Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/11/2007MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 11, 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: Vice Chairman Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, Chairman Steve Nelson Also present: Nancy Fong, Com+; nuinity Development; Greg Gubman, Planning Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; David Meyer, Planning Consultant; David Alvarez, Planning Technician; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administration Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting of August 28, 2007. VC/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Development Review No. 2007-08 and Variance No. 2007-06 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story 13,332 square foot single- family residence with an attached 2,993 square foot garage/storage/utility area, a swimming pool and a tennis court. The applicant was also seeking relief from the City's Development Standards to provide for the construction of the three drive approaches and construction of retaining walls in excess of eight feet in height. The subject property is zoned R-1 (40,000) and contains 97,376 gross square feet (2.24 acres) of land area. (Continued from August 28, 2007) PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 1626 Derringer Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Wen Shen 2577 Blaze Trail Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Amat K. Tajuding 17871 Mitchell North, Suite 150 Irvine, CA 92614 PC/Meyer announced that the applicant had not arrived yet. Chair/Nelson sought comments from the Commission and suggested that the Commission move Item 7.1 to after the next public hearing until the applicant arrived. Although VC/Torng agreed, he commented that if the applicant did not appear, the Commission should take appropriate action to make a decision on the project with or without the applicant's presence. The matter was moved to after the next project. The applicant on 7.1 walked in at this time. Chair/Nelson announced returning to Item 7.1 as presented. PC/Meyer presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2007-08 and denial of Variance No. 2007-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION At the request of Chair/Nelson, ACA/ Kovacevich explained how the Commission is to view the City requirements and codes versus Homeowners Associations. He stated that the City simply does not enforce Homeowners' Association covenants, only the City's codes and HOA enforcement is a matter of private enforcement between the association and its individual members. Chair/Nelson emphasized that the Commission is not encumbered by private CC&Rs when making a decision. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing. Amant Tjuden, TBA Architects, representing the client, thanked PC/Meyerfor his excellent report. He explained that the intent of the Variance request was to avoid elevating the building pad, thus, minimize the need to import soil to the site. He understood that the planning ordinances superseded the HOA requirements. However, the HOA has stringent requirements that do not allow the retaining walls within the setback area. Rather than raise the two- story home the intent was to reduce the massive appearance from the street and install trees to screen the driveway area. VC/Torng asked if the 3 -foot increase would exceed the maximum requirement and CDD/Fong said it would not because the dwelling would be measured from the finished grade and would remain within the 35 feet height limit. Mr. Tjuden responded to VC/Torng that the applicant hoped to have the three driveways because the home was set back on the pad to create more of an "estate" look. The driveway that extends to the basement is off to the side and not as obvious as the primary driveway. The front fountain area is designed to soften the turf area. Mr. Tjuden further stated that he would prefer to go with staff's recommendation to install the 3 -foot retaining wall at the property line but the HOA was not granting that option. Mr. Tjuden responded to C/Lee that the floor plate was 6300 square feet including the garage. C/Lee wondered how many cubic yards of soil would be imported to raise the building and said he felt it would not take much soil. Mr. Tejudan explained that raising the building also has impact on the site as the property descends toward the back of the structure and property over 60 vertical feet. Therefore, the project would actually work against the grade if the applicant were to raise the home by three feet. SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee said his question was as a contractor, if the ground level was 6,000 square foot would it be that difficult to import 600 cubic yards of soil to raise the building. Jerry Yeh, contractor, 20770 Greenside, Walnut, said that the cost of importing 600 cubic yards of soil is about $6 per yard. In addition, another issue is the grade on the back of the house. If the house were raised the retaining wall would by necessity become larger. The property had already been graded when the owner purchased the property and the project is intended to utilize the existing topography. The previous owner actually cut out a big hole where the house sits because of the adverse geological conditions that existed. So the applicant has to deal with minimizing the wall and the line restrictions. There is only so much that can be done to push the residual line back. Under those circumstances it seemed that having a wall on the back would not be as aesthetically pleasing aq a wall by the garage that would be viewable only to the property owner. C/Lee said it seemed to him that the retaining wall would be unstable and to raise it three feet would be simple. Mr. Tjuden said that based on his experience, an 11 -foot wall in the proposed area would be much less problematic and would maintain the integrity of the home. if the home were raised it would take a number of steps to get up to that elevation and that starts to impede on the driveway area. It is not the applicant's desire to create that additional three feet to the podium. It is not just a matter of raising the grade because the grade would have to be kept low in order to access the area without the 11 -foot retaining wall. The area of retaining above 8 feet would be much less obtrusive for access to the garage. C/Lee asked for staff's response to the applicant's