HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/8/2008MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 8, 2008
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Jack
Shah and Vice Chairman Tony Torng.
Absent: Chairman Steve Nelson was excused.
Also present: Greg Gubman, Planning Manager; Brad Wohlenberg,
Assistant City Attorney; Planning Consultant Dave Meyer; and Stella Marquez,
Senior Administrative 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 November 27, 2007.
C/Lee moved, C/Shah seconded to approve the November 27, 2007, Minutes as
presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
5. OLD BUSINESS: None.
6. NEW BUSINESS: None.
Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng
None
Chair/Nelson
JANUARY 8, 2008 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-13 and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. 2007-08 — Under the authority of Development Code Sections 22.48 and
22.56, the applicant requested approval to construct a 4,026 livable square
foot addition to an existing 4,035 square foot single family residence on an
existing 85,983 square foot parcel zoned R1-40,000 with a consistent
underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR) and
Minor Conditional Use Permit for the continuation of a nonconforming front
yard setback. (Continued from November 27, 2007)
PROJECT ADDRESS: 22909 Lazy Trail
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER:
Ankur Shah
22909 Lazy Trail
City of Diamond Bar
APPLICANT: Dale Thompson
B&D Construction
1472 Avenida Loma Vista
San Dimas, CA 91773
PM/Gubman presented staff's report staff is requesting that the Planning
Commission continue this matter to the February 12, 2008, meeting.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded, to continue Development Review
No. 2007-13 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-08 to February 12,
2008. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng
None
Chair/Nelson
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT
COMMISSIONERS:
JANUARY 8, 2008 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8.1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-28 — Under the authority of
Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval to
construct a 3,692 square foot two-story addition and remodel of the existing
dwelling unit. The subject property is zoned RR (R-1 20,000) and contains
25,310 square feet (0.58 acres) of land area.
PROJECT ADDRESS:
PROPERTY OWNER/
APPLICANT:
2552 Wagon Train Lane
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Mr. and Mrs. Nicholas Hung
2552 Wagon Train Lane
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PC/Meyer presented staff's report and requested Planning Commission
approval of Development Review No. 2007-28, based on the Findings of
Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
C/Nolan said she drove by the site.
VC/Torng opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
VC/Torng closed the public hearing.
C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Development Review
No. 2007-28, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of
approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson
8.2 Development Review No. 2006-29. Tree Permit No. 2006-06. Minor
Variance No. 2006-04 and Variance No. 2007-07 — Under the authority of
Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant request approval to
construct a new four-story single family dwelling unit with an attached second
dwelling. The subject property is zoned RR (R-1 (40,000) and contains
52,272 square feet (1.2 acres) of land area.
JANUARY 8, 2008 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT ADDRESS:
PROPERTY OWNER:
APPLICANT:
1755 Derringer Lane
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Mr. and Mrs. Alex V. Prince
160 S. Hudson Avenue #411
Pasadena, CA 91175
S&W Development
20272 Carrey Road
Walnut, CA 91789
PC/Meyer presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission
approval of Development Review No. 2006-29, Tree Permit No. 2006-06,
Minor Variance No. 2006-04 and Variance No. 2007-07, based on the
Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the
resolution.
C/Lee said he was concerned that the 60 percent reduction from the le aunt s
ired
setback might set a precedent. PC/Meyer explained that the app
saying that the level pad normally required in the rear of the property has
been provided and that it has been tucked under the house instead of built
out on the slope. Therefore, the applicant felt he met the intent of the
requirement for the rear yard area and with all consideration he would be
complying with the standard. It is a unique design solution to provide the
recreational amenity. However, it is a judgment call for the Commission
based on consideration of whether the design solution is adequate based on
the extreme topography and design alternative. Staff felt it was an unusual
and unique design solution and certainly worthy of debate.
PC/Meyer responded to C/Nolan that the project meets the Hillside
Development standards for the most part in terms of retaining
the sally. From
staffs perspective, if the owner were going to comply
rds it
would require importing of a significant amount of materials as well as,
construction of additional retaining walls, which are both discouraged within
the development standards.
PC/Meyer encouraged C/Shah to ask the applicant's architect to comment
on the amount of fill that would be required. However, PC/Meyer d it
could be more than 1000 cubic yards and that keeping trucks off
residential streets would be a positive aspect. C/Shah asked why the
retaining wall was not proposed to be six feet in height throughout the entire
JANUARY 8, 2008 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
wall and PC/Meyer responded that according to the City's development
standards the maximum height of a retaining wall that creates the building
pad could not exceed four feet.
VC/Torng asked why the second attached unit height exceeded 35 feet.
PC/Meyer explained that the elevations are reconciled with the slope.
