Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/27/2010MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 27, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng 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: C/Shah led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Steve Nelson, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Kathy Nolan, and Chairman Tony Torng. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director;;Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE(PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 22, 2010. C/Shah moved, VC1Nolan seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 22, 2010, as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote.- AYES: ote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Lee, Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng None Nelson None 7.1 Development Review No. PL 2009-71 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval to construct a 17,856 square foot new single family residence on a 36,428 net square foot 0.84 gross acre), Low Medium Density Residential RLM) zoned JULY 27, 2010 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION parcel with an underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential (RL). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 3131 Steeplechase Lane (APN: 8713-017-111) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Kimberly Ming Xu 18981 Bramhall Ln. Rowland Heights, CA 91748 APPLICANT: An -Chi Lee, A.C. Lee & Architects 3740 Campus Drive, Suite B Newport Beach, CA 92660 PT/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of PL 2009-71, based on the Findings of Fact, subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Shah asked why staff recommended chain link fencing around the native oak. CDD/Gubman explained that the condition applied only during construction phase to protect the tree and after construction the chain link would be removed. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. An -Chi Lee, applicant, stated that the previous owner had designed a similar project that was approved in 2006. The overall massing of this project is somewhat smaller from the project that was approved in 2006. This project proposes a much larger (2700 square foot larger) basement for a project of about the same square footage. The basement is hidden from street view and can be seen from the rear of the property. The owner hired a soils engineer who completed a very thorough soils and geological report to make certain the project would be feasible from an engineering and grading standpoint. Eight borings were taken to ensure that this project was feasible in terms of the grading and retaining walls. There is a very nice Oak tree on the property so to complement the tree, they would be planting an additional four (4) 48" box California Live Oak trees plus two (2) 60" box California Live Oak trees which will overhang the backyard garden area. This home currently has a four garage which will be broken into two (2) two -car garages with a 14 foot wide driveway approach at a 90 degree angle with trees to screen the garage doors. At the front there will be a fountain and some JULY 27, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION garden materials to create a pleasant look which leaves very little visibility of the house- from the street. In addition, the trash bin will be enclosed by a six foot high stucco wall at the side of the property and there will be a separate room in the same area for the electrical meter. The mechanical parts for the air conditioning unit will be located in the mechanical room in the basement area with the three units enclosed in a six foot high stucco wall and trees to hide them from view and shield the noise from the neighbor's house. The basic garden design was taken from the inspiration of Italian design. There is also a 214 square foot pool house that includes a bathroom, a wet bar and some open and closed seating area. The project also proposes nine (9) trees in the rear area to shield the stuccoed wall, four of which will be California Black Walnut and five will be Italian Cypress. VC/Nolan asked the applicant to confirm that there would be no commercial use of the proposed "ballroom." Mr. Lee concurred and said that it was just a nice name for the space. C/Shah asked if the civil engineer had balanced the site. The applicant responded that the soils engineer recommended a full basement which would remove more existing dirt from the pad and it is better for the foundation to integrate the lava and the house. So they plan to use all of the removed dirt to fill the back garden area. In addition, there will be 800 cubic yards of export. C/Shah asked the applicant to explain how the storm drains would be handled. The applicant responded that there is an existing concrete ditch at the back side of the property which was constructed at the time the property was subdivided by the developer. He pointed out its location on the map. C/Nelson commended Mr. Lee on a stunningly beautiful design and for the protection of existing oak and incorporation of native trees into the landscaping. He asked what one would do with a 2700 square foot basement. Mr. Lee responded that the basement will contain a ballroom for dancing, home theater, recreation room for ping pong and billiard as well as an exercise room. Mr. Lee responded to Chair/Torng that he read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval. He asked for direction about additional trees at the back of the property because there are already nine trees, existing shrubs and trees on the adjoining property. CDD/Gubman stated that when staff reviewed the project and site conditions staff made a judgment call that the privacy and visual impacts of a new development on this site would conservatively call for additional trees