comments. CDD/Fong stated that staff's report refers to the use of several techniques, which could include raising the house pad, raising the percentage of the grade for the driveway in order to take up the steepness of the grade and to reduce the retaining wall to eight feet. Another example, the swimming pool should be oriented parallel to the contour of the property rather than perpendicular, which would require less grading. The applicant has not considered that possibility. This is a vacant lot and the applicant should be able to design a house that fits the lot. If the applicant has to use retaining walls, it should be within six feet high. Sometimes the City may consider a minor variance to allow an increase from six feet to eight feet. The applicant must meet the City's requirement as well as the Association's CC&Rs which the City does not enforce. SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Eugene Lin, 1606 Derringer Lane (adjacent to the proposed project), acknowledged that at the time the previous owner completed the grading the City did not require formal notice, only that the neighbors be notified. When the grading was done it changed the direction of the drainage from the property toward his parent's property. In 2000, the City said there was nothing that could be done at that point. Last Friday he sent letters to the City, Homeowners Association and the project homeowners. Last Thursday he met with CDD/Fong about the project. He said he was concerned that if the grading was not properly done it might not be safe to build such a massive structure in a restricted zone. CDD/Fong responded to the speaker that the applicant was proposing a large home on a piece of land and a large portion of the proposed structure is within the restricted use area. It is up to the property owner and the engineerto demonstrate that the restricted use area can be eliminated. The certified information would have to be submitted to the City and the City would not issue any permits unless it was certain that the restricted use had been eliminated. Chair/Nelson asked CDD/Fong to explain what the restricted use includes and why it is a restricted use and how the City re -designates such areas. CDD/Fong stated that the restricted use definition is if the site is within an area that has a huge slope and some of the slope areas are not stable. Those areas are designated "restricted use" areas and habitable structures may not be built within restricted use areas. Chair/Nelson stated that geotechnical instability that can be re -delineated based on site-specific studies or remedial actions, which will stabilize the area would be the only conditions that would allow a house to be built in that area and that ultimate decision is made by a third party geotechnical engineer that the City hires. The answer is that the City would not allow a house to be built in the restricted area unless the City had a third -party independent assessment indicating it was feasible because it had been rendered safe either by site-specific studies or some remedial actions. CDD/Fong assured Mr. Lin that the details of this project are public information and Chair/Nelson said that if Mr. Lin and his parents had difficulty with any action on the site he should communicate his concerns with the applicant. If there are mudslides on Mr. Lin's property originating from the project site the first contact should be with the property owner. SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Lin presented staff with a copy of a letter he originated. Mr. Yeh responded to Chair/Nelson that the applicant would fully cooperate with the neighbor. The reports available to the applicant through the City indicate that the previous owner completed the necessary geological work but that the approval had expired since the applicant purchased the property. The applicant hired the same geologist to update and review the report that was approved by the City four months ago. Mr. Tjuden explained that the new grading plan would not create drain or cross -drain onto the adjacent property and that he would explain the proposed grading plan to Mr. Lin. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. PC/Meyer showed the drawing that staff used to indicate the wall could be reduced to 8 feet and that a 3 -foot high retaining wall could be built at the designated location to comply with the City's standards and allow for a five- foot high garden wall to be built atop it at the property line. VC/Torng asked PC/Meyer's opinion of the driveway and fountain configuration and PC/Meyer said that as the City's staff member, all he does is review the plans for compliance with the City's standards as written in the City's Code. The way the driveway condition is written it allows a residential dwelling unit to have one driveway unless it has a frontage of 70 feet at which point two driveways would be allowed. This is a good standard in the normal 8,000 to 20,000 square footage lots in normal residential tracts. Staff is indicating that perhaps that standard is not applicable to an "estate" development in a homeowner association area. Staff is responding to code requirements and it is up to the Commission to render its judgment as to whether a deviation from that standard is acceptable and appropriate for this lot. CDD/Fong emphasized that the variance was a policy decision for the Commission. If the Commission considers this variance it will set a precedent for "The Country Estates" as well as the City because the City has heretofore not allowed three driveways on the same street frontage. C/Nolan asked if the three-foot and eight -foot plan would work and CDD/Fong responded affirmatively. SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson asked the intent of restricting the height of retaining walls in the City's Development Code. PC/Meyer said that he was not available during the development of the Code. However, a six-foot high retaining wall is a common standard throughout Los Angeles County. CDD/Fong said she believed the intent was a combination of safety, aesthetics, etc. Certainly cities do not want to see 20 -foot high retaining walls, rather that retaining walls are terraced and that is why the Hillside Ordinance calls for terracing techniques for retaining walls. At the same time, the terracing technique provides more stability for the cut of the slope. Six-foot retaining walls are fairly standard in hillside areas. The City's code