Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/23/2005MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2005 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Low led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairperson Ruth Low, and Commissioners, Dan Nolan, Tony Torng and Steve Tye. Also present: Ann Lungu, Associate Planner and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 12, 2005. VC/Low moved, C/Torng seconded to approve the Regular Meeting Minutes for July 12, 2005 as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Torng, Tye, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None AUGUST 23, 2005 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 VARIANCE NO. 2005-02: In accordance with Code Section 22.54 this was a request to construct two retaining walls with a maximum exposed height of 10 feet and 10 feet two inches within the rear yard. The purpose of the retaining was to repair a slope failure and hold the slope in place. PROXECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 23929 Ridgeline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Edward Layton 23929 Ridgeline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2005-02, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. VC/Low asked where the walls would be placed within the property and where the slopes were located in relationship to the perimeter of the property. AssocP/Lungu used an aerial map to respond to VC/Low. VC/Low asked if any trees would be impacted as a result of the walls. AssocP/Lungu responded that a Walnut tree was destroyed because of excessive mud. However, n this instance the property owner was exempted pursuant to the Development Code Standards for loss of that tree. There are other trees on the slope that Mr. Layton planted and to her knowledge there were no protected trees in the immediate area. C/Tye said that in his opinion the aerial photo was so old that it did not reflect the current conditions. Having visited the site today he witnessed that the slide had destroyed all vegetation down to bare stem and it did not appear that any trees would be impacted where the property owner planned to construct the walls. He said that it was obvious to him that the two geogrids would be landscapes! C/Torng felt that a 10 foot wall was very tall and wondered if the thickness would be increased to adjust to the height of the wall. He wanted to know the details of the landscape plan. AssocP/Lungu stated that staff brought this matter to the Planning Commission as quickly as possible for action because of the urgency of the situation. As it has been done in the past, staff conditioned the resolution for the applicant to submit landscape/irrigation plans and called forthe use of plant material that would help stabilize the slope to an even greater extent. Before permits are issued the property owner is required to submit the landscape plan for staff's review AUGUST 23, 2005 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION and approval. With respect to the 10 foot wall, the soils report is being reviewed. Mr. Layton received comments and with approval of the soils report the walls would be structurally plan checked by the city's Building and Safety division. In addition, there will be inspections, grading permits, and a grading plan that must be approved prior to construction. Edward Layton, property owner, responded to C/Torng that this was a geogrid system and as such the wall outside of height and crushing weight of block on top of block had nothing to do with holding the dirt back. The wall was intended only to keep it from unraveling with water flowing over it. The geogrid that goes down into fill in place and there are three the soil on two -foot levels is what holds the different qualities of rock that are used in the fill. Mr. Layton said that what matters is not the thickness of the wall but how it goes back into the geogrid. Mr. Layton responded to C/Nolan that this was the first time in 25 years of living at the property that he has had this type of a problem. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, C/Tye seconded to approve Variance No. 2005-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Tye, Torng, VC/Low, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None/McManus ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTSIINFORMATION ITEMS: C/Torng said his friends who live in the 91789 zip code area are very pleased about being incorporated into the City of Diamond Bar and zip code 91765. C/Nolan said it was good to be back in the flow of things and looked forward to the Commission having a productive Fall. C/Tye asked what was occurring with the Chary Dagam project on 22604 Ridgeline. AssocP/Lungu responded that the applicant had been allowed to work on certain AUGUST 23, 2005 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION area of the residence that were not affected by items staff would be bringing back to the Commission for further consideration. Staff is waiting for the applicant to provide the City with sets of plans that reflect the actual setbacks as the property was surveyed, payment of additional fees, and a grading and site plan that match each other. C/Tye asked if the increased front yard setback caused the project to encroach on an area in the rear. AssocP/Lungu responded that in the basement area store rooms were added that were not included in the plans and it added about 1200 square feet to the size of the house. The rear yard setback might encroach further into the rear area but she would have to check it to make sure. A land surveyor surveyed the height because it appeared the elevations had changed from what was shown on the grading plan. However, the survey indicated that the height does not exceed the 35 feet from the natural or finished grade for the entire perimeter of the house. 9. STAFF COMMENTWIN FORMATION ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m. 4Resiectfully bmitted, eSte no, Assistant City Manager Attest: 14 . McManus, Chairman