Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
05/23/2006
PLANNING FILE COPY May 23, 2006 . 7:00 PAN South Coast Air Quality Management District Government Center Building - Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Chairman Joe McManus Vice Chairman Steve Nelson commissioner Ron Everett Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee Commissioner Tony Torng Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Dept. of Community & Development Services, located at 21825 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. if you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title I/ of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation (s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Department of Community & Development Services at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please refrain from smoking, eating or The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper drinking in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same i City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission MEETING RULES PUBLIC INPUT The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other -items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. A request to address the Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the Commission. As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time -the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community and Development Services Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below. Every meeting of the. Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. ADA REQUIREMENTS A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 839-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Friday. Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette, Tapes of Meetings (909) 839-7030 General Agendas (909) 839-7030 email: info(aJ_)ci.diamond-bar.ca.us,. Next Resolution No. 2006-20 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, May 23, 2006 AGENDA CALL TO ORDER: .7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairman Steve Nelson, Ron Everett, Kwang Ho Lee, Tony Torng 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary.) There is a five-minute maximum time limit w . hen addressinq the Planning Commission. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may, be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only. 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: May 9, 2006. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review DR 2005-31 - In accordance to Chapter 22.48 and 22.56 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code the applicant has requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story single family dwelling of approximately 7,888 square feet of habitable area with an attached 1,400 square foot garage. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of a 7,200 square foot tennis court and a detached viewing gazebo. The subject parcel of land is zoned R1-20,000. The site is vacant and it contains 1.68 acres of gross land area. The applicant has also requested approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a driveway width greater than fourteen (14) feet at the street right-of-way. MAY 23, 2006 4 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Project Address: 2502 Razzak Circle (Lot 181, Tract 30587; APN 8713-009-066). Property Owner: Mr. & Mrs. Wasif Siddique 11076 Venture Drive Mira Loma, CA 91752 Applicant: Award Winning Designs 17 Rue Du Chateau Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Environmental Determination: In accordance to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15303(a) (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structure), the City has determined that this project is categorically exempt. ' Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Development Review DR 2005-31. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: CITY COUNCIL MEETING TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: Thursday, May 25, 2006 SCAQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room — 21865 Copley Drive Tuesday, June 6, 2006 - 6:130 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive Thursday, June 8, 2006 — 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room — 21865 Copley Drive Tuesday, June 13, 2006 — 7:00 p.m. SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 Copley, Drive MAY 23, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORIAL HOLIDAY Monday, May 29, 2006 - City offices will OBSERVANCE: be closed in observance of the Memorial Day Holiday. City offices will reopen Tuesday, May 30. 11. ADJOURNMENT: MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 9, 2006 - CALL TO ORDER: Chairman McManus 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, California 91765. I PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ron Everett, Kwang Ho Lee, Tony Torng, Vice -Chairman Steve Nelson and Chairman Joe McManus. Also present: Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; David Meyer, Planning Consultant, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 4. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS- None Offered. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 25, 2006. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve the minutes of April 25, 2006, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None Torng, Lee, Everett, VC/Nelson, Chair/McManus None None MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-06 and Development Review No. 2005-33 - In accordance with Code Sections 22.08, 22.58 and 22.48, this was a request to remodel and construct an addition of approximately 2700 square feet to an existing church. The Conditional Use Permit was to modify the original Conditional Use Permit approved by Los Angeles County prior to the City's incorporation and is required for a church in a residential zone. The Development Review was a design review for the addition. PROJECT ADDRESS: 400 Rancheria Road, (Tract 24612, Lot 51) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Northminster Presbyterian Church of .Diamond Bar 400 Rancheria Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Larry Wolff WLC Architects 10407 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Assoc/P Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-06 and Development Review No. 2005-33, Findings of Fact, and Conditions of Approval as listed within the resolution. C/Everett asked if there was a condition that specifically forbids overlapping use that relates to the parking issue. AssocP/Lungu referred C/Evereft to Condition No. 3 on page 6 of the resolution that states "the applicant shall use advanced scheduling and the staggering of church activities to avoid the overlapping of said activities in orderto control the parking demand" and the condition that allowed for periodic review of the Conditional Use Permit. If the City finds there is an issue related to the parking and the uses, C/Everett's concerns would be addressed. The City can trigger a review and the applicant can submit an application to revise the Conditional Use Permit. VC/Nelson recalled that when the Planning Commission reviewed the parking situation at other church facilities it allowed for street parking and shared parking. He asked how this particular facility would differ from those MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION facilities and, in the event overflow parking became an issue would the City require a permit for street parking? AssocP/Lungu said it was possible the church could use the street for overflow parking. She said she was not sure the street had "No Parking" signs. However, if the church were to have a special event the City could issue a Temporary Use Permit, if necessary. Scott Davis, WLC Architects, 10407 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 said his firm reviewed staffs report and concurred with the Conditions of Approval as stated. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. A speaker who lives behind the church asked if the facility had intentions of installing fencing because there is a chain link fence between their property and the church property and she has a lot of problems with children on the church side throwing rocks at their dogs, into their pool and breaking their windows. The church property sits well above her property and she said she was hoping that a privacy fence or block wall would be installed to prevent this type of activity. Also, the fire department told her that the drainage comes down the hill into their block wall and creates a safety hazard because it could cause erosion and cave in the wall. She said it looks like the church has indicated that they own part of her property so she is having a title search done to clarify the boundaries. AssocP/Lungu said that the vicinity map contained in the packet does not legally parcel the properties and the vicinity map does not necessarily reflect the development. The project plans show the actual boundaries. She and the City's Engineer visited the site and also determined that the drainage was an issue. As a result, staff included a statement in its report about the church submitting a drainage plan that would accurately reflect the drainage pattern of the entire site including the parking lot, all drainage devices including catch basins, etc., for the City to review. There are other conditions about the drainage included in the conditions of approval within the Resolution as well and staff will resolve the drainage issue. Roland Morris, Chairman, Building Committee for the church said the issue about a chain-link fence and children throwing rocks was news to him. There is a preschool nursery school that has used the facilities for over 30 years and that issue will be address and he will speak with the neighbors to address their concerns. The area between the chain-link fence and the block wall is a swale and the ownership needs to be resolved. He felt it would be a 69 DRAFT MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION -minimal issue to address the -drainage -concerns. He said that it was the church's intent to be good neighbors. Mr. Morris responded to Chair/McManus that the church's head of staff would be meeting with the preschool president and director tomorrow at 8:30 a.m. to resolve the issue of children throwing rocks. There is supposed to be an adult supervisor in the area whenever children are present to prevent any such activity as required by the State of California. He said the issue would be addressed immediately. Sharon Mosho asked if the footprint would remain the same that it is currently and not be moved further into the parking lot. She owns the first home above the parking lot and enjoys a great view and hoped that there would never be a three -tiered parking structure to accommodate parking. Larry Smith, elder in charge of the financing program for the project said the building sticks out about 25 feet into the grassy area and the trees will remain. The project will not be built out into the parking lot. He said that although he would love to build a three -tiered parking lot to accommodate his congregation he did not expect that to happen. He felt it was important for the Commission to understand that the current fellowship hall accommodates about 120 people; the sanctuary accommodates approximately 300 and normally 210 to 250 attend services. The church does not grow beyond the number permitted in the sanctuary. Very rarely would both the fellowship hall and the sanctuary be used at the same time. He said he did not foresee a problem, and for special events the church could get a temporary permit for street parking if necessary. I Ms. Mosho said there was not much street traffic on the weekends and what there was did not bother the neighbors. She was only concerned about her view being blocked and that issue was resolved. Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. C/Torng said he was very happy to see the church and neighbors work together. He felt the proposed architecture was very beautiful and would enhance the neighborhood. C/Lee felt the building was well designed and provided many positive impacts to the community. PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee move, C/Everett seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-06 and Development Review No. 2005-33, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution: Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Everett, Torng, VC/Nelson, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review DR 2005-30 - In accordance with Code Section 22.48, this was a request to construct a new three-story single family dwelling of approximately 10,651 square feet of habitable area. The project also includes porches, balconies, decks, covered patios and an attached four car garage totaling an additional 3,809 square feet on an existing vacant 40,470 square foot (.92 acre) parcel in the R-1 8,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Medium Density Residential (RLM). PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: 3145 Steeplechase Lane (Lot 1, Parcel Map 23382) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Stephen Tanidaja 21550 Barbi Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 S & W Development 20272 Carrey Road Walnut, CA 91765 PC/Meyer presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review DR 2005-30, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. PC/Meyer explained the application of the building height limitation as outlined in the City's Building Code. The screening is outlined in the conditions. This project lies within the boundaries of "The Country Estates" and their architectural review committee must approve the plans consistent with their CC&Rs. C/Evereft said his understanding was that the tract of three was not annexed into "The Country Estates." .,4GE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Simon Shum, S & W Development said he was the architect for the project. In response to C/Evereft's understanding of the relationship with "The Country Estates" Mr. Shurn said that there was a separate CC&R for this three -lot community even though the subdivision is negotiating with "The country Estates" Homeowners Association to be a part of that association. When the lots were formed they formed their own association and C/Everett is correct that it is a separate homeowner's association but because the subdivision is inside of "The Country Hills Estates" gated community the property owners have the right to access their properties similar to the right enjoyed by the JCC development. Mr. Shum responded to C/Everett that about a year ago an agreement was struck between the homeowners association for the subdivision below this subdivision and the owner who sold this lot to his client to have a new easement put in because the argument was that the current easement was not disclosed to his client when he purchased the lot. Once the issue was resolved California Edison and the water company guaranteed the new property owner the option of relocating the easement as a 20 foot easement to the sky to be maintained by the owner in case the road had to be realigned to facilitate his client's home construction. PC/Meyer responded to C/Evereft that easements are usually worked out between the two parties involved in the easement document and the City is not a party to those easements. AssocP/Lungu responded to C/Evereft that there was a condition