Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/28/2011MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 28, 2011 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Shah called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jimmy Lin, Steve Nelson and Tony Torng, Vice Chairman Kwang Ho Lee and Chairman Jack Shah. 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: 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 24, 2011. VC/Lee moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve the May 24, 2011, Regular Meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None ►I= 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Lin, VC/Lee, Torng, Chair/Shah None Nelson None 7.1 Development Review PL 2011-50 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Development Code Section 22.48, the applicants requested approval to construct a new 11,083 square foot single family residence, 925 square foot second unit, and two garages and a workshop totaling 4,857 square feet on an 8.51 gross acre (370,695 square foot) lot. The subject is zoned Rural JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 2244 Indian Creek Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mike Tsai 18240 Senteno Street Rowland Heights, CA 91748 APPLICANT: Roland Wahlroos-Ritter WRoad, LLC 2404 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 9E Los Angeles, CA 90057 CDD/Gubman stated that the applicant requested that this matter be continued to July 12, 2011, to allow for changes to the grading plan to reduce the overall project impact. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. C/Torng moved, C/Nelson seconded, to continue the public hearing to July 12, 2011. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review No. PL2010-401 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Development Code Section 22.48, the applicants requested approval to construct a new 11,266 square -foot single family residence, 1,666 square -foot garage and 588 square feet in patio covers and porches, on a 1.68 gross acre (73,283 square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 2127 Derringer Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Sumermal Vardhan 320 Woodruff Walnut, CA 91789 JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 180 N. Benson Avenue, Suite D Upland, CA 91786 PT/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL 2010-401, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nelson asked what would happen to the second parcel when the 1,000 plus yards is moved to the project site. Is there erosion potential, how will it be restored and what it will look like. PT/Tobon explained that the applicant is currently grading at 2137 Derringer and whatever is being graded for pools and footing is being brought to the project site. C/Nelson asked for confirmation that 2137 Derringer needed to lose some fill and PT/Tobon concurred. C/Lin said that based on the drawing, the garage will be constructed on top of an easement and wondered if the easement had been relocated or vacated. CDD/Gubman said that he did not see a clear delineation of the easement but as he recalled there will be some flat work improvements within the easement area but no structures which may be acceptable to the utility that the easement favors. C/Lin asked if staff knew who owned the easement and CDD/Gubman responded that since there is no clarification on the plans, he would refer the Commissioner to the architect. Pete Volbeda, Architect, stated that at last week's meeting two designs were presented — one house for each lot. And the easement is actually on the southern lot and no plans have yet been submitted for the southern lot. The easement, a sewer easement owned by LA County, is not on the subject property and is about 30 feet away from the southern property line. Chair/Shah asked if the easement was moved and Mr. Volbeda responded that rather than moving the easement, they moved the property line between the two parcels farther north of the sewer easement because he realized he could only build south of the easement to make the middle lot look bigger. Chair/Shah asked if the easement stopped on the west end of the project site. Mr. Volbeda explained that the six foot easement runs from the road to the rear property line where it stops. Chair/Shah asked how much dirt would be imported and Mr. Volbeda said he expected the maximum import that would be needed on the site would be less than 1000 cubic yards. There is some extra dirt available on the lot but there is pool excavation, backfilling and final grading to be done so the dirt from the project site will be used first and whatever else is needed will come from outside of the lot. He does not expect the final amount will be anywhere near a 1000 cubic yards but wanted to provide an envelope of that amount just in case. JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Volbeda confirmed to C/Torng that the easement is the same easement referred to at the last Planning Commission meeting. C/Torng said that during the last meeting the applicant indicated they would pave over the easement but not construct a building over the easement. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Shah closed the public hearing. C/Nelson moved, C/Torng seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL 2010-401, 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: Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: C/Shah reopened Public Comments: CDD/Gubman advised the Commission that no action can be taken on items raised during public comments. Chair/Shah repeated to the Commission that no action was to be taken and the matter would be taken under advisement only. Dr. Michael Madanat, 22835 Ridge Line Road, read from a prepared statement regarding apparent misrepresentations to the City and "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association with respect to the 22909 Ridge Line Road project next door to his home which has been shut down by the State of California. He encouraged the Commission to implement more effective safeguards to prevent against unlicensed activity in the future. Dr. Madanat submitted photographs of the project and its possible adverse affects on his property to city staff. Chair/Shah thanked Dr. Madanat and said that they would take his statements under advisement. Dr. Madanat responded to VC/Lee that the retaining wall between his property and 22909 Ridge Line has been built and he is unaware if the wall had been inspected. He asked if he could show photos of the site. JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Torng suggested that staff be given an opportunity to respond to Dr. Madanat's statements before the Commission continued to ask questions or review the photos. Chair/Shah repeated that it is his intention to only take the matter under advisement. At C/Shah's request, CDD/Gubman reiterated his advice that the matter being presented to the Commission is not within its purview. The Commission is a land use authority and not a building commission. His understanding is that the speaker's legal counsel has advised him to make this presentation to the Commission; however, it is totally outside the purview of this Commission. If there are violations of the building code, construction without permits, if there is a contractor who is operating in violation of his license, these are matters that are taken up at City Hall and not by the Planning Commission. C/Nelson asked that if at any point that a violation has been determined, would this Commission be asked to take any action and CDD/Gubman responded no, unless part