Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/12/2006MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 12, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson 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: Commissioner Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei, Vice Chairman Tony Torng and Chairman Steve Nelson. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair/Nelson moved Item 7.1 to the end of the Public Hearings. 4 CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 28, 2006. C/Lee moved, C[Wei seconded to approve the Minutes of November 28, 2006, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None Lee, Wei, Nolan, Chair/Nelson None VC/Torng None DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Development Review DR 2006-19 — In accordance with Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story 3,668 square foot single- family residence with an attached 440 square foot garage. The site is an undeveloped vacant lot; the subject property is zoned R-1 (8,000) and contains 33,327 square feet of land area. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1200 Chisholm Trail Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Anna Lee 6111 Glenwood Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 APPLICANT: Yun Roe 533 S. Saint Andrew Place, Suite 320 Los Angeles, CA 90020 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review DR 2006-19, Findings of Fact, and Conditions of Approval as listed within the Resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Wei moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Development Review 2006-19, Findings of Fact, and Conditions of Approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Wei, Lee, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None C/Wei recused himself from deliberation of Items 8.2 and 8.3 under the "Commonlaw" conflict and left the dais. DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 8.2 Development Review No. 2006-13 —In accordance with Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of plans to demolish the existing dwelling unit and construction of a new three-story 13,730 square foot single-family residence with an attached 1,375 square foot garage. The subject property is zoned R-1 (40,000) and contains 51,836 gross square feet of land area. PROJECT ADDRESS: Clear2366 eek Lane Diamond Barr CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Lawrence and Heneretta Ogbechie APPLICANT: 2366 Clear Creek Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-13, Findings of fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Applicant George Medley, 20746 Missionary Ridge Road said he was present to answer Commission questions and concerns. Mr. Medley responded to VC/Torng that the conditions of approval were acceptable. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Development Review No. 2006-13, Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, C/Torng, ChaiNOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Wei ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.3 Development Review No. 2006-22 — In accordance with Chapter 22.48 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story 11,534 square foot single- family residence with an attached 1,236 square foot garage. The subject property is zoned R-1 (40,000) and contains 45,119 square feet of land area. DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 4 PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: PLANNING COMMISSION 2112 Rocky View Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chacko Jacob 1801 E. Edinger Avenue, Suite 235 Santa Ana, CA 92705 APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda, Architect 615 N. Benson Avenue, Unit C Upland, CA 91786 CDD/Fong presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-22, Findings of Fact, and Conditions of Approval as listed within the Resolution. Pete Volbeda, architect, explained the project and explained how there would be varying contours for a better overall appearance. For the past 15 years he has simultaneously submitted projects to the City and "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association for approval. With respect to this project he would request that he be allowed to proceed to approval and then obtain association approval in accordance with the conditions. He said he had no problem providing landscaping as required by staff. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Steve Solis, 22615 Lazy Meadow Road, said it was his job as the General Manager of "The Country Estates" to make certain that the CC&R's were enforced. Mr. Volbeda is well aware that the CC&R's clearly state that the architectural committee must approve the plans prior to submission to the Planning Commission. As such, he respectfully requested that the Planning Commission take no action on this project until it has been presented to and approved by "The Country Estates" architectural committee. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan asked for clarification about the CC&R's. CDD/Fong stated that the CC&R's are a private matter and are not enforced by the City. ACA/Kovacevich explained that the Commission's only role is to determine DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION whetherthe proposed development is consistent with the City's General Plan and Development Code. He also advised removal of Condition 5. a. (2) on page 3 of the resolution because it was an illegal condition. C/Nolan moved, VC/Torng seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2006-22, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution with the deletion of Condition 5. a. (2) of the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: rng, Lee, son Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Wei ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the meeting at 8:15 P.M. RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the meeting at 8:25 p.m. C/Wei returned to the dais. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No 54081, Zone Change No. 2006-02/Planned Development, Mitigate I Ne ative Declaration No 2006-03 Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18 Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13 — In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, City's Subdivision Ordinance — Title 21, Development Code — Title 22, Sections 22.14, 22.58, 22.22, 22.54 and 22.38, the proposed project was a 22 lot subdivision on a site of approximately 12.9 acres that would provide for the development of 16 single-family detached homes on individual parcels ranging in size from approximately 5,705 square feet to 10,506 square feet. The proposed project would include the construction of private streets, graded pads, manufactured slopes and retaining wails; an easement for a public pedestrian trail in a portion of proposed open space areas, and the removal of a portion of existing vegetation. The current zoning of the project site is R-1-10,000. The Zone Change to RL/Planned Development Overlay provides for compliance with the General Plan land use designation and maximum flexibility in the site planning and design, thereby allowing smaller lots in order to retain more open space DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION within the project boundaries. The Conditional Use Permit relates to grading and development within a hillside area. The Variance relates to retaining walls that are proposed at a height greater than six feet. The Tree Permit relates to the removal, replacement and protection of oak and walnut trees. (Continued from November 28, 2006) PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: At the southern terminus of Crooked Creek Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Daniel Singh Jewel Ridge, LLC 10365 W. Jefferson Boulevard Culver City, CA 90232 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of a resolution recommending City Council approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2006-03, Zone Change No. 2006-02/Panned Development Overlay District No. 2006-01, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 54081, Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-18, Variance No. 2006-02 and Tree Permit No. 2002-13. AssocP/Lungu referenced a letter staff received today regarding the author's concerns about the project and why he believed it should not be approved. Daniel Singh stated that this was the third Planning Commission hearing on this matter in spite of the fact that staff recommended approval. 'The Commission was concerned about visual impacts even though the City's attorney has made it clear that the City has no view ordinance. Nevertheless, the applicant has cooperated and provided responses to Commissioner's concerns. During the second hearing the Commission was presented before and after views from three lots that back up to the proposed project, five and 10 -year simulations of what the project appearance would be and a series of photos from the northbound SR57 that confirm the site would not be visible due to the vegetation along the freeway. Also provided at the second hearing was a revised landscape plan that utilized more indigenous vegetation and landscape plan that showed the complete on-site mitigation for oak tree and oak woodland replacement. The mitigation also included dead trees. Present during the November 28 meeting was the biologist that has assisted the applicant throughout the entire process. The applicant also provided a landscape plan that illustrated DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION the modified areas. At the last hearing the Commission requested additional visual simulation of the project from the second story as well as a before and after view from the southbound SR57 and the applicant has complied. The vegetation along the freeway is the same in the depictions of the five, 10 and existing views. He reviewed the proposed project, well under the allowable maximum number of units and the project now before the Commission is a compromise based on discussions with staff and consultants. The initial project was reduced from 26 houses to 16 houses based on staffs input. The zone change request is consistent with the General Plan and is not being requested to allow an increase in density; rather, to allow a small development that preserves more open space than would not have been made available under the existing zoning. Mr. Singh stated that the applicant has made every effort to cooperate with staff and the Commission and has expended more than $15,000 attempting to respond to the Commissioner's requests. He hoped the Commission would approve the project at this time. Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing. Jeff Layton, 3703 Crooked Creek Drive, stated that at the last meeting he was disappointed about the applicant's presentation and was disappointed that he was not allowed to speak after the presentations were made because he understood it was to be an open hearing. He also felt the engineer was being evasive. The so-called credible biologist was not knowledgeable about basic requirements and did not make a good presentation. He felt that in general the presentation was far below expectations. He also believed that the photos presented this evening were not indicative of what would occur even within the first five years. Mr. Layton said he was concerned about the steepness of the hillside and what the project would look like from both sides of the street. Gregory Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek Drive, said he wanted to salvage the firewood from the project. He provided photographs to the Commission that showed a large two -foot base black walnut tagged to be removed as well as other views. Mr. Shockley asked if all trees were supposed to be tagged. Most of the trees in the canopy are not tagged and wondered if they had been counted. The view from across the street shows the 18 -foot retaining wall, the six- foot fence, the tree canopy that would be gone, etc. He