of the original subdivision map that the applicant make a bona fide application and work with "The Country. Estates" to get annexed. C/Evereft said he was concerned about multiple homeowner entities overlapping and felt it was imperative early on to complete the bona fide effort. Mr. Shurn believed that the initial contact was made between the * subdivision owner and the president of "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association. About six months ago the attitude of "The Country Estates" was that since they were in negotiation for a larger subdivision that they wanted to use as a standard to determine a fair price for us of their facilities they would wait to act on the three -lot subdivision. PC/Meyer responded to C/Everett's insistence that a condition be added to this project that an effort be made by the property owner to annex into "The Country Estates" that the condition was placed on the tentative map and when the final map was approved all conditions of the tentative map were certified for compliance. MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING, COMMISSION C/Everett asked Mr. Shum if he would be willing to work through his property owner to gain annexation. Mr. Shum responded that he has a number of contacts with "The Country Estates." However, he felt the property owner was hesitant because he did not yet have approval to build his home. Perhaps the Commission would want to condition the project accordingly. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. Raymond Perez, Board Member, Las Brisas Homeowners Association, 3005 Unit C, La Paz Lane said that his complex was located adjacent to the three lots under discussion and north of the property in question. He said his association had three issues with the project: Drainage, easement and construction of a tennis court. The association is concerned about access of safety vehicles should the easement be moved. With respect to drainage, there is a swale on the project lot that dumps into the fire lane easement at the property line division and in turn drains down into Sugar Pine Place, a street maintained by the association. The association is concerned about runoff, debris and whatever else comes down the hill. Regarding tennis courts, the lights at night encroach on his complex. AssocP/Lungu responded to C/Lee that the applicant would be required to have a drainage plan. In addition, the fire department reviewed the easement prior to the City's acceptance of the project application for the house and the fire department will have another opportunity to review the project. Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. Chair/McManus asked if there was a way to resolve the tennis court lighting issue and PC/Meyer responded that the City has a dark sky policy for tennis courts providing that all lights must be shielded. Beaver lighting has shown that the lights can be directed to the edge of the court without spilling off the court. There are also standards regarding the times the courts can be illuminated. AssocP/Lungu responded to C/Torng that about a year and half ago when staff received the papers for the court case, the easement document was forward to CA/Jenkins and he found it to be acceptable. C/Torng said he hoped that since the court had ruled on the agreement and the fire department had approved the easement the parties would treat each other with respect during this process and no further litigation would be required. MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION AssocP/Lungu said she could not guarantee there would be no further litigation, however, the court allowed the easement to be reduced from 40 feet to 20 feet. In addition, there is no tennis court in the plans and the property owner would have to make application to the City. C/Evereft moved to approve Development Review DR 2005-30, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the addition of a condition to provide for a "best effort basis" by the homeowners associations similar to the condition for the subdivision map. PC/Meyer recommended mended the following wording: "the City will be provided confirmation of a best effort to attempt to annex to "The Country Estates" prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy." C/Everett accepted staffs amended language. C/Torng said he still had a concern about the tennis court and PC/Meyer reminded C/Torng that a tennis court was not part of this application. C/Torng seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Everett, Torng, Lee, VC/Nelson, Chair/McManus None None AssocP/Lungu responded to Chair/McManus that the City includes conditions for bona fide applications for annexation to "The Country Estates." However, it is "The Country Estates" that makes the decision regarding annexation. It is the responsibility of the sub associations to make certain that the conditions for slope maintenance issues, mitigation monitoring issues and the like are properly addressed. Those issues do not involve "The Country Estates." Chair/McManus said it seemed to him that the three homes were responsible for the maintenance of one-half of Steeplechase for their section of street. AssocP/Lungu stated that everyone in the Country Estates own to the centerline of the street. VC/Nelson asked if there was a standard for confirmation of a bona fide effort and AssocP/,Lungu responded there was no written standard. The City asks for a letter from "The Country Estates" verifying that the applicant made application for annexation.. MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.3 Development Review DR 2005-22 - In accordance with Section 22.48, this was a request to construct a new three-story single family dwelling of approximately 12,127 square feet of habitable area. The project also includes porches, balconies, decks, covered patios and an attached four car garage totaling an additional 5,126 square feet on an existing 34,460 square foot (.83 acre) parcel in the R-1 8,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Median Density Residential (RLM). PROJECT ADDRESS: 3131 Steeplechase Lane (Lot 2, Parcel Map 23382) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Huo You Liang 2308 Ridgeway Avenue Rowland Heights, CA 91748 APPLICANT: S & W Development 20272 Carrey Road Walnut, CA 91765 PC/Meyer presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review DR 2005-22, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lee said the design was thoughtful and that it was a beautiful house. He said he was impressed with the architecture of this product. He said he was concerned about the safety of the retaining wall. PC/Meyer explained that the Commission was looking at conceptual designs and the City's Building Department requires separate building permits and designs for retaining walls. Retaining walls must be designed by structural engineers and the footings have to go into a bedrock configuration. C/Lee said he knew that but wanted to know if it could be on a fill area and be safe. , PC/Meyer said the design would not be in a fill area unless the structural engineer certified that the design would work in a fill configuration. C/Lee asked if it was possible to design the retaining wall into the natural ground for safety reasons. PC/Meyer said that C/Lee could make the suggestion to the City's Building Department because the Building Department regulates the design standards. If the Planning Commission wants to direct the City's Building Department to never allow a retaining wall in a fill area and the Commission MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION ' could make that suggestion but the department is regulated by contemporary engineering practices with respect to the design of retaining walls. C/Lee