Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/12/2013MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 12, 2013 Chairman Lin called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Frank 'Farago, Jack Shah, Tony Torng, Vice Chairman Steve Nelson, and Chairman Jimmy Lin. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Josue Espino, Contract Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 22, 2013. C/Torng moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 22, 2013, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN ABSENT: S. OLD BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. Farago, Shah, Torng, Chair/Lin None VC/Nelson None FEBRUARY 12, 2013 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. PL 2012-164 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, applicant Jack Wu and property owner Rurng Larn Duh, requested Development Review approval to construct an 11,179 square foot new single family residence on a 1.58 gross acre (68,825 square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. (Continued from January 22, 2013) PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER 23411 Ridge Line Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Rurng Larn Duh 23411 Ridge Line Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Jack Wu 10410 Lower Azusa Road #203 El Monte, CA 91731 CDD/Gubman explained that on January 22, 2013, this public hearing was opened and continued to tonight's meeting with one individual offering testimony. PC/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Tree Permit No. PI -2012-164, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Nelson asked what the average square footage of homes approved in "The Country Estates" was in the past five years. CDD/Gubman responded between 13,000 and 15,000 square feet. VC/Nelson asked how big the oak trees are that are scheduled to be removed (diameter at breast height) and PC/ Espino responded that the general diameter at breast height ranges from 16 to 20 inches. James Hu, Project Manager, 2440 S. Barrington Avenue #312, Los Angeles, said he was available to respond to questions. With respect to the Commission's question, the average size of the proposed structure is fairly consistent with the area of existing and new construction in the surrounding area. The lot is very large and the applicant proposes to use FEBRUARY 12, 2013 PAGE 3 PLANNING UUMMUNDIUN 11 percent of the lot coverage. Three (3) oak trees will be removed, and the applicant plans to plant nine (9) new oak trees of the same species to replace them. VC/Nelson said he was concerned about replacing 16 inch diameter trees with 24 inch box oak trees with stems reaching about 5 to 6 inches in diameter. He asked if the applicant could provide more to make up for the bio -mass that is lost from the 16-20 inch trees. Mr. Hu asked VC/Nelson if he wanted the applicant to replace the trees at a greater than 3:1 ratio and VC/Nelson said he was asking if the Commission could require that be done as a condition of approval if the applicant would agree to that condition. Mr. Hu said the applicant would agree to a larger ratio. Mr. Hu said the replacement trees are 40 inch box and have a diameter of about 10 inches. PC/Espino explained that the replacement oak trees would be 24 inch box trees; however, the applicant is proposing a total of 21 new trees, nine of which are the 24 inch box oak trees. VC/Nelson said that .the proposal would result in a loss of bio -mass. He said it would be good if the project came as close to replacing the bio -mass within 5 to 10 years. He asked Mr. Hu if he would consult with the applicant about this to see if the proposal could be revised. Mr. Hu said the applicant is present this evening and they would most likely have to meet with the planning department to figure out the correct ratio. VC/Nelson asked for an explanation of the minimum requirement and discuss if something greater can be achieved. CIDID/Gubman responded that the minimum requirement is to replace each tree with three of the same species (3:1 ratio) at a minimum size of 24 -inch box. The applicant is meeting the minimum requirement and it is the Planning Commission's discretion, should it feel there is sufficient cause to exceed that minimum requirement, to include that as a condition of approval. In light of some of the factors that VC/Nelson has raised, primarily the diameter breast height of the species and according to the arborist's report, two of those trees are rated as being in good condition with the third in fair condition. In addition, the two trees that are rated "good" are multi -trunked, one a double trunk and one a triple trunk. Accordingly, the Commission could consider each trunk to be cause for a 3:1 replacement ratio. CDID/Gubman said he believed the Commission was on solid foundation and within its authority to do so if it wished to impose a condition to exceed the amount of mitigation. There may be reasons why it may not be the best solution to increase the size of the trees since a smaller tree acclimates more rapidly so more of the smaller trees such as the 15 gallon trees may be a reasonable way to get closer to compensating for the loss of these three trees. Another consideration is that there are a total of 21 trees in the proposed landscape plan, nine of which would be coast live oaks and the PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission might want to consider a larger number of the coast live oaks in lieu of the