Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/8/2007MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 8, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson 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, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. 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; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; Dennis Tarango, Building Official; Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administration Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair/Nelson with the approval of the Commission moved Item 7.2 to the first matter on agenda public hearings. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT COMMISSIONERS VC/Torng, Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson None None 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 24, 2007. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.2 VARIANCE NO. 2007-03 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.54, the applicant requested approval to increase the light fixture MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Variance No. 2007-03. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None Commission Wei recused himself from deliberation of Item 7.1 and left the meeting. 7.1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2004-16 (1) — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.48 and 22.66, the applicant requested approval to change the Planning Commission's approved plans dated August 24, 2004. The changes included the following: Adding approximately 865 square feet of livable area; enlarging the deck/balcony area; adding a deck; enlarging the front porch, and changing window and door configurations. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 22807 Lazy Trail Drive (Tract 30091, Lot 149) Rita Medirata 22807 Lazy Trail Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 615 N. Benson Avenue, Unit D Upland, CA 91764 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-16 (1) with changes recommended by staff, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lee said he was concerned about the deck extension from the support column and asked why staff was not recommending approval. AssocP/Lungu responded that it would not comply with the Hillside Management Standards. Adding the roof back to the deck helps with the height requirement. C/Lee said he wanted to know the reason for this MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Jimmy Guttierez, attorney, 12616 Central Avenue, Chino, representing the property owner, thanked the Commission for allowing him time to speak with Mr. Horcher. To the extent that Mr. Horcher has made objections, Mr. Horcher is willing to waive his objections. if the applicant complies with the following conditions: 1) that the window on the southerly elevation be removed in the basement and the property owner has agreed; 2) that the adjoining property lines be planted with tall trees such as Cypress trees to provide screening up to the end of the structure and the property owner has agreed, and that the trees be planted as soon as feasible and the property owner has agreed; 3) that they remove or screen the sump pump — however, Mr. Guttierez indicated to Mr. Horcher that there was a new condition calling for removal or screening of the sump pump and Mr. Horcher agreed. With these conditions, Mr. Horcher does not object to the decks and the roofline. Mr. Guttierez stated that Mrs. Medirata has had one extension on her construction loan and that extension will expire on June 23 with no further extensions allowed. Construction has stopped for approximately two months and Mr. Guttierez urged the Commission to direct staff to withdraw the stop order and allow construction to recommence subject to the conditions for the following reasons: 1)the stop order creates a tremendous negative economic impact; 2) the City has adequate remedies to enforce the conditions and 3) the City's Code provides for changes to existing structures before, during or after construction. The Code also recognizes that to stop construction while plans are being changed and changes are being made would impose a terrible financial burden on individuals who are subject to construction loans. In this case the home has been in its location for 28 years and the owner has vacated the premises and rented another home during this construction period. He felt it was important for the Commissioner to consider the impact of the statutes and to remember that the Commission has the discretion with respect to application of the statutes. He said he was amazed at the thoroughness and excellence of staff's report. He felt the architect, contractor and staff could work together to resolve the issues. The Commission has the jurisdiction to require that this matter come back to the Commission for further review. Seni Coli, son-in-law of the property owner, said that after receiving staff's report he visited homes in "The Country Estates" and took pictures of homes that look very much like the building under construction. He showed pictures of the subject property and other properties in the area and remarked about the additional supports under the deck and how it conformed to the slope. He took exception to removal of the deck roof and the height of the house. He proposed a remedy that would shorten the deck and add a skirting roof. MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION those massive homes were built prior to implementation of the City's Code regarding Hillside Management. CDD/Fong concurred that the homes photographed were prior to the City's Hillside Management Ordinance. The comparison is "apples to oranges" and the City is attempting to preserve the hillsides for future generations and what happened priorto implementation of the City's General Plan is beyond the City's control unless changes are implemented. The Commission is obliged to consider current ordinances and respect the future. She said she respected Mr. Horcher's agreement but felt the bigger issue was with the City and its requirements and whether the applicant had complied with the City's recommendations and requirements of the approval. She visited the site and stepped onto the deck. She found it was amazing that a project could go to this extreme