said he understood that the Building Department reviewed structural design and calculation but the architect showed the end of the retaining wall in the fill area on his drawing and he did not feel it was safe. As a condition or as a suggestion the end of the retaining wall should be put at ground level for safety purposes. PC/Meyer explained that the purview of the Planning Commission was to ensure that the goals and objectives of the General Plan and Zoning Code are complied with and this subject deals with contemporary engineering practices that he is not qualified to speak to. If the Planning Commission in its collective wisdom seeks to direct its Building Department to prohibit retaining walls built in a fill situation it could make that suggestion. Chair/McManus said that the Commission would deal with staff regarding this matter. C/Evereft asked if there was a guideline for the ratio of bedrooms to garages and PC/Meyer said that the City's Development Code requires only two covered parking spaces for a single-family residence. Planning commissions in other hillside communities have required additional. off-street parking spaces. Recognizing the fact that Diamond Bar is a very mechanized community the need for off-street parking would be important. The long driveways and aprons on this project, for example, will accommodate additional off-street parking spaces. If the Commission believes additional parking is required it may chose to add such a condition. Simon Shum, architect for the applicant said he was pleased to be able to work on both projects simultaneously in order to understand each site and integrate the projects. Mr. Shurn responded to C/Lee said that he shared the Commissioner's concern because hillside safety is a major concern for engineering. The City of Diamond Bar is blessed with a lot of bedrock. However, there are numerous soil conditions that affect future building. On this particular lot the retaining wall is used to build up the pad to qualify for the requirement to sit the structure on the hillside. When one looks up the hill one sees landscaping and architecture to modulate the building so that it does not look like a "big box." Hillside construction comes with stringent requirements from the City's engineering consultant and he believed it was okay to put a retaining wall on fill if the engineer achieved 90 percent compaction. In this ai DRAFT MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNIN G COMMISSION instance, the geological report would most likely require a geological key on the downhill side and once a key was put very deep into the bedrock the bearing would rely on the key rather than the retaining wall and with 90 percent compaction at the top and with a good footing design it would render the fill very strong for the retaining wall. This project requ ires the applicant to submit a geological report to the satisfaction of the City's engineering consultant and in this case, the engineer is convinced that the retaining wall design is sound. In addition to the key and the retaining wall there is a caisson supporting the house as its first line of defense. Mr. Shum responded to C/Evereft that the circular driveway provides parking and there is open parking at the front of both garages and overflow parking should not impact the street. From his experience the bigger the home, fewer people live in it. Mr. Shum responded to C/Torng that he felt staff had adequately addressed the drainage issue. Further, he believed the Las Brisas HOA had some bad experience during the building of the original pad. Management practices dictate that the builder must build a pond to wash the tools and put sandbags all around the site to protect erosion and spill water use. Therefore, it is very unlikely that debris would run down to the Las Brisas area. Chair/McManus opened the Public Hearing. Mr. Perez said he came before the Commission several times over the past few years. Every time the issue was raised the Planning Commission agreed that there was a concern and that a study would be done and he was at a loss to know why a study had not been done. Chair/McManus asked if there had been runoff onto his property and Mr. Perez again referred to the concrete swale that goes from the site down to Diamond Bar Boulevard. Through the years several lots in "The Country Estates" have tapped into the swale and he wanted to know if the swale could handle the capacity. Chair/McManus asked Mr. Perez to provide the various locations he indicated had tapped into the. swale so that staff could have code enforcement look to see if there was a problem and what could be done to remedy the situation. To his knowledge, the City was not aware that there was a problem. Mr. Shum responded to Mr. Perez that before Las Brisas was built the County required a swale be built. The reason the swale was built was to MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION provide a path for runoff in a -flat -area during a heavy rain . Without the tennis court all of the rain would run down to the swale anyway. The swale is designed to accommodate a lot of water being collected on a flat surface. If these houses were never built the rain would run into the swale and the swale was designed to protect Las Brisas as well as the lot. He disagreed with Mr. Perez that the swale was built solely for Las Brisas. Chair/McManus said he believed Mr. Perez was concerned that the swale might be inadequate to handle the runoff and that homeowners might be illegally tapping into the swale. Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Development Review D•R 2005-22, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the addition of the following condition: the City will be provided confirmation of a best effort to attempt to annex to "The Country Estates" prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy." Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Torng, Lee, Everett, VC/Nelson, Chair/McManus None None 8. PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Torng said that he and C/Everett joined the May 2 City Council meeting to hear the Council's interesting discussion about two projects the Commission approved 1) the Country Hills Towne Center and 2) Scribbles. The Council disagreed with the Commission on the Country Hills Towne Center item because they wanted the applicant to complete the first phase before issuing the permits for the new buildings. The interesting discussion was about Scribbles and it took until nearly 11:30 to complete the meeting. He felt it was very interesting to render decisions after considering all of the testimony and staffs input, and he felt honored to be able to serve the City as a Planning Commissioner. . C/Everett found the City Council meeting to be most interesting and a prime example of the public process at work. He felt very good at the end of the evening considering the Council gave all parties ample opportunity to speak and he felt good about the ultimate consideration by the Council and its decision. He said that with MAY 9, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION respect to his position as a Planning Commissioner he was most interested in accountability and tonight raised his flag of interest in design and maintenance of swales and follow up on retaining walls. He appreciated that the Commission agreed with him that multiple homeowner associations with common interest and needs was a ludicrous and costly concept. Unfortunately there seemed to be no amenable nexus between a private HOA and public uses. He wanted to know if there was any possibility of leveraging "The Country Estates" to be an interested respondent for the mutual benefit of all citizens because to him it was a very important issue. C/Lee said he appreciated staffs reports this evening. Chair/McManus thought that C/Evereft understated the homeowner situation when he said it was ludicrous. He said he agreed with C/Everett's assessment. 