Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/9/2006MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus 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 Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ron Everett, Kwang Ho Lee, Tony Torng, Vice -Chairman Steve Nelson and Chairman Joe McManus. Also present: Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; David Meyer, Planning Consultant, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 4. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 25, 2006. C/Torng moved, CILee seconded to approve the minutes of April 25, 2006, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Cali vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 5_ OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None Torng, Lee, Everett, VC/Nelson, Chair/McManus None None MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION facilities and, in the event overflow parking became an issue would the City require a permit for street parking? AssocP/Lungu said it was possible the church could use the street for overflow parking. She said she was not sure the street had "No Parking" signs. However, if the church were to have a special event the City could issue a Temporary Use Permit, if necessary. Scott Davis, WLC Architects, 10407 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 said his firm reviewed staff's report and concurred with the Conditions of Approval as stated. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. A speaker who lives behind the church asked if the facility had intentions of installing fencing because there is a chain link fence between their property and the church property and she has a lot of problems with children on the church side throwing rocks at their dogs, into their pool and breaking their windows. The church property sits well above her property and she said she was hoping that a privacy fence or block wall would be installed to prevent this type of activity. Also, the fire department told her that the drainage comes down the hill into their block wall and creates a safety hazard because it could cause erosion and cave in the wall. She said it looks like the church has indicated that they own part of her property so she is having a title search done to clarify the boundaries. AssocP/Lungu said that the vicinity map contained in the packet does not legally parcel the properties and the vicinity map does not necessarily reflect the development. The project plans show the actual boundaries. She and the City's Engineer visited the site and also determined thatthe drainage was an issue. As a result, staff included a statement in its report about the church submitting a drainage plan that would accurately reflectthe drainage pattern of the entire site including the parking lot, all drainage devices including catch basins, etc., forthe City to review. There are other conditions about the drainage included in the conditions of approval within the Resolution as well and staff will resolve the drainage issue. Roland Morris, Chairman, Building Committee for the church said the issue about a chain-link fence and children throwing rocks was news to him. There is a preschool nursery school that has used the facilities for over 30 years and that issue will be address and he will speak with the neighbors to address their concerns. The area between the chain-link fence and the block wall is a swale and the ownership needs to be resolved. He felt it would be a MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION CILee move, C/Everett seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-06 and Development Review No. 2005-33, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Everett, Torng, VC/Nelson, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review DR 2005-30 - In accordance with Code Section 22.48, this was a request to construct a new three-story single family dwelling of approximately 10,651 square feet of habitable area. The project also includes porches, balconies, decks, covered patios and an attached four car garage totaling an additional 3,809 square feet on an existing vacant 40,470 square foot (.92 acre) parcel in the R-1 8,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Medium Density Residential (RLM). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 3145 Steeplechase Lane (Lot 1, Parcel Map 23382) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Stephen Tanidaja 21550 Barbi Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 S & W Development 20272 Carrey Road Walnut, CA 91765 PC/Meyer presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review DR 2005-30, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. PC/Meyer explained the application of the building height limitation as outlined in the City's Building Code. The screening is outlined in the conditions. This project lies within the boundaries of "The Country Estates" and their architectural review committee must approve the plans consistent with their CC&Rs. C/Everett said his understanding was that the tract of three was not annexed into "The Country Estates." MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Everett asked Mr. Shum if he would be willing to work through his property owner to gain annexation. Mr. Shum responded that he has a number of contacts with "The Country Estates." However, he felt the property owner was hesitant because he did not yet have approval to build his home. Perhaps the Commission would want to condition the project accordingly. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. Raymond Perez, Board Member, Las Brisas Homeowners Association, 3005 Unit C, La Paz Lane said that his complex was located adjacent to the three lots under discussion and north of the property in question. He said his association had three issues with the project: Drainage, easement and construction of a tennis court. The association is concerned about access of safety vehicles should the easement be moved. With respect to drainage, there is a swale on the project lot that dumps into the fire lane easement at the property line division and in turn drains down into Sugar Pine Place, a street maintained by the association. The association is concerned about runoff, debris and whatever else comes down the hill. Regarding tennis courts, the lights at night encroach on his complex. AssocP/Lungu responded to C/Lee that the applicant would be required to have a drainage plan. In addition, the fire department reviewed the easement prior to the City's acceptance of the project application for the house and the fire department will have another opportunity to review the project. Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. Chair/McManus asked if there was a way to resolve the tennis court lighting issue and PC/Meyer responded that the City has a dark sky policy for tennis courts providing that all lights must be shielded. Beaver lighting has shown that the lights can be directed to the edge of the court without spilling off the court. There are also standards regarding the times the courts can be illuminated. AssocPlLungu responded to C/Torng that about a year and half ago when staff received the papers for the court case, the easement document was forward to CA/Jenkins and he found it to be acceptable. C/Torng said he hoped that since the court had ruled on the agreement and the fire department had approved the easement the parties would treat each other with respect during this process and no further litigation would be required. MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.3 Development Review DR 2005-22 - In accordance with Section 22.48, this was a request to construct a new three-story single family dwelling of approximately 12,127 square feet of habitable area. The project also includes porches, balconies, decks, covered patios and an attached four car garage totaling an additional 5,126 square feet on an existing 34,460 square foot (.83 acre) parcel in the R-1 8,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Median Density Residential (RLM). PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 3131 Steeplechase Lane (Lot 2, Parcel Map 23382) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Huo You Liang 2308 Ridgeway Avenue Rowland Heights, CA 91748 S & W Development 20272 Carrey Road Walnut, CA 91765 PC/Meyer presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review DR 2005-22, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lee said the desicln was thoughtful and that it was a beautiful house. He said he was impressed with the architecture of this product. He said he was concerned about the safety of the retaining wall. PC/Meyer explained that the Commission was looking at conceptual designs and the City's Building Department requires separate building permits and designs for retaining walls. Retaining walls must be designed by structural engineers and the footings have to go into a bedrock configuration. C/Lee said he knew that but wanted to know if it could be on a fill area and be safe. PC/Meyer said the design would not be in a fill area unless the structural engineer certified that the design would work in a fill configuration. C/Lee asked if it was possible to design the retaining wall into the natural ground for safety reasons. PC/Meyer said that C/Lee could make the suggestion to the City's Building Department because the Building Department regulates the design standards. If the Planning Commission wants to direct the City's Building Department to never allow a retaining wall in a fill area and the Commission MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION instance, the geological report would most likely require a geological key on the downhill side and once a key was put very deep into the bedrock the bearing would rely on the key rather than the retaining wall and with 90 percent compaction at the top and with a good footing design it would render the fill very strong for the retaining wall. This project requires the applicant to submit a geological report to the satisfaction of the City's engineering consultant and in this case, the engineer is convinced that the retaining wall design is sound. In addition to the key and the retaining wall there is a caisson supporting the house as its first line of defense. Mr. Shum responded to C/Everett that the circular driveway provides parking and there is open parking at the front of both garages and overflow parking should not impact the street. From his experience the bigger the home, fewer people live in it. Mr. Shum responded to C/Torng that he felt staff had adequately addressed the drainage issue. Further, he believed the Las Brisas HOA had some bad experience during the building of the original pad. Management practices dictate that the builder must build a pond to wash the tools and put sandbags all around the site to protect erosion and spill water use. Therefore, it is very unlikely that debris would run down to the Las Brisas area. Chair/McManus opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Perez said he came before the Commission several times over the past few years. Every time the issue was raised the Planning Commission agreed that there was a concern and that a study would be done and he was at a loss to know why a study had not been done. Chair/McManus asked if there had been runoff onto his property and Mr. Perez again referred to the concrete swale that goes from the site down to Diamond Bar Boulevard. Through the years several lots in "The Country Estates" have tapped into the swale and he wanted to know if the swale could handle the capacity. Chair/McManus asked Mr. Perez to provide the various locations he indicated had tapped into the Swale so that staff could have code enforcement look to see if there was a problem and what could be done to remedy the situation. To his knowledge, the City was not aware that there was a problem. Mr. Shum responded to Mr. Perez that before Las Brisas was built the County required a swale be built. The reason the swale was built was to MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION respect to his position as a Planning Commissioner he was most interested in accountability and tonight raised his flag of interest in design and maintenance of swales and follow up on retaining walls. He appreciated that the Commission agreed with him that multiple homeowner associations with common interest and needs was a ludicrous and costly concept. Unfortunately there seemed to be no amenable nexus between a private HOA and public uses. He wanted to know if there was any possibility of leveraging "The Country Estates" to be an interested respondent for the mutual benefit of all citizens because to him it was a very important issue. C/Lee said he appreciated staff's reports this evening. Chair/McManus thought that C/Everett understated the homeowner situation when he said it was ludicrous. He said he agreed with C/Everett's assessment. 9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL 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 8:48 p.m. Respectfully Sub Namcy Fong Interim Comm Director