VC/Torng said he agreed with C/Nolan that the hillside development issue
needed to be discussed. He asked why the applicant felt it necessary to
attach the second unit. PC/Meyer responded that there was no benefit to
attaching the house, the code allows for either an attached or detached unit
as long as the unit did not exceed 1200 square feet in size. And, if the
applicant were accommodating his parents for example, he would
undoubtedly want immediate access from the primary dwelling unit. This is
called a "second unit" because it contains a kitchen facility. Without kitchen
facilities it would be termed a "guesthouse."
C/Nolan said she drove by the location.
VC/Torng opened the public hearing.
Simon Shum, Architect, explained the proposed project and site design. The
living area is distributed throughout the three main levels and there is no
living area in what has been referred to as the "fourth" level. It is a difficult
building site.
C/Shah felt it was a very good design and asked for an explanation of the fill
material. Mr. Shum explained the fill process using the site plan. In order to
create the slope the project would need an additional retaining wall and
importation of about 3000 cubic yards for the rear yard area, a very costly
proposition. As an alternative, he incorporated into his design the tucking in
of the facility under the left hand lower side to compensate for loss of the
backyard area. In addition, the living and lower areas have generous deck
space and the owner believes the deck space is adequate compensation for
loss of a regular ground level patio space.
VC/Torng asked Mr. Shum if he could create additional fill or sacrifice some
of the upper level so that the structure would not appear so large and boxy.
Mr. Shum explained the project showing the plans and how the structure
would appear from the neighborhood view. The structure is compatible with
the neighborhood.
VC/Torng opened the public hearing.
JANUARY 8, 2008 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
Paul Miller, 1748 Derringer Lane, said that given the size of the project he
found it quite attractive with respect to elements and design. He believed fill
could be avoided by dropping the house down another 10 feet and moving it
back to the 35 -foot front
setback.
H 50 foot frolt was nt ge. �bhe could bscene" to olace
i d a
ago foot front fagade and trees along a
second unit and rent it out it would help his income. He believed the
standards were constantly being expanded with variances and wanted a
return to "The Country Estates" standards.
VC/Torng closed the public hearing.
C/Nolan asked for staffs comments on the City Code versus the concern
regarding CC&R's. Also, she did not in any way view the second unit as
"income" property. ACA/Wohlenberg explained that when projects come
before the Commission they are evaluated only to determine whether they
comply with the City's Codes. It is possible for a project to meet all City
Codes and still violate the private
of the C&R's, which is a private enforcement
issue amongst the members
VC/Torng said that when people invest in Diamond Bar it is a good thing.
However, he believed the Hillside Management Code should be imposed on
the project and that staff should then bring the project back to the
Commission for consideration. He did not want to over compensate the code
for the sake of the lot because this lot may tbe that suitble for te sr properthessin the
ize of
the proposed structure. He said he wantedto othe
area for comparison.
PC/Meyer responded to VC/Torng that he thought he provided the
alternatives and options with inclusion of the alternative designs. This design
meets the City's Development standards. The question is, does the
Commission want additional retaining walls and does the Commission
believe the import of an additional 3000 cubic yards of material mette
development standard of preserving the natural topography.again
explained the proposed project layout and proposed the question as to
whether the design alternative would meet the development standard
requirement. In terms of view impairment, all properties on the opposite side
of Derringer (east side) are elevated and the applicant has provided a single -
story facade to the street, which would not result in view impairmentfrom the
existing dwelling units. The newer structures consist of an average of 6,000
square feet. PC/Meyer also explained market cost comparisons and stated
that it was not economically feasible to expect an applicant to build a 2000
JANUARY 8, 2008 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
0
10
square foot house on a $500,000 or $750,000 lot when 2000 square foot
homes were built on lots that sold for $15,000. With the topographical
challenges of the lot the architect has provided a product that meets the
City's standards.
VC/Torng said he was inclined to have further discussion about the final
compromise. PC/Meyer said he was not sure what additional alternative
VC/Torng was seeking. If the Commission wants to look at another design
alternative it could provide adequate direction to the architect and staff.
C/Nolan felt the variance was a good thing because it minimized cutting into
the hillside and gave the project a more natural look than providing a large
amount of fill, which would give the lot a more block look to the landscape.
And, she believed it was a beautiful house.
C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Development Review
No. 2206-29, Tree Permit No. 2006-06, Minor Variance No. 2006-04 and
Variance No. 2007-07, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the
conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson
PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
C/Shah and C/Lee wished everyone a Happy New Year. C/Lee thanked staff for
excellent reports.
C/Nolan welcomed the Diamond Bar High School students who attended tonight's
meeting.
STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS.
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.
PM/Gubman pointed out that the Commissioners received pamphlets
regarding the upcoming League of California Cities 2008 Planners Institute
and Mini -Expo in Sacramento that will be held on March 26 through
March 28. SAA/Marquezwill contact Commissioners regarding attendance.
JANUARY 8, 2008 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in tonight's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice
Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Attest:
Respectfully Submitted,
Greg Gubma , tanning Manager
jT����orng,Vice-- 'F an