Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/2013MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2013 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmiil Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Dhingra led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ashok Dhingra, Jimmy Lin, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Frank Farago, ChairmanTony Torng Also present: Grace Lee, Senior Planner; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Natalie Tobon, Assistant Planner, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented • FAIWMRA 4.1 Minutes of the October 8, 2013, Regular Meeting. C/Dhingra moved, Chair[Torng seconded, to approve the October 8, 2013, regular meeting minutes as amended and corrected. Motion carried by the followinq Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S): Dhingra, Lin, Shah, VC/ Farago, Chair/Torng None None 7.1 Development Review No. PL2013-77 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, applicant Steven Phillips and property owner Mei Deng, requested Development Review approval to construct a #CTO2013BER new single-family residence consisting of 13,360 square feet of livable area; a 2,207 square foot garage, and 2,471 square feet of patio areas on a 1.21 gross acre (52,707 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 October 8, 2013) PROJECT ADDRESS 24074 Falcons View Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mei Deng 500-999 West Broadway Vancouver, BC VSZIKS APPLICANT: Steven Phillips 23177 La Cadena Drive #101 Laguna Hills, CA 92677 AP/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2013-77, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Shah suggested that staff's response to public comment number 3 should include a statement that the retaining wall is strong enough to protect the neighbor's swimming pool from possible discharge of additional load impacts. AP/Tobon responded that staff's response includes the statement that "structural plans for all proposed structures including retaining walls will be submitted to the Building and Safety Division during building plan check for compliance with the California Building Code" which will include specifications for the retaining walls to ensure that it will not impact the neighbors property. SP/Lee also added that any grading and foundation design methods will follow the requirements contained in the geotechnical report. C/Dhingra said that the square footage shown in item 1 of the resolution does not match Sheet A-1 of the plans (13,360). SP/Lee responded that staff will make the appropriate changes to the resolution. C/Lin asked for clarification of the landscape plans and AP/Tobon pointed out that C/tin's concern involved a change that the architect wanted to show on the plan. SP/Lee reiterated that landscape plans will be reviewed during landscape plan check for the final design and irrigation. C/Lin asked if the lot was connected to sewer or septic. AP/Tobon responded that that this home is on septic. C/Lin said he did not see the septic tank on the plans and APIT'obon explained that this is not submitted during the planning phase of the project, it is submitted during the grading plan and building plan check process when the construction drawings are submitted to staff. C/Lin said that in the past the Commission has been provided drawings that identified the location of the septic tank. SP/Lee reiterated it is a condition of approval that the homeowner submits a plan showing the location of the septic tank system. C/Lin again stated that because the lot slopes down at the rear of the property the homeowner has to identify an appropriate place for location of the septic tank. AP/Tobon referred C/Lin to the applicant's civil engineer. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Steven Phillips, architect, said it has been a long journey to get to this point. He first worked with The Country Estates homeowners association and was surprised to learn they had three licensed architects who volunteer their time to the board. One is the Dean of Architecture at Cal Poly Pomona. The Board advised him that there was an illegal fill that was placed from the neighboring site to the north of the project site and he was asked to solve the design problem in a manner consistent with the natural grades that were there prior to the illegal fill. The project's civil engineer who will answer the questions on the location of the septic system was able to locate the original topographic maps which were used to design the home. When the house was designed the first floor was placed in relationship to the southern portion of the property so that when looking at the front elevation there was a jog in it so the front door is more or less even with or a little below the street level at the southern side of the property which makes it approximately six feet lower than the neighboring property to the north. Currently, the site is flat, even with the property to the north on at least six feet of illegal fill. The Country Estates homeowners association wanted to be sure that the project designed a solution to keep the first floor of the house six feet below the northerly property. In addition, another 14 feet was cut out for a daylight basement to lower the house and balance the site with the grading. The site will be buttressed for stability. The homeowners association approved the site plan and in working with staff, various elements of the house were adjusted to bring everything into conformance including the in and out driveway. Once the site plan was adjusted, the landscaping was revised to eliminate the in and out driveway because there is a question as to ownership of the roadway and the 12 -foot parkway. He spoke with the #CTOBER 22, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION board members who believe they control the road parkway; however, the applicant agreed to the City's condition. He thanked staff and especially AP/Tobon for their work on this project. Hank Jong, EGL Civil Engineers, said that with respect to the Commission's question regarding the location of the septic tank, typically, the system is not shown on the conceptual grading plan because at this stage, no percolation tests have been done and the number of seepage pits needed for this house is not yet known. However, he believes the pits can be placed at the front of the house under the driveway so the maintenance vehicle will have access. Fie -said he did not foresee a problem providing a septic system sufficient to serve the house. With respect to geotechnical issues, he will recommend that the house be supported by caissons which are placed firmly irito bedrock to make sure nothing will move in the future. C/Shah asked if the house has been designed using caissons or is it just a recommendation. Mr. Jong said he had done many