Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/27/2013MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 27, 2013 Vice Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Farago led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Frank Farago, Jimmy Lin, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Tony Torng Also present, Greg Gubman, Community Development Director, Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the August 13, 2013, Regular Meeting. C/Farago moved, C/Lin seconded, to approve the August 13, 2013, regular meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, Shah, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 General Plan Status Report for 2013 Review - Received and filed. SP/Lee presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission approve the report and forward to the City Council to receive and file. AUGUST 27, 2013 7. PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lin said he thought that the City of Industry bought the Diamond Bar Honda property and CDD/Gubman responded that staff believes the property is still owned by Denley Investment & Management Company in West Hollywood. VC/Torng asked the status of Larkstone Park. SP/Lee responded that the Tentative Tract Map has been approved and Lewis is developing the public park designs. However, Lewis recently discovered that there was a landslide on the site that will have to be rernediated and they are working with staff to resolve the issue and design a future park as required as part of the Tentative Map approval. There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-22 — The applicant requested approval of a Conditional Use Permit to upgrade an existing Alcoholic Beverage Control license from Type 20 (Beer and Wine) to Type 21 (General) for offsite consumption in conjunction with the sale of motor fuel at an existing ARCO/ampm service station and convenience store. The subject property is zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C), PROJECT ADDRESS: 3302 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar-, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Farsai and Farsai, Inc. 23276 S. Pointe Drive #100 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 APPLICANT: Ryan Farsai 23276 S. Pointe Drive #100 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 SP/Lee presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-22, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lin asked if the Lennar proposed park was on the east side of this project and SP/Lee responded that C/Lin was correct. It is on the southeast corner of Diamond Bar' Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. C/Lin asked if this was part of the property that used to be owned by the school and SP/Lee responded that C/Lin was again correct and the property is also known as Site D. C/Lin asked if one day a school was built at that location, what would happen. SP/Lee responded that the property is currently zoned for residential uses so a school would not be allowed to be built on that property. CDD/Gubman said that hypothetically, if a school were.built on Site D, the ARCO/ampm would become a legal non -conforming use and it would be grandfathered because it was there first. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Ryan Farsai, applicant, said his family has owned the business since 1992 and his mother purchased the property in 2003. He thanked the Commission for its continued support of the small local business owner. His family was lucky to have won the Type 21 license in an ABC lottery and get to this hearing today. BP sold the ARCO brand to Tesoro, an oil refinery out of Texas, which is now the master franchiser and is a public trading company. Unfortunately, they are no longer the low -price gas leader. Today Costco, Sam's Club, Albertsons and those types of establishments are offering gasoline at wholesale prices which are better than any other establishment within a five mile radius of their businesses. They accept credit cards and American Express and offer cash -back rewards, options that he cannot offer to his customers. At one point his establishment was offering the Customer the low price option because credit cards were not accepted, Times are changing and he must conform to Tesoro's guidelines which has 240 sites branded gas lines. They accept credit cards and price gas just a Couple of cents more, so over a span of time he has seen the volume of his station decline. In order to adapt and attract more customers to increase the business, his family has decided to include this change to improve his customer base. VC/Torng asked Mr. Farsai if he reviewed staff's report and concurred with the Conditions of Approval and Mr. Farsai responded that he did review staff's report and concurred with the Conditions of Approval. VC/Torng closed the public hearing. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lin moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-22, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, Shah, VC[Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2012-475 -- Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant, Jack Wu and property owner, Justin Chien requested Development Review approval to construct a 573 square -foot addition including a new third level to an existing single family residence on a 1.6 gross acre (69,696 square foot) lot. A Tree Permit was requested to remove three Coast Live Oak trees and one Black Walnut tree to be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 23223 Ridge Line Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Justin Chien 2880 Woodbridge Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Jack Wu 10410 Lower Azusa Road #203 El Monte, CA 91731 AP/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2012-475, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval listed within the draft resolution. C/Shah asked the condition of the trees that were proposed to be removed. AP/Tobon responded that photographs of the trees were provided to the Commission in staff's report and stated that the condition of the trees is "fair." She did not know the age of the trees. C/Shah asked AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION why the trees needed to be removed. He could see that they conflicted with the retaining wall but said they did not appear to conflict with the construction area. AP/Tobon responded that the trees need to be removed to create the buildable pad for the rear setback. VC/Torng said that staff's report mentions the current condition of zero feet in the rear yard so this pad is to build up the retaining walls and build up the pad in the back. AP/Tobon said that VC/Torng was correct and currently, the property is sloped with no buildable pad in the back. C/Shah said that according to his read of the plans, all trees are Outside the buildable area. AP/Tobon said that while the trees that are going to be removed are not where the addition is, it is where the retaining walls are. C/Shah asked why the retaining walls could not go around the trees. CDD/Gubman responded that Oak trees in particular are very sensitive to the grade on which they are located. Any change to the grade up against the tree will affect their physical and biological health and they would not be able to withstand the soil being raised at their base. In order for those trees to be retained, the grade that exists below their drip line would have to be preserved. Theoretically, the applicant could reconfigure the retaining walls to preserve the grade at those trees at the drip line. It would require a special design to accommodate the Oak tree preservation. C/Shah said he was still not convinced that the grade would have to be raised where there is a retaining wall. Where the trees are located, the grade would not need to be raised. It can be maintained at varying heights. How many feet will the grade be raised? James Hu, project manager said that the difference in the slope from the first row to the last row is about 20 feet and the trees are about 30 feet or so, so in order to retain the trees at their current location and create a 10 percent buildable pad in the same location to have a 25 foot slope it would mean that the first grade would go up the trunk of the tree about 10 or 15 feet which would not work. The applicant and owner explored going further to the outside boundary of the tree and still maintain a 10 percent slope for the buildable pad in order to meet the City's code requirement for a 25 foot setback. Unless the 25 foot setback can be reduced to preserve the trees, there is no other way to do this in order to meet the City's requirement. This project has very little changes in the footprint of the building, All of the work is done within the interior partition and this is actually an update of the house which requires the project to meet the AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION City's requirement. He actually inquired about a variance for this project and the answer he received was no. He would like to save the trees but he has no other choice. In order to change the surface from 40 percent to 10 percent it will require 800 cubic yards of fill and if the project were required to increase it further out, it would mean double the fill which is not very practical. He showed the photo of the area behind the house and the retaining wall which will become the buildable pad that is required to be 10 percent. The photo also shows how deep the slope is at the retaining wall in its current configuration. He has to do a stepped retaining wall and the code requires a four -foot high maximum retaining wall and that is why it is configured the way it is. C/Shah said he did not believe that there would need to be 10 or 15 feet additional dirt at the tree base of tree #14. Mr. Hu said it would definitely require 10 or 15 feet. It is difficult to get an exact view but the trees are in between the different levels of the retaining walls. He showed C/Shah where the tree and the natural slope are located and said that in order to build a retaining, wall the slope would have to be maintained and the soil would cover at least half of the tree trunk. The issue is the 10 percent slope and unfortunately, if it cannot be changed there is no other way to save the trees. C/Lin said he presumed the 3:1 replacement ratio was in line with the City's ordinance for tree replacement and that the applicant would follow the ordinance. CDD/Gubman responded that C/Lin was correct that the requirement is a 3.1 replacement with another protected variety of tree. C/Farago said it appeared to him that there was no change to the footprint of the house and AP/Tobon responded affirmatively. C/Farago said he was curious why the setback requirement if there is no addition to the footprint of the house because it seems like a great deal of expense to the owner in order to meet that setback requirement when there is no apparent infringement on the setback. CDD/Gubman responded that it is not a requirement because the structure currently does not have the minimum rear setback so to create a rear yard is really the choice of the property owner. It is riot a code requirement because the property already has a non -conforming rear setback situation and the property owner is allowed to continue that non -conformity, they are just not allowed to "worsen" the condition. C/Farago said that his understanding was that AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION when the property owner requested a Variance so that they would not have to remove the trees it was denied and C/Farago asked if that was correct. CDD/Gubman said he was not aware of that. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. James Hu, project manager responded to C/Farago that during the design process the answer he received while working with the Planning Department about adding third floor square footage was that as long as he was adding square footage he would have to meet current code which meant that the owner would need to have the 25 foot conforming setback on the rear yard. He asked over the counter if a Variance was possible and in this case, the answer he received was "no." He wished there was a way around this issue because it will cost the property owner a lot of money for this project and he has discussed this with the civil engineer to minimize the amount of fill. Perhaps there is another way to complete the project but this is the current design. He did not realize he might have another option. C/Farago said he was curious because it seemed like the City was forcing the owner to remove the trees and put in the retaining walls and wanted clarification on that issue. He thanked the speaker. C/Lin asked the width and size of the footing of the retaining wall. Mr. Hu said those were not yet designed but the maximum retaining wall height is four feet and there should be a three foot separation between the walls. He will submit the plan with the grading plan when he applies for the retaining wall permit. C/Lin asked if it was customary to not show the full design specifications on the drawings when asking the Commission to approve a project. CDD/Gubman responded that size of the footing and retaining walls are structural requirements. They are building code requirements for review at the construction document phase. VC/Torng asked why the pad was needed if the 35 foot height requirement was being met. CDD/Gubman said that no staff member present this evening is aware of any conversation that insisted that the applicant create this pad to establish a 25 foot rear setback. If there was another member of staff that told that to the applicant CDD/Gubman would have to look into that. Because this is an existing grandfathered situation, there is not a requirement to create that 25 foot rear setback when they are not proposing to encroach further into that direction. VC[Torng asked if the AUGUST 27, 2013 -.-6)AGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSIOW height requirement of 35 feet was being met since this is being built on the third floor of the rear side. CDD/Gubman said he did not believe there was any change to the surface grade at the base of the structure. Mr. Hu said that the pad would not change the height level at the base of the wall. It is just that the slope would be flatter and the height would not change from the previous maximum height approved. VC/Torng asked if the applicant was willing to go back and discuss the proposal with the Planning Department to avoid having to build retaining walls and conform to the 25 foot setbacks and Mr. Hu responded "of course." CDD/Gubman said that the Planning Commission could keep the public hearing open and continue the matter to September 24 to address any revisions that might be proposed. VC/Torng asked Mr. Hu if he agreed to a continuation and Mr. Hu said he would have to speak with the owner first. Obviously, they have invested a lot of time already. VC/Torng said that tonight the Commission has to make a decision to either continue the matter or base an approval or denial on the proposed project. CDD/Gubman said that another option would be for the Commission to approve the project as proposed and give the applicant the opportunity to revise the application so that the Planning Department can bring the matter back to the Commission with a new site design that did not include retaining walls and a built up pad. Mr. Hu said he liked that option better than continuing the matter. C/Shah said he was still not convinced that two, if not all four trees could be saved and in his opinion, all four can be saved. He recommended that the applicant take another look at the design of the retaining walls to look at the possibility of saving the trees. Mr. Hu asked the Commission to vote on the project as proposed and he would work with the Planning Department to save the trees. He has discussed saving the trees with the architect but has not discussed any other options with the property owner because he was riot aware he had any other option but to comply with current code when he came to the meeting this evening. He was working with a planner who is no longer with the city who told him that when adding square footage, the property had to be brought to code. If he has to revise the site plan and put in another application he could do so. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman suggested that if the Planning Commission is satisfied with the architectural design of the house and the ad ' dition as submitted, it could be approved with the inclusion of a condition that would allow CDD/Gubman, as the delegated authority, to approve a revision to the plan that would involve the removal of the pad provided that the other architectural elements being -proposed for the house are not change , d. This would require a decision on the Tree Permit with the approval, but with that added condition, staff could work with them administratively to eliminate the issue with the retaining walls and take the debate about the trees completely off of the table. VCfForng closed the public hearing and brought the matter back to the Commission for deliberation. C/Shah reiterated that he wanted the trees saved and wanted staff to work with the applicant on this matter. If there is no alternative, so be it. CDD/Gubman said that if elevation of the pad grades is eliminated and the retaining walls are not required, the trees will no longer be in jeopardy. C/Lin said his understanding of the grandfather clause was that if the footprint was not touched it would continue to exist with the non- conformance clause. However, the applicant is actually adding two areas, one of which is 88.2 square feet and the other 70.62 square feet to the back which in essence encroaches into the back of the property which would violate the non-conformance grandfather clause. CDD/Gubman said that would not be the case because it is not the footprint that is being pushed out, the discussion has to do with where the setbacks are established by existing building footprint. The site plan shows an existing module at the rear of the building that is in line with what is being proposed to be pushed out so that existing building wall would be the point from which the grandfather situation exists. C/Lin moved approval of Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2012-475. VC/Torng asked if C/Lin wanted to add the condition and C/Lin asked what condition, VC/Torng said "the condition for granting the Community Development Director, as the delegated authority, to approve a revision to the plan that would involve the removal of the pad provided that the other architectural elements being proposed for the house are not changed. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lin said that if the applicant does riot have a problem with the approval and staff does not have a problem with the application why would it be a concern to the Commission. C/Farago said that it sounded to him, based on the conversation with the project manager, that they prefer to eliminate the retaining walls and removal of the trees but were directed by City staff that it was a requirement that they put it in. So the City wants to give the applicant an opportunity to address that issue and to save costs and eliminate the need for removing those trees. C/Lin said he asked the applicant if he had a problem with that and Mr. Hu responded that he supported the last option suggested by CDD/Gubman to approve as is and because he cannot make that decision, he speaks for himself only and riot the owner who is not present tonight. He would prefer that the Commission approve the matter and allow him to work with the Planning Department to modify the site plan having demonstrated staff's approval to eliminate the retaining wall and save the trees. C/Lin said he did not believe the Commission could approve partial drawings. Mr. Hu said it was not a partial drawing. He has to meet with the owner and his desire would-be to eliminate the retaining wall because it costs a lot of money and they would have to take out trees, which was not necessary from what he now understood. SP/Lee stated that typically, applicants request to build a buildable pad for usable space in their rear yards. She recommended that the applicant check with the property owner whether they would indeed not like to build up this buildable pad. Mr. Hu said he asked the property owner and the answer was that they did not believe they actually needed the space; however, that answer was in response to what he thought the requirements were at the time. Mr. Hu said he asked the applicant and they told him they did not really believe they needed the space but that was before he thought it was a City requirement and the owner responded that if it is a requirement they would have to follow the law. C/Shah said he does not like the fact that the property owner is not present tonight and that the applicant does riot have the authority to make the decision on behalf of the owner. The property owner should be present and the Commission may then authorize the Community Development Director to work with them for an outcome that can be presented to the Commission on September 24 and the Commission can approve the project at that time. He did not believe the Commission was AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION in a position to approve anything at this time. C/Shah recommended that the Commission either allow the Community Development Director to proceed or continue the matter to September 24. C/Farago asked CDD/Gubman to restate his recommendation. CDD/Gubman stated that the addition to the house is as presented on the plans before the Commission. The question being raised at this time is whether to have the tiered retaining walls to create the "back yard" or not and keep the main slope as it currently exists. In either scenario, the architecture does not change. The question before the Commissioners is whether they are comfortable or can reasonably foresee the difference between a project with terraced retaining walls and a pad versus the project with the existing slope left as is. Architecturally, the house will not change and only topographically will the site look different. If the Commissioners can visualize that to a level of confidence where they feel they can defer the modification of the project from terraced retaining walls to leaving the slope in its