9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Interim Community Development Director Attest: Joe McManus, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION 21825 COPLEY DRIVE—DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765—TEL (909) 839-7030—FAX (909) 861-3117—www.Cityofdiamondbar.com AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.1 MEETING DATE: . May 23, 2006 REPORT DATE: May 9, 2006 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review No. 2005-31 Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03 PROJECT LOCATION: 2502 Razzak Circle Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICATION REQUEST: Approval of development plans to construct a new three-story single-family dwelling of approximately 7,888 sq. ft. with an attached 1,400 sq. ft. garage and second dwelling unit, a 7,200. sq. ft. tennis court, a detached entertainment/BBQ and pool house area, a viewing gazebo, a swimming pool and spa, and a 16 - foot wide driveway. PROPERTY OWNERS: APPLICANT: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Mr. Wasif Siddique 11076 Venture Dr. Mira Loma, CA 91752 Mr. Bob Larivee, Award Winning Designs 17 Rue Du Chateau Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Staff recommends denial. DR 2005-31 - PAGE 1 A. Proiect Proposal The applicant has submitted conceptual plans for the construction of a three-story single-family estate dwelling unit with an attached second dwelling unit in the basement. The proposed main dwelling unit contains eight bedrooms and eight bathrooms and approximately 7,888 square feet. The dwelling has an attached 6 -car (1,400 square feet) garage. The total enclosed floor area is 9,288 square feet. In addition to the dwelling unit, the applicant is requesting approval of plans for a swimming pool with spa, a covered outdoor entertainment/BBQ area including a kitchen area, a covered viewing platform, and a 7,200 -square foot tennis court. The conceptual plans show a circular turnaround in the front setback area and the driveway will be at least 16 feet in width at the property line. The applicant has requested approval of a minor conditional use permit to allow a driveway greaterthan 14 feet in width at the property line per Section 22.30.080E (1),(b) & (e). B. Site Description and Location The subject property is located in the Diamond Bar "Country Estates." The site fronts on Razzak Circle, which is a fully improved private street. The rear of the site contains the 100 -foot wide abandoned right-of-way for the extension of Pathfinder Road. The project site is an irregular triangular shaped vacant lot containing 1.62 gross acres of land area (70,567 sq. ft.). The site steeply slopes in a northerly direction. The proposed building pad is located at the top of the slope and it has a commanding view of the surrounding area. A grove of mature trees is located along the easterly property line. The site is legally described as Lot 181, Tract No. 30578, Map Book 785, Pages 1 through 25. The Assessor Parcel Number is 8713-009-066. The site contains a number of easements identified in the Title Report including a significant "Restricted Use" easement. The restrictions set forth in this easement have not been explained. C. Proiect Processing History The applicant submitted the application on October 3, 2005. The project was assigned to our Planning Consultant, LDM & Associates (LDM) for project review and processing. LDM found the application incomplete in early November 2005 and via phone asked the applicant to revise the plans. The applicant stated that he had never received a letter notifying him of the incompleteness status of the application. There was a time gap in the review process between last November and January of this year. Upon discovering this issue, staff and LDM took corrective measure by scheduling the application for February 14, 2006, Planning Commission hearing, pending the applicant submits the revised plans by January 27, 2006. DR 2005-31 -PAGE 2 As staff and LDM did not receive the revised plans in a timely manner, staff requested that the Planning Commission continue the hearing from February 14 to February 28, 2006. On February 28, 2006, at the request of staff and LDM, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to March 14, 2006 meeting. The applicant stated he had submitted the revised plans on February 1, 2006 and March 3, 2006. LDM reviewed the revised plans and found new information such as a tennis court, a pool and a spa, a detached entertainment/BBQ and pool house area, a viewing gazebo. The accessory uses and structures, not shown in the original plans, were found by LDM to be located within the Restricted Use and Slope easements. Staff and LDM have contacted the property owner and applicant to get the plans revised and corrected. The applicantdid not correct the plans or submit revised plans for LDM review to be in time for the March 14' hearing. As a result and as requested by staff, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and took no action on March 14, 2006. Subsequently, LDM sent a letter dated March 14, 2006 to the applicant and listed the technical issues that required corrections. Staff and LDM had a meeting with the applicant on March 27, 2006 to resolve the project processing issues with him. In the meeting, staff agreed to schedule the project for April 25th Planning Commission meeting provided that the applicant addressed and resolved the technical issues identified by staff and submitted the require plans to the city before the meeting. The applicant via e-mail objected to staff requirements for the submittal of plans and refused to provide any additional information. After a conference call with the applicant and the property owner, the applicant finally submitted plans to the city for the May 23, 2006 meeting. The applicant is reluctant to provide additional detailed information until the Planning Commission has rendered a decision regarding the acceptability of the conceptual design plans. It is for this reason that the staff is presenting less detailed plans to the Planning Commission for review and consideration. The analysis' section of this report will identify, describe and explain the adequacy of the information on the plans and the technical code issues. ANALYSIS: A. Review Authority The construction of a new single-family residential dwelling unit on a vacant parcel with a driveway in excess of 14 -feet wide requires approval of a Development Review Application and a Minor Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission as set forth in the provisions of the City's Development Code (DC) Section 22.48 and 22.56. DR 2005-31 -PAGE 3 B. General Plan/Zoning General Plan designation: Rural Residential (RR), maximum 1 Dwelling Unit/Lot Zoninq: Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet (R-1-20,000) Surrounding Zones and Uses: North:' RM (Medium Density Residential), Multiple -Family Residence South: R-1-20,000 (Single Family Residential), Single Family Residence East: R-1-20,000 (Single Family Residential), Single Family Residence West: R-1-20,000(Sin gle-Family Residential) Single -Family Residence C. Development Review Maior Issues to be Resolved: Staff found the submitted plans dated November 11, 2005, have inadequate and inaccurate information, internal inconsistencies and technical code compliance issues. The following items require additional investigation: a. The grading plan does not contain information regarding the .various easements such as slope and restricted use easements identified