houses on hillsides within The Country Estates and he always recommends that these types of houses built on hillsides be supported by caissons, placed firmly into bedrock. The applicant has to follow his recommendations. C/Lin said he differed with the civil engineer on the septic tank issue. If the pit is going to be at the front of the house and there is a basement floor more than 12 feet below the front, the pit would have to be 20 feet into the ground. Mr. Jong said that typically, a 50 foot ground water hole is drilled to make sure the ground water is at least 10 feet below the pit, after which 40 foot test holes are drilled to ensure the 40 foot seepage pit. The pipe will be directed from the rear of the house to the front of the house for service accessibility and the pit will be serviced every six months or so. C/Dhingra asked Mr. Phillips which condition of approval he was referring to regarding The Country Estates jurisdiction over the roadway and parkway. Mr. Phillips responded that The Country Estates has an easement that is owned by the homeowners association that states that roadways and parkways are for the enjoyment of all and they believe they are responsible. There is no space between a portion of the subject property and the private street easement at the front of the property. C/Dhingra said from Mr. Phillips testimony that he thought there was a conflict with respect to a specific condition. Mr. Phillips further explained that the condition was that since there was a potential conflict regarding jurisdiction and responsibility for the private street easement between the HOA and the City, staff recommended that the project abandon the in and OCTOBER 22, 2013 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION out driveway at this time. Mr. Phillips said he agreed with staff and proceeded to remove the in and out driveway. Michael Liu, 2160 Indian Creek, said he submitted a letter to staff and the Commission to express his concerns about the design of the house including the amount of fill done by previous owners. He is concerned about the foundation of his house and the safety of his property including his swimming pool and was concerned that trees might fall on his property. He was also concerned about the location of the septic tank being too close to his house. He asked the City for assurance that his property would be protected. Carol Gass, 23830 Falcons View Drive, said she was surprised that someone would be allowed to build such a large house on a small property and wanted to know how many bedrooms and bathrooms would be included in the house and how many individuals would reside in the home. She asked when construction would start and how long it would take to complete the house. Mr. Phillips responded to the speaker that a house of this nature would likely take 24 months to construct and it is not likely that once started construction would stop. The house will be highly engineered on caissons and will not move. The house has four bedrooms on the upper floor, one on the main floor and one in the basement for a total of six bedrooms. He would be happy to go over the plans with the neighbors. SP/Lee reiterated that with respect to the first speaker's concerns, grading, foundation design, retaining walls and landscape installation such as tree species and root barriers will all be reviewed during plan check and if there are any problems encountered at that time, they will be addressed. The plan check process will ensure that the project is designed to not cause structural or slope instability on the subject and/or neighboring properties. VC/Farago asked Mr. Phillips to point out the distance between the existing house to the north and the proposed house which appears to him to be about 48 or 49 feet and about 33 or 34 feet to the property line. Mr. Phillips said that the retaining wall will be about 10 feet away from the property line. VC/Farrago assured the neighbor that there is considerable distance between the two homes and asked Mr. Phillips to show the neighbor where the retaining wall is proposed in proximity to the neighbor's pool. Mr. Phillips said the distance between the proposed house and the house to the south is approximately 50 feet. AP/Tobon said the aerial photograph does not show the neighbor's swimming pool *CTOBER 22, 2013 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSIOA because the pool was built this year, after the photos were taken, SP/Lee stated that the Code requires swimming pools to be located a minimum of five feet from the property line. The property owner pointed out the location of his swimming pool. C/Dhingra said he believed the neighbor's concerns would be addressed during plan check. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah moved, VC/Farago seconded, approve Development Review No. PL2013-77, 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: 8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): Dhingra, Lin, Shah, VC/ Farago, Chair/Torng None None 8.1 Development Review No. PL2013-147 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant/property owner Dr. Umesh Shah requested Development Review approval to construct a 2,828 square foot two-story addition to an existing two-story single family residence on a 0.47 gross acre (20,607 square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: FAI ZJ :I I [WAI k I 21955 Birds Eye Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dr. Umesh Shah 21955 Birds Eye Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SP/Lee stated that due to staff's error, the public hearing notice published for this item was defective, therefore, a revised public hearing notice will need to be published and mailed to surrounding property owners before the Commission can hear this matter. Due to staff's error, the City and not the applicant will incur costs associated with re -noticing the item as well as, future planning reviews. Staff recommends that the Commission continue this matter to November 12, 2013. OCTOBER 22, 2013 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. SP/Lee stated that the November 12 agenda will consist of two projects, both of which are continued projects. One is an addition to a single family home in The Country Estates located at 23223 Ridgeline Road, which was continued from the September 24, 2013, meeting in order to allow the property owner to consider removing the rear pad from the rear yard in order to save the protected trees; and the other is the Birds Eye project which was scheduled for tonight's meeting, The Willow Heights project on Site D is scheduled for the November 19, 2013, City Council meeting. 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 7:46 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 12th day of November, 2013. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Tony Tarn 6,­Chairman�----'