The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2/8/2005MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 8, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Tanaka called the meeting to order at 7:09 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner McManus led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka and Commissioners Ruth Low, Joe McManus and Steve Tye. Chairman Dan Nolan was excused. Also present: James DeStefano, Assistant City Manager; Nancy Fong, Planning Manager; Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Associate and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3 CI APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CONSENT CALENDAR: As Presented. 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 25, 2005. C/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 25, 2005 as presented. Motion carried by thelollowing Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS None None VC/Tanaka, Low, McManus, Tye None Chair/Nolan FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. 2004-42 - In accordance with Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, this was a request to remodel and construct an approximate 860 square feet addition to the existing 1,280 livable square foot one story, single family residence with two car garage. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 21238 Bronco Lane Drive (Lot 27, Tract 25985) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Michael Shackelford 21238 Bronco Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Susan Raskullnecz, AMR Design 20 Kendall Place Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 DSA/Smith presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 200442, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Tye said he found nothing in the report to indicate that this project would add a second story. DSA/Smith said she would correct the report to reflect that the project was a one-story addition. She explained that justification for the new addition's proximity to the existing pool was a Building and Safety requirement indicating that when a pool is added the homeowner is required to show the justification and structural stability of the pool based on the surcharge the new addition would require. Adrian Raskulinecz, designer, explained the proposed addition and said he read staffs report and concurred with the conditions. In response to VC/Tanaka, Mr. Raskulinecz said the structure would be about four feet from the existing pool and that the footings would have to be installed so that they extended below the deepest portion of the pool at their point of existence. VC/Tanaka opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, VC/Tanaka closed the public hearing. FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Tye moved, C/McManus seconded to approve Development Review No. 2004-42, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the appropriate changes included. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, McManus, Low, VC/Tanaka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nolan 7.2 Extension of Time for Development Review No. 2002-031 - In accordance with Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.66.050 - this was a request for a one-year extension of time of the approved project that allowed the construction of a two-story office building of approximately 25,000 gross square feet. The Planning Commission approved this project on December 10, 2002, and the extension of time request does not alter the approved project. PROJECT ADDRESS: 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive (Lot 4, Tract No. 39679) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Dr. Acbar Omar APPLICANT: 222 N. Sunset Avenue W. Covina, CA 91790 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval -of the Extension of Time for Development Review No. 2002-03(1), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/McManus asked if it took longer than a year to get through plan check and AssocP/Lungu said it was possible and depended upon certain factors. In December 2002, only the architectural drawings were completed. C/Lowe asked if the project was on course and if the one-year extension would be sufficient to which AssocP/Lungu responded that a one-year extension should suffice since the applicant was in plan check. She explained that this approval would grant a one-year extension and that the resolution stated the applicant could request a one-year extension of time. Because it is already February six months may not be sufficient to allow the applicant to complete the process and it would make sense to approve a one-year extension at this time. FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Dr. Acbar Omar said he did not know why it took two years to go through this process but felt it was about 95 percent completed. He hoped he would be able to complete the plan check process and commence construction soon. VC/Tanaka opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, VC/Tanaka closed the public hearing. At C/Tye's request for elaboration of C/Low's question, the Planning Commission could approve either two six-month extensions or one-year. Because it is already February staff feels that a one-year extension would be more prudent. C/Tye referred to Condition 5 (t) that cites Chapter 22.72 that consideration of an extension would be one year. AssocP/Lungu said that the Planning Commission could grant two six-month extensions or one one- year extension. C/McManus said he hoped it would not take the applicant much longer to complete plan check and hoped the project could be fast -tracked. C/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve one-year Extension of Time for Development Review No. 2002-03(1), Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, Tye, Low, VC/Tanaka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nolan 7.3 Development Review No. 2004.43 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-01 - In accordance with - Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48.020(x), 22.30.080(5) and 22.56.010 - this was a request to construct a two story, single family residence of approximately 11,000 gross square feet including balconies, porch, covered patio and attached four car garage. The Minor Conditional Use Permit was for a driveway wider than the maximum 14 feet allowed at the property line. PROJECT ADDRESS: 3138 Windmill Drive (Tract 50314, Lot 13) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: Windmill Estates, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard #300 Torrance, CA 90503 APPLICANT: Richard Gould 3480 Torrance Boulevard #300 Torrance, CA 90503 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-43 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Low asked why at the bottom of page 3 it read- that the separation between adjacent residential structures indicates that the zoning requirement is 40 feet when the proposed separation indicates 32.51 and 92 feet and then states that the proposed distances meet the zoning requirements. AssocP/Lunge responded that the wrong numbers were inserted into the report and that the actual separation was between structures and would likely be in excess of 40 feet. Kurt Nelson and Richard Gould confirmed that the separation between structures was about 45 feet at the closest point, definitely more than 40 feet. On the other side the separation was about 90 feet. Mr. Nelson thanked staff for the report and subsequent recommendation for approval. VC/Tanaka opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, VC/Tanaka closed the public hearing. C/McManus moved, C/Low seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2004-43 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. AYES: VC/Tanaka, Low, McManus, Tye None Chair/Nolan COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.4 Development Review No. 2004-44 - In accordance with Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48.020(a) - this was a request to construct a two story, single family residence of approximately 12,300 gross square feet including balconies, porch and attached four car garage. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2869 Oak Knoll Drive (Lot 2, Parcel Map 26235) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Windmill Estates, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard #300 Torrance, CA 90503 APPLICANT: Richard Gould 3480 Torrance Boulevard #300 Torrance, CA 90503 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-44, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Tye asked if page 6, Item 5 (g) should read wet bar instead of wet. He asked if it would require City approval if a future owner wanted to put appliances in the rumpus room. PM/Fong said that if the ownerwanted to put appliances in the rumpus room it would be considered as a second unit and would then be subject to the City's second unit development criteria that limits the size of the second unit. C/McManus wanted to know if staff was recommending a cupola or some other architectural or landscape feature to break up the roofline to which PM/Fong responded that staff would prefer an architectural feature to landscaping. Curt Nelson thanked staff for the thorough report. He said that the distance from the rear of the structure to the toe of the slope was only about 25 feet and a retaining wall fronted the slope that ascended 100 feet and that the nearest home on the upper level was 240 feet away from the project. He asked that the project be allowed to consider 5 (h) fulfilled with the addition of the Pilasters and not include a cupola or bay window because of the grade and distance differential. FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION C/McManus suggested that at the point of the turret the roof could be elevated with a cupola on top to satisfy staffs concerns. Richard Gould said he felt such an adjustment could work and said he would study the adjustment to determine whether it was feasible. C/McManus asked why there were two master bedrooms proposed, one downstairs and one upstairs, and would this constitute possible multiple use. Mr. Nelson responded that homes in Diamond Bar of this size and less have a recorded covenant and agreement that runs with the land and states that' the dwelling shall never be used for multi -family, subdivision and hotel California type uses. Frequently in the Asian community grandparents live in the home and are often provided a second master suite as part of their living area. VC/Tanaka opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, VC/Tanaka closed the public hearing. C/Tye asked if in light of the previous discussion 5(h) should be stricken? PM/Fong recommended that staff and the applicant work together to possibly implement C/McManus' recommendation in order to eliminate condition 5(h). C/Tye moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2004-43 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, McManus, Low, VC/Tanaka, None Chair/Nolan 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS: None Offered. 9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS: PM/Fong reported that today staff received the development proposal from Brookfield Homes for the Calvary Chapel site and the development plans will be brought to the Planning Commission very soon. FEBRUARY 8, 2005 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ACM/DeStefano reminded the Commission that the Planning Commissioners Institute would be held April 13-15, 2005, in Pasadena. Please let SAA/Marquez or any staff member know as soon as possible if you would like to register for the event. C/McManus felt it would be prudent for the Commission and staff to travel to the event daily rather than book hotel rooms. ACM/DeStefano suggested that during one day of the event staff and the Commissioners should meet for dinner. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, VC/Tanaka adjourned the meeting at 7:52 p.m. IIy,,Submitted, Jaln6s DeSt�fano, Assistant City Manager Attest: C a 2) C _-::� Jack Tanaka, Vice Chairman