natural condition, he would suggest that the Commission approve the project as submitted this evening and add a condition that states that "should the applicant elect to eliminate the terraced retaining walls that can be approved administratively," C/Shah said that more and more it looks to him like the architecture of the building is one thing and the overall landscape of the property is another part of the project which is extremely important for a residential back yard and he would rather give the architect and property owner an opportunity to re-examine that possibility so that if they want a pad and back yard they can redesign the retaining walls and save the trees. If the property owner decides he does not want retaining wall's and a pad that would be his choice. C/Farago said that if the Commission entertains a motion to approve as submitted with a condition that they could resubmit the matter of the terraced retaining wall and leave it to the Community Development Director's discretion, would that be acceptable to the City and staff and CDD/Gubman responded yes. CDD/Gubman said that he was asking the Commissioners if they had the comfort level to defer that decision on that component of the project. C/Farago asked for clarification that an approval would mean an option to do either or to which CDD/Gubman responded that the Commission's option is for the owner and applicant to bring a revised plan without the retaining walls back to the full Commission to approve or to defer that authority to CDD/Gubman to approve. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Farago moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2012-475 with the addition of the Condition that the Community Development Director work with the property owner and applicant to modify the project and bring back the revised landscape plan to the Commission for the retaining walls. C/Shah reiterated his desire to save the trees. The issue is that the property owner is not present to speak on this matter as to whether they wish to have the elevated pad or not. In lieu of hearing firsthand rather than via hearsay, it places the Commission in a bind to approve the project without the retaining walls because if the property owner decided he wanted the pad, staff would have to come back to the Commission. Alternatively, the Commission can approve the project as presented and should the owner elect to no longer have the retaining walls as part of this plan, they would not have to come back to the Commission if the Commissioners allowed CDD/Gubman to work with the applicant to modify the plan. C/Shah said that such an approval would give the property owner the authority to build the project as proposed. And that is riot C/Shah's intent this evening. His intent is to have them try to eliminate any obstacles in terms of saving the trees. If CDD/Gubman is given the authority, the Commission should approve only the building and let the Community Development Director render his best judgment. C/Farago said his motion was made because Mr. Hu's understanding with the property owner is that their intent was not to build the setback and to not remove the trees and not have the added expense of building the retaining walls and it seems to him that if the Commission gives the applicant the opportunity to eliminate the retaining walls he would take advantage of it. He restated his motion as follows: C/Farago moved to approve Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2012-475 as presented with the condition that should the applicant chose to do so, eliminate the retaining walls at the discretion of the Community Development Director. C/Shah again stated that once approved, the Commission loses its decision power because the project manager has said that he needs to check with the property owner. So rather than approving as is, approve only the building portion with the remaining portion subject to the AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Community Development Director working with the property owner to see if he can save the trees. As a property owner, he would love to have the pad in the back yard area and he would love to save the trees, too. C/Lin said that no one seconded the motion and VC/Torng announced that the motion died (for lack of a second). C/Lin said that the owner agreed to the 3:1 tree replacement ratio and did not feel that saving the trees was the issue. C/Lin moved to approve Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2012-475 with two alternatives as follows: Approve the project as submitted or eliminate the pad, retaining walls and tree removal at the discretion of the Community Development Director. C/Farago seconded the motion. C/Shah said again that the motion was an either or and he felt the owner needed to make a decision. He believed the motion should give very clear division. VC/Torng said he believed the motion made it very clear that there were two alternatives, one the current project in which the trees may not be saved but C/Lin's first alternative should perhaps contain a condition that provided the owners make a best effort to save the trees to every extent possible and asked C/Lin to add the condition. C/Lin said he did not believe that kind of statement had any enforcement power. He would rather empower staff to work with the property owner to save the trees, if necessary. C/Shah reiterated his statement that the matter should be continued. VC/Torng said that the Commission would like a full report on the final Outcome. CDD/Gubman said that C/Shah raises a good point. It is difficult to craft language approving two