said he was not opposed to development of the property and would like to see the applicant do a good job. He felt that a 15 to 18 foot retaining wall was not in the best interest of the residents and Diamond Bar. He referred to his letter addressed to the Commission. DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Wei recommended that the applicant plant more mature boxed trees than the proposed 15 -gallon at the onset of the project to provide a more mature canopy. CDD/Fong responded to C/Nolan that some of the oak trees could be relocated under the direction of an Arborist. C/Nolan wanted to know if the project could consider shelved walls rather than 18 -foot retaining walls. CDD/Fong responded that the applicant could use a similar type of block with landscaping cells. However, it would change the design because those types of blocks are placed at an angle and more of the slope would be lost. Mr. Shockley explained his statements about the failure of the retaining wall as a result of potential earthquakes. Unless the epicenter of an earthquake is close to the area and there is an unreasonably high water table it is unlikely the walls will fail. However, most walls of this magnitude are on state land or on land that is controlled by a large corporation that can afford to inspect the walls on a regular basis and make appropriate repairs, and are not usually installed in areas where the slope flows down to other properties. If the retaining wall were to fail it would most likely come down onto Brea Canyon Road. He said he spoke with three engineers and one geotechnician and none said they would use this system. He may not agree with the civil engineer on all points but in many aspects he did a good job. For the most part the pads are on cut and the soil is as good as it is going to get. In his estimation, the primary reason for the retaining wall is to increase the usable rear yard. The retaining wall could be eliminated and the back yards would be on a slope as they are in "The Country Estates" which, in his opinion, would solve a lot of the problems. He said he did not agree with changing the density. He agreed with the applicant that looking from the elevation of the proposed dwellings residents would not be able to see the freeway. It is possible that the rooftops would be seen from the freeway. However, the block wall will not. He believed there were alternatives to the design plan and was disappointed that Mr. Singh felt compelled to build a retaining wall. If the retaining wall were six-foot high he believed no one would object. CDD/Fong responded to C/Lee that the distance between each of the three six-foot high retaining walls is about five feet in accordance with the Hillside Management Ordinance. AssocP/Lungu explained that the walls would have a much less massive appearance with plantings between each wall. CDD/Fong explained to C/Lee that the applicant presents his design to the DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION City and the City determines whether the design meets the development standards. ACA/Kovacevich explained that the Commission's job is to apply the code and make its recommendation to the City Council. Peter Lewandowski stated that a Certified Arborist conducted the tree survey in 2004 on behalf of the applicant and the City retained Mitch Beecham, a reputable biologist to review the accuracy of the survey. Based on Mr. Beecham's review there is no evidence to suggest that the tree survey was not conducted in full compliance with City standards. Mr. Beecham had recommendations that were subsequently incorporated. The tree survey was conducted based upon the applicant's original 26 -lot subdivision and the grading plan has since been modified. Therefore, the tree survey should not be necessarily indicative of a precise count but a close approximation. Prior to grading, another tree survey will be conducted to reflect the precise grading plan necessary to accommodate plans that Council ultimately approves. Tree tagging protocol includes tagging trees that are in compliance with the City's standards of diameter at a specified (breast) height. The tree survey is an approximation and accurately reflects what was on-site at the time of the survey. The edge of grading has been reduced and the affected number of trees is therefore likely less than the number represented in the environmental documentation. C/Lee said he felt that the applicant had not made an effort to design his project in accordance with the wishes and concerns of the residents. Mr. Singh explained that this project had been on the drawing board for four years and that there had been community meetings. C/Lee wanted to know how many meetings the applicant held. Mr. Singh responded. Mr. Singh responded to concerns about the retaining walls that a geotechnical engineer reviewed the plan and provided recommendations that were incorporated into the project. The City's consultant reviewed the soils report on a number of occasions. Both consultants recommended approval based upon the recommended mitigation. With regard to the trees the applicant is replacing trees at a 3:1 ratio and 1:1 ratio for dead trees. He said he would consider larger trees limited to the retaining wall area to help screen the walls. He reminded the Commission that this was not a large development. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan felt the applicant did not properly respond to the Commission's request for simulation photos. She asked for an answer regarding the retaining walls. CDD/Fong responded that it was the applicant's decision as to what type of wall they would use. There is a condition requiring landscaping and irrigation. Mr. Singh stated that the system is called a "lock and load" system with a facade that allows for vegetation cells. The reason this type of system is used is to accommodate the concerns regarding massing and keep the development envelope as small as possible. VC/Torng commended the builder for his time and effort toward a good project. However, he believed that comments were important for the applicant to consider. He felt that in researching all of the previous material that the applicant had not properly responded to the request for viewpoint simulations. He asked the applicant to tell the Commission what size trees he intended to install, give the Commission more information about the retaining wall and respond to the request for gateway view simulations. C/Lee agreed with VC/Torng that the applicant had not fully responded to the Commission's requests for certain information. He asked the applicant for his sincere cooperation based on the Commission's requests. C/Wei echoed other Commissioner's comments regarding trees, preservation of oak trees, increase in the size of replacement trees and how to soften the retaining walls with more vegetation. He suggested that the applicant come back with plans to show the Commission. It seemed to him that the applicant had not complied with the Commission's request to have the pictures from the northbound SR57 without the vegetation at the side of the freeway. Chair/Nelson suggested the applicant speak with restoration ecologist Dr. Quinn at CalPoly to address concerns about what size trees should be installed as replacement of the native trees and replace other trees with larger boxed trees. He wanted a condition added to require that the slopes being graded above residences be planted immediately and that the applicant would use the native planting for erosion control. He believed the project could be made to look like it appears today although it would take a long restoration period. Chair/Nelson said he would like to move the project up the line but he was not convinced the applicant had provided what the Commission asked and he wants the City Council to see it as well. DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee said he was not comfortable with the project and wanted the applicant to prove that the proposed project was the best for the residents. C/Nolan wanted to know if C/Lee was asking the applicant to provide a new plan without a retaining wall. C/Lee said he wanted to see different plan options to accommodate other opinions put forth by the residents because he believed that individual views of the plan were completely opposite. C/Nolan said it was not clear to her what C/Lee was requesting. C/Lee said he wanted a different plan that included the resident's comments and concerns. ACA/Kovacevich cautioned the Commission that there might be a fundamental misunderstanding about the process. The idea was not to get to the point of necessarily finding a project that everyone liked but to come to agreement that the project complied with the findings of fact. The applicant has submitted a project that has gone through several iterations and been pared down to 16 homes and, the applicant is seeking an up or down vote on the proposed project. If C/Lee is uncomfortable with the project and feels he cannot make the findings he could recommend denial. However, it is not proper for the Commission to attempt to redesign the project. C/Wei recommended the following: 1) revise the plan to increase the size of trees and vegetation and a include a plan to transplant view preserve the oak photos hotos t ken from trees, 2) find a way to soften the wall and, 3) p p northbound SR57 without the vegetation for photos 2, 3 & 4. Mr. Singh stated that each of the visuals cost the applicant about $1500 each. He wants to cooperate and has presented seven or eight views and asked the Commission to limit their expectations as much as possible. C/Wei believed the vegetation could be added and removed using a computer software program. C/Nolan stated that this request was made at the last meeting and the request was not a new request to the applicant and it would therefore not be unreasonable for the Commission to request compliance. If the applicant had provided one northbound rendering as previously requested this issue might have been resolved this evening. Mr. Singh reiterated that the Commission was requesting views without vegetation (photos 2, 3 & 4) along the northbound SR57 and response to recommendations regarding tree replacement, relocation and vegetation as Q DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION called out by C/Wei. CDD/Fong said that staff would provide the requests in writing to Mr. Singh. CDD/Fong reiterated the Commission's requests and included Chair/Nelson's concern about planting trees that were too large. Mr. Singh asked the Commission to reconsider their recommendation regarding replanting due to the low success rate of a very costly effort. He stated that he was willing to comply with all of the other requests. VC/Torng moved to continue the Public Hearing to January 9, 2007, to allow the applicant time to comply. Chair/Nelson agreed with Mr. Singh about native trees that 15 gallon and 24 box trees would be appropriate and asked for a friendly amendment to VC/Torng's motion. VC/Torng amended his motion. C/Lee seconded the amended motion. CDD/Fong restated the motion as follows: To continue the item to January 9, 2007, and to bring back the aforementioned items: 1) revised photos #2, 3 and 4; percentage of tree species for softening the look of the retaining walls minus relocation of native species. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng; Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Lee cautioned staff to make certain applicants were prepared to respond to Commissioner's request and not waste everyone's time. VC/Torng thanked staff for their responsible efforts. He said it was an honor to work with his colleagues and wished everyone a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Chair/Nelson concurred. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects DECEMBER 12, 2006 PAGE 13 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 9:42 p.m. to January 9, 2007. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong, PeVN�elson, Chairman nity Ioevelopment Director