other varieties such as crape myrtle and black bamboo as proposed. In conclusion, the Commission could consider more trees or revising the varieties and current quantities to a higher percentage of coast live oaks. VC/Nelson said he would propose an amendment to the resolution during deliberation and if the Commission concurred, ask the applicant/owner to agree or disagree. Chair/Lin asked if there was a maximum tree replacement ratio and CDD/Gubman responded "no." Chair/Lin re -opened the public hearing. David Ying, neighbor to the east of the proposed project, said that if he understood the plan correctly it appeared that the setback got a waiver from the property line since the 15 -foot setback had been approved for a 10 foot setback. Chair/Lin said he believed the permitted minimum setbacks were 15 feet on one side and 10 feet 4 inches on the other side. Mr. Ying wanted to know why the structure was proposed to be so close to his property (10 feet) when there was a 52 foot setback on the other side. The new building will extend much further into the rear yard 40 to 50 feet from the current house. He wanted to know if the structure could be moved to the side (farther away from his home) and build a structure more evenly placed between the property lines on either side instead of extending all of the way back. The extension of the proposed structure into the rear yard area will block the view and the sunlight to his back yard. He said that it is apparent that the current structure is heavily infested with termites and when the structure is removed the termites will fly to other areas and probably to his home so can the termites be killed before the structure is razed. Chair/Lin closed the public hearing. Mr. Hu responded to the speaker's questions and concerns. Mr. Hu explained that the property south of the house where the protected trees are located has a very steep slope of about 35 percent and it would be prohibitively expensive to build on the slope. In addition, if the house were to be centered on the lot it would require removal of a large number of trees and it would require a 10-15 feet stepped retaining wall down the entire length of the slope, which would again be very, very expensive. With respect to termites, the applicant agrees to a condition to have a termite and extermination report prior to demolition of the house. The FEBRUARY 12, . 2013 PAGE PLANNINU UUMM1,001UN current footprint of the house will be demolished but the new construction will be in the same location and the setback will remain essentially the same to minimize the amount of cut and fill. Chair/Lin said that this afternoon he spent about 30 minutes at the site because he initially thought the lot was empty and then he observed that the structure is empty. The house indicates an address of 21143 and the plans show an address of 21141. Mr. Hu said he was surprised about this discrepancy. Chair/Lin asked if the dotted line on the plans shows the location of the current house in which case the new house would be about three times the size of the current house. Mr. Hu explained that the house ends at the jagged line and the dotted line shows theswimming pool and patio area. Chair/Lin said that the plan shows that the current grade is about one percent and the project proposes a four foot curved/terraced retaining wall without any piling. Chair/Lin asked Mr. Hu if he thought the house would be held by the retaining walls and whether Mr. Hu, had a soils report to support that assumption. Mr. Hu said he has a soils report and the house will be supported on caissons. Jack Lee, Cal Land Engineering, Inc., civil and soils engineer, said that for this job the bedrock condition is very shallow and his firm recommended using caissons for the retaining wall and grading variation. The entire building foundation will be supported by compacted fill and the foundation itself will be entirely on bedrock and/or on compacted fill. The caissons will be inserted into the bedrock. Chair/Lin said he did not believe that there was sufficient room for the car nearest the dwelling in the four -car structure to back out without hitting the wall with only 20 feet between the edges of the buildings, and asked staff what the standard driveway width is for a car to back out of a driveway. CDD/Gubman responded that there needs to be a clear area 26 feet back from the garage door opening. Chair/Lin said the plan shows 21 feet and 10 inches. SP/Lee clarified that the code requires 25 feet and the applicant is proposing 26 feet. Chair/Lin said he measured 20 feet 6 inches. Mr. Hu explained that there are two two -car garage doors and the area measures 26 feet in one area and 20 feet 10 inches in another. The design shows that the driver can rotate the wheel to turn into the larger area. The plan could be revised to inset the area into the house to create a 26 foot backing area. This was done to create greater architectural interest. Chair/Lin asked what the monument was on the left side of the front view of the structure. Mr. Hu said it was an architectural feature to create a FEBRUARY 12, 2013 1101 1'NCLOIGAIT111I, 1 LOU, material offset and make it visually more appealing rather than have the entire front the same color and provide natural lighting in the garage and accommodate the address of the home. Chair/Lin wanted to know what the second paragraph of the summary which read that the "design would be compatible with the character of the eclectic neighborhood" meant because