allows some flexibility for increases from six to eight feet with a Minor Variance. In this instance it is not a retaining wall, it is a cut for the driveway to get to the garage area. The reason the City has Minor Variances is to accommodate minor adjustments. Higher retaining walls would be subject to the public hearing process and Planning Commission review. Chair/Nelson said this cut would not be visible to anyone that was not on the driveway. CDD/Fong agreed. In addition, Chair/Nelson said he was more inclined to go with the adoption of the three and eight versus raising the pad because of the traffic on "The Country Estates" streets that would be necessary to import the fill. Streets in that area do not easily accommodate heavy trucks. PC/Meyer explained to Chair/Nelson that the applicant was proposing turf block on the vehicular access area around the fountain. Chair/Nelson asked if the curbs in "The Country Estates" were rolled curbs and PC/Meyer and CDD/Fong responded affirmatively. C/Wei offered that if the applicant eliminated the so-called fence at the front and used the same material for the entire driveway with the fountain in the middle it would reduce the two driveways to one and there would be a second driveway down to the basement garage. This scenario would fulfill the code requirement. He explained his proposal using the graphic. C/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded to approve Development Review No. 2007-08 and Variance No. 2007-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution as amended by staff. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Wei, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Negative Declaration No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2006-01, Tentative Tract Map No. 64881, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11— In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.70, 2232 and 22.48, Subdivision Map Act, and Title 21 — City's Subdivision Ordinance, the applicant requested approval to demolish an existing mini -mart with a drive-through and construct a detached nine -unit residential condominium project. The -proposed condominiums mould be two-story with garage parking below the first floor. The unit sizes range from approximately 1,649 to 1,904 square feet. Each unit has a two -car garage, guest parking and patio area. The project's development requires the following discretionary approvals: A Zone Change to change the existing zoning from Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Residential High Density - Planned Development (RH-PD) for General Plan compliance; Tentative Tract Map to create a common -interest subdivision on 0.62 acres for the construction of nine residential condominium units; Conditional Use Permit to use the Planned Development designation and modify the required setbacks; and, Development Review to evaluate the architecture and site design of the project. PROJECT ADDRESS: 23671 Golden Springs Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ GSDB investment Group, LLC APPLICANT: Joe Kwok 625 Fair Oaks Avenue #115 South Pasadena, CA 91030 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Negative Declaration No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2006-01, and Planned Development Overlay District Tentative Tract Map No. 64881, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee asked if the City had an ordinance for common open space and AssocP/Lungu responded that the minimum required landscaping required is 15 percent with 24 percent provided for this project. CDD/Fong said the City's Development Code had no requirement for common open space/recreation areas for condominium or apartment projects other than the landscaping and general open space. AssocP/Lungu responded that guest parking requirements for attached condominiums is .5 spaces per bedroom. However, these units are detached and each unit has its own guest parking and the Code does not address guest parking for detached condominium units. Staff found that one guest parking space and the two -car garage spaces for each unit were appropriate for this project. CDD/Fong indicated to C/Lee that the project requires two parking spaces and in this case the project exceeds the City's minimum requirement. C/Lee said that a lot of green area would be eliminated and the project appeared to be too crowded. VC/Torng wondered why there was no main entrance with guest parking because there was no parking on Golden Springs Drive. Also, should the City put up a "no parking" sign on Golden Springs Drive? CDD/Fong said the City could look into the matter. However, there was no issue at this time and she did not believe residents would park on the street. VC/Torng wondered why there was no wall proposed in front of the complex to mitigate the traffic noise. CDD/Fong responded that according to the Code the construction would have to mitigate the interior noise level. VC/Torng wanted to know why there was no HOA and gate. CDD/Fong said she believed there would be CC&Rs and an HOA and whether or not the community is gated is up to the developer. AssocP/Lungu explained to VC/Torng that the HOA condition is contained in the resolution. The walls in the 20 -foot setback are lower walls. VC/Torng said he thought there would be a greater traffic impact to the major streets such as Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard. AssocP/Lungu said the reason was that this project would create considerably fewer trips than the current use. VC/Torng said the study should indicate "no significant impact" but it is weird that there is no study. AssocP/Lungu referred VC/Torng to the Negative Declaration that stated there were insignificant traffic impacts resulting from this project. His concern is that the report relates only to the area of the condos but should take in consideration all of Diamond Bar. CDD/Fong stated that based on the applicant's traffic study the engineer determined that the threshold of significance was less than the requirement to conduct additional studies beyond the project site. VC/Torng said he understood but that it should be mentioned because this project is an impact to Diamond Bar not just to this small area. VC/Torng said if there was a major impact this project should SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION pay some kind of fee to leverage the traffic impacts. CDD/Fong reiterated that the traffic study determined that