to mitigate those issues. Clearly, Mr. Lee has carefully designed this project and staff is extremely pleased with the caliber of the design and it is very good to see this quality of a JULY 27, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION project in "The Country Estates." The Commission needs to consider that the applicant has carefully studied the site and developed a landscape plan with consideration for the setting, architecture, context and respect for the surroundings. Based on the explanation that the applicant provided this evening, staff would not object to any proposal to leave the landscape plan as proposed. Staff now has a better understanding for the basis of the design. Should the Commission elect to delete the proposed condition as recommended by staff, staff would concur. SP/Lee clarified that the plans before the Commission for consideration this evening are slightly different from the site plan that was shown on the PowerPoint presentation. There are three trees to the southwest of the site that are not shown on the landscape plan which is why staff recommended planting additional trees to the rear of the site. In fact, staff concurs with the plans shown on the power point presentation before the Commissioners for their consideration, not the site plan included in the Commissioner' packet. C/Shah said he concurred with staff and would recommend that staff's condition remain as proposed. C/Nelson said there are landscape architects and nursery personnel that specialize in native trees and know how best to put them in the ground and if the applicant wants the plantings to be successful, he should hire a consultant in native trees to assist the landscape crew to ensure the viability of what is being put in the ground and what those plantings are intended to accomplish. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Development Review No. PL 2009-71, 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: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nelson, Shah, VC/Nolan, Chair/Torng None None None 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Shah asked for an update on the City Council's discussion of Site D. JULY 27, 2010 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that there are three (3) items slated for the August 10, 2010, Planning Commission meeting—two custom homes proposed in "The Country Estate" and a Comprehensive Sign Program for the shopping center on Palomino to refresh the existing signage. CDD/Gubman reported that at its July 20 meeting, the City Council resumed the public hearing, received testimony and continued the matter to October 19, 2010 at the request of WVUSD to continue the matter for 60 days to allow the school district time to hold more neighborhood meetings and outreach to further consider the proposal on the table. There has been very organized opposition to the Site D Specific Plan and a lot of misinformation has been put out to the public about what Site D is and what can be done with the property. The housing has been characterized as "low income apartments" rather than the actual intent of providing ownership units at market rate. There have been other misleading characterizations of this project as well and part of the outreach is to ensure, to every extent possible, that the truth about the project is communicated directly to interested persons. In addition, with the introduction of the park component to the Specific Plan, the school district wanted further public input with respect to the proposed location, types of features, access, etc. and answer questions and concerns about parking issues. Presently, the park size on the revised plans presented to the Council consists of about two acres of flat usable land for usable park area plus an additional one to one and a half acres of slopes. If the park remains as part of this overall project it would most likely be a little larger than what was proposed by the Commission due to staff's study of the site and consultation with the Community Services Director. There has been an ongoing concern about the (economic feasibility and need of the commercial component of the project.) The neighborhood meeting process is going to be used to get a better understanding about the opposition to the commercial component of the land use plan which, depending on whether those concerns can be addressed, may result in further changes to the land use plan. The focus is to get the true facts to the public in an attempt to dispel misinformation and mischaracterization of the project. If there is a substantial change to the project that was not considered by the Planning Commission, it would, by necessity, be remanded to the Commission. In addition, due to the length of time this matter has been under consideration, the budget will have to be increased to cover the additional study and the MOU renegotiation will involve revising the budget and eliminating the expiration of November" 2010 that relieves the school district of the responsibility to reimburse the City for the front money to prepare the Site JULY 27, 2010 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Plan and EIR. In addition, the City will be seeking some installment payments for reimbursement for the Specific Plan rather than waiting for a lump sum when the property finally closes escrow. If the property sells during the time of repaying, the City will receive the remaining lump sum. CDDfGubman responded to C/Shah that the budget that was agreed upon for cost of this proposal was about $340,000 and staff has nearly exhausted that amount to date. Staff is looking at potential additional costs. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 7:38 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 10th day of August, 2010. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director T orng, Chair