choices. Typically, an approval is subject to a condition that the project is approved in accordance with the plans Submitted to the Planning Commission which is the default position. He suggested that the Commission make that the default approval and add a condition that "should the applicant elect to eliminate the retaining walls, AUGUST 277 2013 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION that the Community Development Director has the discretion to approve the revised grading plan administratively. C/Farago said that was his original motion. What C/Lin says is essentially correct. CDD/Gubrnan said it is more complicated to craft an approval that contains multiple choices, C/Lin withdrew his motion and asked that C/Farago's original motion be considered. C/Farago withdrew his second of C/Lin's motion. VC/Torng said that since the motion was off of the table he wanted to make a motion because he thought the matter should really be continued to September 24. He is no longer comfortable with the issue because there is no agreement and Commissioners want to see the final plan. VC/Torng moved, C/Shah seconded, to continue this matter to September 24, 2013. C/Farago asked how a postponement would affect the owner since he could not move forward with construction of the addition. VC/Torng said it was only one month and it was the owner's fault because he should be here this evening. C/Shah said this is a concept plan and the engineering plans are not done so time is not that critical. They are not under construction and plans are yet to be prepared. C/Lin called for the question and vote on the motion on the floor. Motion on Call for Question carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, Shah, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C/Lin said that parliamentary procedure dictates that once a Commissioner calls for the question it stops discussion and a vote needs to be taken on the motion. VC/Torng said that question was voted on and now it comes back to his motion. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman said there was a motion by C/Farago and a second by C/Lin. VC/Torng said that one was already withdrawn. CDD/Gubman said okay. VC/Torng said that is why his motion that was seconded by C/Shah and C/Lin came out with a new motion saying call for the question. C/Lin attempted to explain that when the discussion seems to continue on to no conclusion, a Commissioner can call for the question and if everyone agrees, there is a vote on the motion. VC/Torng said now it was time to vote on his motion which was seconded by C/Shah. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, Shah, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.3 Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2013-45 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner, Henry and Jeanne Yue requested Development Review approval to construct a new single family residence consisting of a 9,720 square foot single family residence on a 2.22 gross acre (96,703 square foot) lot. A Tree Permit was requested to remove three Coast Live Oak trees and one California Walnut tree to be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2208 Rusty Pump Road (APN 8713-034-019) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Henry and Jeanne Yue APPLICANT: 3913 S. Hackley Avenue .West Covina, CA 91792 AP/Tobon presented staff's report, and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2013-45, based on the Findings of Fact, and Subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Jeanne Yue, property owner, said she was excited to present the project to the Planning Commission. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION 91 C/Lin stated that while it is not criteria for approval he would like to see something better than a box structure. Mrs. Yue said she has an architectural background. C/Lin said other than his comment, the structure looked pretty nice. C/Shah complimented Mrs. Yue on her design. VC/Torng asked Mrs. Yue if she agreed with the conditions of approval and she responded affirmatively. VC/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Lin moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2013-45, 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 Farago, Lin, Shah, VC/Torng None None PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Shah said he attended the Council Meeting during which Steve Nelson was awarded a plaque for his 13 plus years of service to the City. The Planning Commission lost a mentor and very good Commissioner and all of the Council Members expressed their gratitude. C/Lin asked if there was any new development on the Ralphs property and CDD/Gubman said that there would rnost likely be an opening day in 2014 for a major grocery retailer. VC/Torng thanked staff for their reports. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman reported that the City Council will be considering the Tres Hermanos zone change at next Tuesday's meeting. The September 10 Planning Commission meeting will be canceled due to lack of quorum and the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for September 24 during which the review of the Ridgeline addition will continue. In addition, there is a small office building on North Diamond Bar Boulevard that is slated for that agenda. AUGUST 27, 2013 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION llauyl[12#11111�1 As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 8:35 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 24th day of September, 2013. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director 4;?airman Torng-