in the Title Report. b. The future street easement (Pathfinder Road) is shown on the grading plan and identified in the Title Report dated November 11, 2003. However, City records reflect that the street easement and associated slope easement were abandoned on August 18, 1980 by Instrument number 80-777705. c. A "Restricted Use" easement is shown on the grading plan but the location of the easement is inaccurate and the purpose of the Restricted Use easement isnot explained. The plans show that a portion of the proposed dwelling unit, swimming pool and spa, the tennis court and accessory structures are located in the Restricted Use easement. The easement prohibits habitable structures. Typically, it is the responsibility of the applicant to conduct an investigation to determine the nature of the restrictions and the appropriateness of the proposed improvements. d. The landscape plans (Sheet L-2) shows a swimming pool, a covered entertainment center with kitchen, a covered viewing platform and a tennis court. A substantial number of retaining walls are located on the landscape plan and none of these improvements are shown on the grading plan. The grading plan will require substantial revisions. e. The existing grove of mature trees appears to be located in the area of substantial grading for the tennis court and other related accessory structures and buildings. The number and species of the mature trees that may be removed have not been identified. DR 2005-31 -PAGE 4 f. The submitted plans do not contain dimensions. Staff attempted to scale the drawings to determine consistency with development standards such as building height. The proposed building appears to comply with the height limitations when scaled on the submitted plans. g. The building exterior plans do not identify the architectural details or the exterior materials to be used. A materials board has been submitted. It appears that the project complies with the design guidelines, however the architectural design feature are not called out on the submitted plans. h. The Restricted Use easement may affect the site drainage and impact on the surrounding neighborhood. As of this date, an accurate grading and drainage plan has not been submitted for staff review. . The County Estates Association has received the plans for the proposed project, but as of this date, no decision or recommendation has been made for City use. The applicant contends that conditional approval of the plans has been granted by the Country Estates, but this conclusion has not been substantiated in writing. The landscape plans do not address the identification or preservation of the existing mature trees that are located on the site. It was staff effort to work with the applicant in streamlining or making up the lost time in processing the project, however it was contingent on the understanding that the applicant will revise the plans to address the issues. As demonstrated above, the submitted plans are very preliminary and lack the information and details for staff to analyze whether the proposed project will meet the City's Hillside Management Section 22 of the Development Code and the General Plan. The primary issue is the lack of a geotechnical investigation and study to prove the construction of the dwelling unit and the accessory structures within the Restricted Use easement will be safe for the occupants. 2. Development Standards, Building Design and Landscape Design: The following analysis deals with the proposed dwelling unit only and its design elements are compared to the City's Development Standards and Design Guidelines. a. Development Standards Table 1 - Development Standards R-1-20,000 Zone Development Feature R-1-20,000(RR) Standards Proposed Project Meets Requirements Minimum Lot Area 20,000 sf. 70,567 sf. Yes DR 2005-31 -PAGE 5 Residential Density 1 Single -Family Unit-, I Single Family Unit Yes I DU per lot Front yard setback 30 feet 55 feet Yes Side yard setbacks 15 ft on one side & 27 feet & 10 feet Yes 10 ft. on the other Side yard minimum btwn 25 feet 25 feet plus Yes adjoining structures Rear setback 20 feet 180 feet plus Yes 35 feet maximum Building Height Limit 35 feet Yes Section 22.16.060 & 22.22.120 Hillside Development As required by Chapter Two-story w/basement Yes 22.22 (Hillside Mgt.) on created pad Retaining Wall Maximum Height 6 feet Unknown, lack of info no Landscaping As required by Chapter Meets requirements Yes 22.24) Parking 2 in fully enclosed garage 6 -car garage + 3 Yes Chapter 22.30 uncovered spaces Driveway Maximum 14 feet @ PL 16feet @ PL Minor CUP Requested Landscaping Landscape 50 % front yard 50% of front yard will be Yes landscaped Lot Coverage 30% Approximately 7% Yes Preserved/Protected Trees Tree Permit Required Unknown unknown b. Architectural Features/Colors and Materials/Floor Plan The architectural style, as described by the applicant, is a "California" eclectic design with concrete tile roof treatment, smooth stucco walls, concrete appearing window and door surrounds, and multi -paned windows. The material/color samples indicate earth -toned shades will be used for the exterior finish to soften the impact and assist in preserving the hillside's aesthetic value. The submitted plans indicate that the Maid's room located in the basement area has a kitchenette. This portion of the dwelling unit will function as an DR 2005-31 -PAGE 6 attached "Second Dwelling Unit" which is a permitted use of land. However, the plans do not have any dimensions to show and demonstrate that the second dwelling unit meets the maximum allowable 1,200 square feet. c. Landscaping and Preserved/Protected Trees One of the main purposes of landscaping is to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by preserving and enhancing the positive visual experience of the built environment (Section 22.24.010). The preliminary landscape plan delineates the species of the proposed plant materials to, be used throughout the site. The preliminary landscape plan does not specify the size or quantity of the plant material to be installed as part of this project. The plan provides for a variety of grasses, ground cover, flowering plants, shrubs and trees. The landscape plans do not identify the existing mature trees on-site. No indication has been made as to the number, size and species of the trees that may be removed as part of this project. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: On May 2, 2006, 51 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail and three other locations were posted within the project's vicinity. On May 12, 2006, the project's public hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the 1970 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Sections 15303(a) and 15332 of the CEQA guidelines exempt new single-family residence and infill project on less than 5 -acres). OPTIONS FOR PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER: A. Determine that the preliminary plans are inadequate in addressing the Hillside Management Ordinance of the Development Code and continue the application for 30 days to June 27, 2006 meeting. The Planning Commission should direct the applicant to revise the plans and submit them for staff review of adequacies before forwarding to the Planning Commission for review. B. Determine that the preliminary plans are inadequate in addressing the Hillside Management Ordinances of the Development Code and deny the application without prejudice. Denying the application without prejudice allows the applicant to re -file the application immediately. A draft resolution of denial is attached to the report for Commission review. DR 2005-31 -PAGE 7 C. Determine that the preliminary plans are adequate in addressing the Hillside Management Ordinance of the Development Code. The Planning Commission should continue the hearing to June 13, 2006 and direct staff to bring back a resolution of appr6val for the meeting. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission determine that the preliminary plans are inadequate in addressing the Hillside Management Ordinance of the Development Code and deny the application without prejudice through the adoption of the attached Resolution of denial. Nm= • David D. Meyer LDM Associates, Inc. Planning Consultant ATTACHMENTS: Reviewed by: Nancy Fong, AICP Community Development Director 1. Aerial; 2. Lot 181 of Tract Map No.30578 showing site easements; 3. Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, elevations, sections, landscape plan and conceptual grading plan dated November 1, 2005; 4. February 14, February 28 and March 14, 2006, Planning Commission Memos; 5. February 14, February 28 and March 14, 2006, Planning Commission Minutes; 6. Chronology of Project processing schedule. DR 2005-31 -PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 2005-31 AND MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2006-03, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH AN ATTACHED SECOND DWELLING UNIT AND 6 -CAR GARAGE TOTALING. 9,288 SQUARE FEET, AND A 16 FEET WIDE DRIVEWAY. ASSOCIATED WITH THE ABOVE DESCRIBED APPLICATIONS ARE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SUCH AS A TENNIS COURT, A POOL AND SPA, A DETACHED ENTERTAINMENT/BBQ AND POOL HOUSE AND A VIEWING GAZEBO. A. RECITALS The property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Wasif Siddique, and the Applicant, Bob Larivee, Award Winning Designs, have filed an application for Development Review No. 2005-31 on October 3, 2005 and an application for Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03 on January 27, 2006, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject requests are referred to as "the application." 2. The subject property is located at 2502 Razzak Circle, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California 91765. The site is legally described as Lot 181, Tract 30578, MB 785, Pages 1-25. The Tax Assessor No is 8713-009-066. 3. In November of 2005, the Applicant was notified via phone that the application was incomplete and corrections were required to make the application complete. 4. On January 18, 2006, the Applicant was informed that the revised plans must be received by January 27, 2006, to be on the February 14, 2006, Planning Commission public hearing. 5. On January 27, 2006, the Applicant did not submit the revised plans. On January 30, 2006, the Applicant was contacted to inquire about the revised plans. There was no response from. the Applicant. 6. On February 3, 2006, 51 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail and three other locations were posted within the project neighborhood. On February 3, 2006, the project's public hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site. 7. On February 14, 2006, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing to consider the Application and continued the hearing to February 28, 2006, at the request. of staff because- revised plans . have -not. been .-.received. On February 28, 2006, the Planning Commission was informed that the Applicant has not submitted re ' vised plans. The Planning Commission continued the hearing to March 14, 2006, meeting. 8. On the continued hearing of March 14, 2006, staff informed the Planning Commission that the Applicant has submitted revised plans on March 3, 2006. However, staff found new information such as a tennis court, a pool and a spa, a detached entertainment/BBQ and pool house area, and a viewing gazebo on the revised plans. The accessory uses and structures, which were not shown in the original plans, were found to be located within the Restricted Use and Slope easements. The Applicant was notified of the required corrections. The Applicant did not correct the plans or submit revised plans for staff review to be in time for the March 14th hearing. As a result and as requested by staff the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and took no action on March 14, 2006. 9. On March 14, 2006, a letter was issued to the Applicant that listed the technical issues, which required corrections. 10. On March 27, 2006, staff met with the Applicant to resolve the project processing issues with him. Staff agreed to schedule the project for April 25th Planning Commission meeting provided that the Applicant addressed and resolved the technical issues identified by staff and submitted the required plans to the city before the meeting. The Applicant via e-mail objected to staff requirements for the submittal of plans and refused to provide any additional information. After a conference call with the Applicant and the property owner, the Applicant finally submitted plans to the city on May 1, 2006. 11. On May 2, 2006, 51 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail and three other locations were posted within the project neighborhood. On May 12, 2006, the project's public hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site. 12. On May 23, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 13. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX B. RESOLUTION, NOW, THEREFORE, it" is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines. This is pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and 15332 of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearings on February 14, February 28, March 14, and May 23, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above -referenced Commission meetings, and together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The project applies to a parcel of land located at 2502 Razzak Circle, Diamond Bar, California, within the gated community identified as the Country Estates. The parcel contains 1.62 gross acres. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), maximum 1 Dwelling Unit/lot. The project site is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet (R-1-20,000). (c) The grading plan did not contain information regarding the various easements such as slope and restricted use easements identified in the Title Report. (d) The future street easement (Pathfinder Road) was shown on the grading plan and identified in the Title Report dated November 11, 2003. However, City records reflect that the street easement and associated slope easement were abandoned on August 18, 1980, by Instrument number 80-777705. (e) A "Restricted Use" easement was not accurately shown on the grading plan and the purpose of the Restricted Use easement was not explained. The plans showed that a portion of the proposed dwelling unit, swimming pool and spa, the tennis court and accessory structures are located in the Restricted Use easement. The Restricted Use easement prohibits habitable structures. 