he felt that the proposed house was not compatible with the neighborhood. The house is very contemporary in design and neighboring, properties are 60's and 70's era houses. The project is an eyesore to him and compatibility is one of the conditions of approval. CDD/Gubman agreed with Chair/Lin that there is every style of house in The Country Estates which is not like Santa Barbara for example, where there is a very well defined, precise architectural language that construction needs to abide by. This diversity of architecture has evolved over the many years during which The Country Estates has built -out and moreover, the more rustic low -profile scale of the original generation of homes is undergoing the cycle of being replaced by significantly larger homes. Although Chair/Lin is correct that this is within an immediate context of the ranch style homes that characterize those originally developed in The Country Estates, if you look at The Country Estates as a whole, the transformation to much larger grand estates is the character defining feature for the area. So it is a subjective determination with respect to compatibility, but staff looks at it in light of the development patterns in The Country Estates as a whole and staff's conclusion is that this is consistent with that overall transformation that has been ongoing. C/Shah said that some of the homes in the area are large. Some of the homes you view as you drive along Diamond Bar Boulevard are modern and this project is a beautiful design for which he commends the architect. The world is moving and architecture needs to move along with it. His opinion is that while it is eclectic in nature he agrees with staff that it is compatible and it is a beautiful design which he likes. VC/Nelson added that The Country Estates has its own architectural review board that reviews these projects and even though the City does not have to abide by what they say or require, their community is their community. C/Farago asked why since there is so much room on the side of the house opposite the 10 foot setback, why would the City not Move the structure to the other side in order to create a 15 foot setback. PC/Espino said it goes to the question of the steepness of the slope and the existing home is relatively in the same location as the proposed home so there is really no increase as far as the distance. C/Farago said the home is not 30 feet FEBRUARY 12, 2013 PAGE 7 PLAi"W��--l-aMMIS-55% MW high and PC/Espino responded that that portion of the home is going to be set back at the rear of the structure and not on the front end. In order for the house to be shifted toward the west, there would be more grading challenges and more environmental issues with respect to removal of protected trees. He said he believes the solution, according to his analysis, is the addition to the rear of the property by creating a spl.it pad is somewhere in the middle of trying to accommodate the new home while maintaining sensitivity to the grade and vegetation on the west side of the property. Mr. Hu said that the initial step for this project was to analyze the lot with respect to minimizing the amount of grading to accommodate the proposed project. The first consideration was to attempt to reuse the pad of the existing house which resulted in minimal grading. In addition, the project sought to minimize the removal of the oak trees which was challenging in itself. This project proposes a lot of landscaping along the dividing wall/buffer to screen the house from the neighbor's property to screen out the 35 -foot high area with higher trees. C/Torng said he felt the design was reasonable from an environmental standpoint. He asked staff to respond to the neighbor/speaker about his concerns regarding losing his view and what the statutes are regarding that issue. CDD/Gubman stated that as previously been discussed, Diamond Bar does not have a "view protection" requirement when dealing with existing lots of record so there is no criteria for protecting views or considering how a project affects a neighboring view. However, The Country Estates architectural committee has the authority to approve or reject a project based on 'a variety of factors that the City does not have the authority or tools to mandate, but the property owner/developer has to satisfy both the City's requirements and the homeowners' association requirements. As VC/Nelson said, the City does not have to take into account the decision making process of The Country Estate; however, the applicant is subject to fulfilling the requirements of both approval bodies. Mr. Hu said -that this project has secured the approval of the homeowners' association for this project. Chair/Lin said that the approval does not have any bearing on the decision of this body. C/Torng said he believed that most of the time when the Commission is challenged with approving this type of project he likes to see the type of visual table staff provided in the report and is pleased that this project meets all of the requirements. He believes that the applicant did all of his work and tried to meet all of the requirements which to him is important. C/Shah said he believed that once the applicant has met the setback requirement it is the architect and owner's prerogative to set the house where it is best suited for the property and not necessarily in the middle of FEBRUARY 12, 2013 PAGE 8 PLANNING C0119 MISM-7W, the property. The argument that there are existing trees and a significant