the project did not exceed the threshold for consideration of any traffic mitigation. There are only nine dwelling units. The number of trips generated by the nine dwelling units is less than the existing dairy business and how could one make a project that has less trips contribute to traffic mitigation when the existing business produces more trips? VC/Torng said he was agreeing to that but it should be mentioned in the report —at least saying it was studied. It only says "studied the trips into the mini -mart." Chair/Nelson referred VC/Torng to page 38 of the Negative Declaration - the thresholds that discusses traffic loads and capacities on the street system — no impact. Level of Service established by County Congestion Agency on designated roads or highways — no impact. Chair/Nelson said he believed the document addressed VC/Torng's concerns by indicating no impact for all thresholds, thresholds that are. provided through CEQA guidelines, which are guidelines to implement the review in compliance with that law. The fact that there is not a lot of detail is not a violation of CEQA in any way. Chair/Nelson said he drove by the site and has known of this impending project for many years. VC/Torng said he too drove by the site. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Joseph Kwok explained the proposed project was expected to serve "empty nesters." He indicated that the dairy's lease had expired and it would not make economic sense for them to continue the business in that particular location. With respect to parking on Golden Springs Drive there is no street parking allowed. Mr. Kowk felt it would not be aesthetically pleasing for the new project to have a wall blocking the view and there are other things that can be done to reduce noise inside the units. He felt it was very important for the project to have an attractive fagade and streetscape. With the amount of open space around the dairy there is a security problem. With the project abutting the neighbors it will improve the security in the area. Indeed the development will provide an overall improvement to the neighborhood. Debbie Avila -Mott, 480 Wayside Place, felt it was a shame to lose the dairy, which is a part of the City's history She would prefer that the investment company renew the dairy's lease and improve the site. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan shared the sentiment of nostalgia about the dairy. However, the owners have decided not to renew the lease and it is their prerogative to do so. AssocP/Lungu explained to C/Nolan that all traffic studies consider only A.M. and P.M. peak hours and that turn lanes were not at issue in the traffic study. C/Lee was concerned that he saw no doors to the underground living/parking area and no venting on the submitted plans. C/Lee referred to the under floor area which is close to the parking area. He does not see any ventilation area. He is concerned that people can live in the small area but there are no doors or ventilation. He requested that the applicant explain the reason there is no ventilation or doors. Mr. Kwok stated that there isn't sufficient room for anyone to live in that space. C/Lee stated that the area looked large enough that people can live there whether to visit, etc., but why does the plan not _ show it as a living space area with ventilation, doors, etc. Mr. Kwok referred C/Lee to sheet 18. The small area under the stairs does not have sufficient headroom to provide a living area. The bonus room is the utility area inside of the garage. C/Lee asked the applicant if the space was open space or living space. The applicant replied that it is not living space. C/Lee was concerned about carbon dioxide coming from the garage. Mr. Kwok said there would be a natural air vent into the garage area. Next to the garage is open space for ventilation. Only about three feet of the garage area is underground. Chair/Nelson said he too appreciated the history of the dairy. However, is there anything about this project that is not in compliance with the City's Development Code, which is what the Commission is here to enforce? CDD/Fong responded that the project complies with the City's Development Code. Chair/Nelson referred to a correspondence received by the Commission that indicated that the City was considering this project because it would receive more tax dollars. However, commercial development provides more tax revenue than residential development. CDD/Fong confirmed Chair/Nelson's assumption. Chair/Nelson reiterated the need for housing in the southern California area and this particular piece of property would offer a good placement for residential housing. In spite of the fact that C/Nolan was very sad that Jim's Dairy was going away, the project before the Commission is in full compliance with the City's Development Code. C/Nolan moved to recommend City Council approval of Negative Declaration No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2006-01, and Planned Development Overlay District Tentative Tract Map No. 64881, Conditional SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION Use Permit NO. 2007-10 and Development Review No. 2006-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, VC/Torng, Lee, Wei, Chair/Nelson None None 8.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-12 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58 and 22.42, this was a request to operate a tutoring center within a leased space of 4,293 square feet in an existing center zoned C-2 (Neighborhood Commercial. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 3211 Brea Canyon Road, Suite A Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Aaron Raphael 12400 Ventura Boulevard #238 Studio City, CA 91604 School -Connection 20781-5 Amar Road Walnut, CA 91789 PT/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Dani Wu, said she was present to answer Commission's questions and concerns. Judy Leon spoke highly of School -Connection and Ms. Wu and felt her school would be a good addition to the City of Diamond Bar and good news for parents. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. SEPTEMBER 11, 2007 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Wei moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Wei, Nolan, Lee, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 9:03 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Nancy'Fong, t,6�k Steve Nelson, Chairman munjty Development Director