as streets remain public, they are available for parking. Sometimes it is annoying to have someone else's vehicle parked in front of one's home. However, they are public streets for the purpose of public parking. Should a vehicle be parked on the street longer than 72 hours it would be subject to ticketing and ultimately removed. Maintenance of the property was a Neighborhood Improvement issue that would be addressed by the Neighborhood Improvement Officers as to whether it should be noticed for correction. Property maintenance may be a separate issue than what is before the Commission for consideration. Potential home-based business was also a Neighborhood Improvement issue and some home occupations were permitted in the City as outlined in the Code. With respect to the size, type and character of the family, case law continued to broaden the definition of "family" and what the speaker outlined would not necessarily violate the definition of "family' because it was a very broad definition. What was at issue was whether or not the home was being rented out. The Covenant and Agreement attached to this project as a condition was a document recorded with the County Recorder and obligated the applicant's signature and recordation. The document basically stated that the applicant agreed that the property would be used for a single-family residential purpose only and that MAY 11, 2004 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION no portion of the structure or property shall be rented leased or sold and so forth. If the City were required to bring legal action to enforce the covenant the City would be entitled to its attorney's fees and all court costs associated with that enforcement. Should the property be deemed to not be a single- family residence after the resident has signed the document the City would send a letter indicating the property owner was not in compliance and if not addressed, would seek an injunction and proceed to court to ensure compliance. DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Low that this would be an infraction. The first citation is a $100 fine, the second is a $200 fine and the third is a $500 fine depending on the number of violations observed. Ultimately, it is the City's desire to have the violation corrected. C/McManus took a photograph of his neighbor's yard to City Hall and the situation was corrected. He pointed out that there are direct marketing home- based businesses that require unpacking and repacking of boxes. VC/Tanaka asked if it was DSA/Smith's observation that the property owner resided at the site? DSA/Smith responded that it appeared so to her. DCM/DeStefano felt it would be appropriate for the applicant and/or the owner to respond to the issues addressed. Lily Zheng, property owner, responded to C/Tye that she lives at 20316 Flintgate Drive and agreed with the mandates of the Covenant and Agreement. C/Low asked Ms. Zheng if she understood the meaning and intent of the Covenant and she responded that she understood. Regarding her neighbor's concerns, sometimes her friends come to help her and they park in front of her neighbor's homes and sometimes her neighbor's park in front of her home. C/McManus felt that many of the issues addressed tonight were housekeeping issues that did not relate to the Commission's review of the proposed project. C/Tye stated that if the Commission's approval exacerbated the problems, the Commission ought to make certain everything was in order to justify the addition. MAY 11, 2004 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Low felt it would be advisable to postpone the ultimate decision until staff could provide satisfactory answers to the Commissioner's concerns. VC/Tanaka felt there was sufficient information to proceed with a decision. While he was sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors, there was sufficient means by which those concerns could be addressed. The project had merit and should move forward. C/McManus wanted to know if the same concerns were applicable to prior considerations and the other matter on tonight's agenda. Chair/Nolan felt there were two separate issues involved in this decision. There were no public speakers taking exception with certain issues on prior agenda items and he saw no harm in waiting two weeks to make a final decision. Chair/Nolan moved, C/Low seconded, to continue Development Review No. 2004-13 to the May 25, 2004, meeting. Motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nolan, Low, Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Tanaka ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.3 Development Review No. 2003-30 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020, 22.30.080 and 22.56) is a request to construct a two-story, single family residence of approximately 10,585 gross square feet including porches, balconies, covered patios and four -car garage; as well as site improvements including retaining walls to a maximum six foot exposed height, "pool location," and a Minor Conditional Use Permit approval for a circular driveway that exceeds development standards. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 2164 Rocky View Road (Lot 126, T30091) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Anil and Bhavina Patel 18603 Jeffrey Avenue Cerritos, CA 90703 MAY 11, 2004 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 615 N. Benson Avenue #D Upland, CA 91786 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-30 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Pete Volbeda, project architect, said he read staff's report and concurred with the Conditions of Approval. Condition (ff) was a surprise to him, however, because the owner requested the sinks be allowed in the dining room so that he could wash his hands before using the wet bar. C/Tye asked why this project had not received approval from "The Country Estates" architectural review committee. Mr. Volbeda responded that although approval was not yet received, he had built houses in "The Country Estates" for 15 plus years and had always processed the City and County approval and the association approval simultaneously. The association usually wanted more elaborate landscape plan and as a result, lagged behind the City or County approval and it was not a concern to him. DSA/Smith said that with respect to Condition (ff) the drawing indicated two sinks for the dining area. She believed the architect made an error so she included it in the conditions of approval. She understood that the applicant wished to have two sinks in the dining room and indicated that the request would not present a code issue. Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing. C/Tye moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2003-30 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution striking MAY 11, 2004 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION Condition (ff) with the appropriate editing to the remaining conditions. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, V/C Tanaka, Low, McManus, Chair/Nolan None None 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None Offered. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing Dates for future projects. DCM/DeStefano reported that staff was working vigorously with Lewis and planned to bring the Calvary Chapel project materials to the Planning Commission for preliminary consideration on May 24 with Public Hearings commencing on June 8. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nolan adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Attest: % Chairman Dan Nolan Ily S Jamb,eDeStefano ` Deputy City Managbr