grade to the west side of the property it adheres to the benefit of the owner and architect to set the dwelling on the easterly side of the property. The footprint appears to be consistent with the total topography of the site which he likes. He asked staff if termites fly away during demolition and should this project include a requirement for mitigation. CDD/Gubman said he could not say with any authority that termites would fly to other areas during demolition but he believed it was reasonable to presume that as the building is being demolished and the structural components are being disrupted and shaken, any dormant termites will take flight and seek refuge. So he believed it was a reasonable presumption to believe that if the house is currently infested with termites that it could potentially result in a scenario where they might migrate to adjacent structures and the applicant has gone on record agreeing, actually proposing, to go through the termite abatement process. CDD/Gubman said he believed the Planning Commission should take the applicant up on his offer and include it as a condition. VC/Nelson agreed. He said he just went through termite abatement. Termites swarm a couple of times a year and that's when they fly. Otherwise, they do not move. So in combination with the destruction of the house a condition to require an inspector to check it out and make sure they are not swarming would probably be a good idea to satisfy the neighbor's concerns if the applicant agrees. Mr. Hu said the applicant was not in agreement. VC/Nelson moved, C/Shah seconded to approve Development Review No. PI -2012-164, subject to the findings of fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution subject to the addition of the following conditions subject to the applicant's acceptance: 1) "That the oak tree in fair condition be replaced at a 3:1 ratio and that in addition to the proposed replacement of the two trees in good condition, that the applicant add three 15 -gallon trees for each. of the two "good" condition trees at a replacement ratio of 6:1, and 2) "That the applicant obtain a termite report prior to demolition of the existing structure." Chair/Lin said he is always in favor of new developments that increase the City's tax revenue base. As a reminder to his colleagues, he propounded that compatibility is one of the factors to be considered for any project. FEBRUARY 12, 2013 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Shah, Torng, VC/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Lin ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None CDD/Gubman stated that the language of the resolution will be crafted to reflect the motion received. The replacement ratio for the trees is very explicit and staff will draft a condition for the termite inspection that sets forth the requirement that the termite report be submitted to the City prior to the City's issuance of demolition permits with some additional stipulation that should there be a recommendation for eradicating the termites based on the findings, that it so be done. Staff will work with the applicant on these issues and staff believes it understands the Commission's request that demolition of the current structure should not commence without proper investigation and possible abatement and if a risk is found, the risk for swarming that might impact neighboring properties will be eradicated. 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that the Commission reorganization meeting will take place on March 12. For the meeting of February 26 there are two items on the agenda. The H -Mart Center proposal for a new Chase Bank building to replace the existing Burger King restaurant and with the Burger King restaurant at the Honda Dealership location having closed the weekend before last, Diamond Bar will be without a Burger King restaurant should the Chase Bank Building project be approved. Yesterday, there was a court hearing on the matter of the City's lawsuit against the owners of the Shell Station at Palomino and Diamond Bar Boulevard. The judge hearing the matter granted the City's request for a motion to assign a receiver to take possession of the property and with that motion being granted, the City, along with the prosecutor, will be proceeding with taking control of the property and finally completing the project after a substantial amount of legal proceedings to get the City to this major milestone. The City has the Court Order in hand as well as access to the financial resources of the property owner to fund those improvements. FEBRUARY 12, 2013 - PAGE 10 PLANNING COfMWSSVJJ CDD/Gubman announced that a transaction in which the Ralphs property has been acquired by a new property owner who issued a press release announcing the acquisition, and indicated that a Walmart Neighborhood Market would be the tenant for the space. This is a new product that Walmart is rolling out. It is strictly a grocery store with no other component. Although the press release indicated this outcome, staff has no knowledge that negotiations have concluded and do not know if the premature announcement of this new tenant might jeopardize the deal from coming to fruition. 10.- SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Lin adjourned the regular meeting at 8:10 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 26th day of February, 2013. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Wv- Greg Gubman Community Development Director Jimmy Lk,-Chairm n