being out of compliance with the City's requirements. VC/Torng said he agreed with C/Nolan and complimented staff on following the City's Code. Trust between the applicant and the City is very important. If the Commission approves and the applicant comes back with a different project it is not reasonable. With respect to the issues raised regarding the deck and height of the building he would trust staffs recommendation. It seems that the applicant has focused on continuing with construction in order to reduce the financial impact to the property owner. That is a reasonable request; however, the City must conform to its codes. And if the applicant had stayed with the original plan and approval, the stop work order would not have been implemented. He asked staff to comment on the issues raised by the applicant and on what process the City has to follow to allow construction to proceed. C/Lee asked the owner's representative (son-in-law) if it was a good idea for the City to allow individuals to construct homes without permits and proper attention to the City's Ordinances. C/Lee said he was trying to understand why the applicant was opposed to so many conditions of the approval and was now claiming financial difficulties. He asked the applicant if he wanted to continue opposing the City's Code or comply with the conditions of approval and move forward. Chair/Nelson reminded C/Lee that the Public Hearing was closed and it was time for the Commission to deliberate. The applicant's representative said he wanted to comply with the conditions of approval and also wanted an opportunity to work with staff to understand what the applicant was proposing. The applicant's representative stated that MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong stated that some of the pictures shown by the applicant depict structures that were built prior to City incorporation and built under the Los Angeles County Codes. They show clear examples of why Diamond Bar needs a Hillside Management Ordinance. With respect to the deck, the City's Code is very clear and the City is well within the mandates of the Hillside Management Ordinance to require the applicant to reduce the extension of the deck. The City has a Code requirement that demands staff measure from a given point to another point. There is no leeway for staff to change the method because it is specifically called out in the City's Code. Also, the roof pitch ties to the measurement of the building's height. The difference between a 4:12 and a 3:12 pitch roof is that the 4:12 is steeper therefore rendering the height of the building even taller and staff is asking the applicant to prove that he can meet the City's height requirement by measuring from the peak of the roof to the natural contours or finished grade. The approval called fora 3:12 roof pitch in order to meet the City's maximum building height requirement and the applicant arbitrarily changed the roof pitch to a 4:12, which put the building above the maximum height requirement. Chair/Nelson stated to the applicant that this is a matter of code compliance and there is a reason the codes are in place. In some cases and for good cause, variances are granted. However, that is not what is being requested at this time. C/Lee felt there was a very important issue that the applicant did not want to change the roof pitch because the house was already framed out. It is simple to change it on a drawing but not in reality. C/Lee said he was concerned about the financial implications for the owner as well. He believed the applicant should understand that in order to obtain a building permit he must have conditional approval and believed the applicant must comply and move forward. CDD/Fong said that with respect to the pitch of the roof, if the applicant agreed to add back the roof on the second floor deck they could likely meet the height requirement without changing the roof pitch. ACA/ Kovacevich stated that the fact that the Commission is dealing with a "bad actor" is irrelevant to the Commission's decision tonight. The Commission's only decision is whether or not the amended proposal comports with the City's Code. MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION the applicant does not have a pad certification and without that certification the City cannot issue a building permit. In addition, the applicant must submit the revised plans to Building and Safety for plan check prior to issuance of a building permit. AE/Molina stated that there are two types of pad certifications required for the rough grading stage — one from the civil engineer of record and one from the geotechnical engineer of record. The civil engineer of record has certified the pad. The geotechnical engineer of record is working on certifying the pad. C/Lee wanted to know how the engineers could check compaction when the building was already built. AE/Molina responded that the outstanding issues with the geotechnical certification do not have to do with compaction but rather a clarification is needed from the geotechnical engineer between two different sets of plans that were submitted to the City. CDD/Fong summarized the motion for the edification of C/Nolan. The motion is to follow staffs recommendations with amendments. Staffs recommendation is to reduce the deck extension; to delete the basement window at the southerly elevation; allow the habitable square footage addition; require that the roof back added back to the second floor deck; maintain the 4:12 roof pitch; extend the front porch; change the front retaining wall configuration; add a fireplace and change out the windows and doors as proposed; reconfiguration of the driveway and front walkway. The additional conditions include the condition for the slump pump, one for the window and wok kitchen; as well as, the condition for planting of Cypress trees along the southerly portion of the property owner's property with 15 - gallon trees 10 feet on center. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Nolan Lee Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Wei 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None MAY 8, 2007 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 8:57 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong, C#nmunitq Development Director St ve Nelson, Chairman