of that remedy is to seek some land use approval for something that was not previously permitted. For example, if there is illegal and unpermitted construction and that construction requires as an alternative to demolition or other correction of the violation to seek approval of that improvement, the property owner may wish to apply for a variance or seek some other type of entitlement in which case it would come before the Commission. C/Nelson said that he would advise that the speaker be very specific about the violations. Dr. Madanat continued showing the photographs. Chair/Shah requested that the Commission stop discussions on this matter because it was not within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and suggested that Dr. Madanat share the photos with city staff. He advised Dr. Madanat to take the matter up with the proper city department, state agencies and any other agencies that may be involved, and the Commission will take it under advisement. C/Nelson asked if the neighbor removed the speaker's fence without permission and Dr. Madanat responded yes. C/Nelson told Dr. Madanat that the matter of the fence was an important issue. CDD/Gubman said he was very concerned about what he was hearing and although this is not a matter for the Planning Commission to deliberate or decide, these are serious issues that have been raised and he is more than happy to begin a dialogue with the speaker and work with staff to find out what the background is on this matter and pursue resolution. He preferred to know more about the issue and it is a bit unconventional to have it brought to his attention in this forum but he is looking forward to looking into the matter and would be glad to follow up with the Commission as a JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION matter of interest as to what further actions, if any, will be taken. CDD/Gubman said that there were enforcement issues raised and there are certain limitations to how much he can respond when allegations of that nature are made but he asked that it be perfectly clear that as the director that oversees Code Enforcement and Building and Safety Divisions, he and his staff are very active and very aggressive in dealing with building and zoning violations and staff actively pursues the abatement and prosecution methods to deal with those issues. He assured the Commission that staff does not hesitate to deal with these matters, takes them very seriously and proceed appropriately. Whatever direction the Commission wishes to provide this evening is well -taken but he again assured the Commission that staff takes all of these issues very seriously. Staff deals with a rather sizeable caseload in the enforcement and prosecution matters and staff does follow through. While this is not a matter that the Commission considers, this is something that as the Director, CDD/Gubman deals with on a daily basis and he has the resources to deal with these issues appropriately. C/Torng agreed with C/Nelson that he would like for the Commission to be given an update at the appropriate time as to how these matters will or have been resolved. CDD/Gubman said he would be happy to comply with that request and it would most likely be in a sequence of updates because his experience in these matters is that the City is headed down a long path in pursuit of remedy. C/Lin said he agreed with his colleagues but he cautioned that tonight the Commission is hearing one side of the story. He cautioned the Commission that as CDD/Gubman stated, this matter is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. C/Lin indicated to Dr. Madanat that the proper forum for him to voice his concerns is the City Council and not the Planning Commission. C/Shah said he agreed with his colleagues that this matter should be referred to the proper departments and he concurred with his fellow Commissioners that he too would appreciate updates on a regular basis and especially regarding the matters that reflect the land use. 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nelson said he understood that the Commission made land use decisions but he believed the Commission had to show some degree of accountability and even though it may not be the Commissions final decision about enforcement or violation actions, he believed that the Commission had to give speakers like Dr. Madanat the benefit of the doubt and assure them that they would look into the matter and he appreciated CDD/Gubman's cooperation in that effort. If this body makes decisions and those decisions are not upheld, why is the Commission making decisions at all, and that is the way he feels. VC/Lee said that Dr. Madanat complained about many things which had to do with construction and clearly, this matter should be dealt with by Code Enforcement. As C/Lin said, all sides must be considered. People can share their concerns about JUNE 28, 2011 0 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION anything from their point of view and the Commission should not spend its time dealing with matters that are not of their concern. The speaker can call the City's Building and Safety Department to state his concerns and the proper department will follow up to make certain the project applies with the code. C/Lin asked if the City allowed two side by side and vacant properties to raise elevations by building retaining walls by as much as 15 or 20 feet and CDD/Gubman responded that generally speaking, the property would have to be extremely wide to get a series of four foot tall terraced retaining walls to reach that ultimate pad elevation. If he had more information about what type of entitlements were granted, whether a variance was granted, when a project, if any was approved and so forth, but generally speaking, based on what he heard, it is not something that is provided for in the code without granting a variance. Chair/Shah stated that he believes there is more that meets the eye on the project that the speaker discussed during Public Comments. The Commission does not have the whole story and it should be up to staff to investigate and take any action necessary. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that a project the Planning Commission approved for 2488 Alamo Heights Drive was contiguous to a neighboring existing development that has been doing unpermitted grading and construction of retaining walls which has had an effect on the site where the house is proposed because there is potential redirection of drainage onto the new site where the home has been permitted. These unpermitted improvements are preventing the developer's ability to proceed with construction of the project. This is one case where staff is moving forward with filing of a misdemeanor complaint. This is one example and there are others wherein the City deals with these kinds of complaints and takes appropriate action. This is one example of when these situations occur where the project is unpermitted, un -entitled and is creating a nuisance, obstruction or potential hazard staff is doing its best to correct those violations. CDD/Gubman stated that there are two projects on project that was Indian Creek that was on tonight's continued as well as, a proposed single -story addition Cold Stream. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. the July 12 agenda, the agenda and has been to a two-story home on JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Shah adjourned the regular meeting at 8:05 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 26th day of July, 2011. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Jack Shah, fhairman