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX Z (f) The landscape plans (Sheet L-2) showed a swimming pool, a covered entertainment center with kitchen and BBQ, a covered viewing platform and a tennis court. A substantial number of retaining walls were located on the landscape plan and none of these improvements were shown on the grading plan. The grading plan would require substantial revisions. (g) The existing grove of mature trees appears to be located in the area of substantial grading for the tennis court and other related accessory structures and buildings. The number and species of the mature trees that may be removed have not been identified. (h) The submitted plans did not contain dimensions or accurate scale. (i) The Restricted Use easement may affect the site drainage and impact on the surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant has not submitted proof that the County Estates Association has approved the plans. (k) The landscape plans did not address the identification or preservation of the existing mature trees that are located on the site. 4. The Application for the proposed new three-story single family house with attached second dwelling unit and a 6 -car garage togetherwith the proposed tennis court, a pool and a spa, a detached entertainment/BBQ and pool house area, and a viewing gazebo, requires the Planning Commission to make affirmative findings to approve the Application. This Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments). Planning Commission Findings and Supporting Evidence: The proposed project is located in a "Restricted Use" easement. The submitted plans are preliminary and lack the information and details to determine whether the proposed project will meet the City's Hillside Management Section 22 of the Development Code and the General Plan. With the lack of a geotechnical investigation and study, it is unknown whether the construction of the dwelling unit and the accessory structures within the Restricted Use easement will be safe for the occupants. 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX (b) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. Planning Commission Findings and Supporting Evidence: The proposed project may impact the safety of the surrounding properties because there is a lack of geotechnical investigation and study to determine whether the construction of the dwelling unit and its accessory structures will be safe. (c) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characte * ristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. Planning Commission Findings and Supporting Evidence: The proposed project's architectural design and color palette are compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes within the Country Estates and the immediate neighborhood. (d) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. Planning Commission Findings and Supporting Evidence: The design of the proposed project would not provide a desirable environment for its occupants or for the visiting public. The reason is that the preliminary information on the grading plan showed multiple retaining walls and the height of some of the retaining walls could be higher than 14 feet, which does not comply with the Hillside Management Section 22 of the Development Code.Another reason is that the grove of existing mature trees will be substantially impacted by the construction activity. Without accurate plans that have sufficient details, the Planning Commission cannot adequately analyze the proposed project to determine its aesthetic appeal and it compliance with this finding. (e) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Planning Commission Findings and Supporting Evidence: The proposed project is located in a "Restricted Use" easement. The 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX submitted plans are preliminary and lack the information and details to determine whether the proposed project will meet the City's Hillside Management Section 22 of the Development Code and the General Plan. With the lack of a geotechnical investigation and study, it is unknown and uncertain whether it is safe to construct the dwelling unit and the accessory.structures; and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (f) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Planning Commission Findings and Supporting Evidence: The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) Guidelines, Article 19 Sections 15303 Class 3 (a) and 15332. (g) The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code' Planning Commission Findings ,and Supporting Evidence: The proposed 16 -foot wide driveway is two feet wider than permitted by Section 22.30.080(E)(1)(b) of the Diamond Bar Development Code. The wider driveway will not negatively impact the surrounding uses. However, the proposed project does not comply with the Hillside Management Section 22 of the Development Code. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby denies this Application without prejudice. The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to Mr. & Mrs. Wasif Siddique, 11076 Venture Drive, Mira Loma, CA 91752, and Bob Larivee, Award Winning Designs, 17 Rue Du Chateau, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656. 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF MAY 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. IN Joe McManus, Chairman 1, Nancy Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of May 2006, by the following vote: AYES: . Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: Nancy Fong, Secretary 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006 -XX SCALE 1" - 200' TRA 10171 OFFICE OF ASSESSOR REVISED 93030205OD700t-DG 8713 10068 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES 900207 54031410024001.06 J SHEET i [P.A. 8702 IS 10069 I COPYRIGHT @ 1992 1 92082010029001-06 1994 THE ASSESSMENT OF UNITS IN THE FOLLOWING AIRSPACE PLANS, INCLUDES ALL RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN THE COMMON AREAS AS SET FORTN IN DEEDS OF RECORD. EACH PLAN -DEPICTS APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS FROM WHICH AREAS ARE COMPUTED. AIRSPACE I COMMON AREA I SUBOfY153OAIRSPACHE PLAN REFERENCE OF TRACT NO DlR LOTS TYPE SHEET151 #858674 8- 3.79 35964 I CONDO 2,3 \�0) AlTal ATE PG -10 -0 umpiogo 6 50530 SF 51901 SF 30493• - 39201• Ptt SF : PVT ST 096 '� 1y 60491FH - 61" IN S114i Sf - 3049=" PYi 51 V �� +bq'01p�_ • - �/ 291B 3D%9 - 3D44t"rri St 548865E �� BR d6 g,53�+//1J '- R, 1 r 1n6015f� 22007 1 k� - 96631°F8 - 52271. 7N 1017 J! -344u1° aD-2788a_ RD + $2$51),fo j 'h !•-------`-- - - - - —- 4'j `` A 1200 &2205 ` ~ ` ` 51401 SF �• f C y + / �+zi• 73RD -1 8,54 ti ~ - 78110 P97 b f Ul 57 rR4 c T ens° r9r s7 7 n 135.96 102.81 120 16 151.11 144 79 fas se rdy O / ! n 7 20 13.5 8000 37 4 • 566tH° OR V Ol• Q O /�/ -522691 AU. � 5NdZARD 65.8 - 374d�5F t C-3 2.9b1AC 199801 54677d.5y d 31.N 1 dt 1` ` - - _ - - _ Ceti °-- - 30991• PPT ST PI R!• _ _ _ _ z ! ? k/ +h• D.0?'° P4T ST 66 {) �c""�'=tis.-.�1)).8 sfy w j 7121" FH ir�'-•+'. t ,. �,. p ) N td.h R=1300 ' S 18 ( ` a USE 14 = !B 17 16 100105 SF �ti ' ¢ r , ar>.. - i5 78 — szz7z 5F s�, rp t82 14 - 56033° Prt sl N N I 162 a= 42609 SFPP7 S7 /9POA o 39.5 18`..x` 1-.-!�-18 177 �� -anis° FN 388.23 •p,. r2 • , v reri.. - 12 6 35720-5f )bis " ^°� 4 � t% t1 R iV( $ "_ ``µ'y �7 '' i ( w� o � 293.9§ � J • 24 163�r' s A $ 80-61 45.84 59 n0 120 ea ?I�3 a a $ y o �1�f 1 �°►, r S4 -170-- i2a-- r2 .'"1:72 �!0 2 (63 ice_ r t PG 1.32tAt �¢`a p -`, c --- )1,87 .7d 40 JYr60 y18 1�•,I';£ `Q OaD i 2$ 49 0.201tlP57 4A4F ? ��.ECH SG 1 4 lJ 8 7 lJ �5 11 461745E 1 ^ .tpa / 17t} 169 168 167 164; G1� y r JJJ - 39201° PVT Si 56628 ff 1 ,y 166 r 1 ggob7 5T - 30441° PR 57 !Op` X 7 240 t:1 1`1 1 1 - 7641t• P91 51 - 52271• FR 509b5 5F $ 01�9p - 40 1 ' -261371• RU b9?a1° FH - 3oV4t" PVT 51 n JOd. _ 1)6,51 t s e ,� 1 °i 1. -• �' I , - 16141° FA -361591' RU _ 20 ` _7e° -152821 RD IO10 9D 6450 - 5221t• fA J = .SS na`.a7 �1da • 2$ I701� - 6691"_A�U� ./ 0 100 .. (58.37 165/r<Hi 6 D 1 % �, , 0027 OFSF -- 56192 Sf / '('� - - _ 7d0 _ 73.87 1 30491 P17 Si (4617§ SF --..) 57 t5d.3J` 13.-./.1�•u151.56 3 o6' - PG -37 in696 -43561'P4151 fI 1 / 07 IOLIi-s--�1-1-3.5-4^ 1 • IA21° FH t 1 L _"(_ t -- - !'' •`, - - (Q 1DOZIIIS 235ZC45FA0 !t r -5 092i.FVT 57 II(`}IV/ -270Dbt" 1U P G 4aQrS yF J V - 78411 PIT ST WAGON TRAIN 26 51 60911" HI a FUf -1)wb1"°194 LN 1344035E TRACT No.30578 //V U/V/NCOR v0 R,4 TED 7-.FRw .1 7-0.,9 Y OF ThfS CO U/V T Y OF L O -S' A/V Cs 4'L t S E. L. PEARSON AND ASSOCIATES FILM WITH LOS ANGEI COUN I Y RECORDER, RA': LEE APR 2:3 5959 :3 6'q:8 't.h�2� i6. �I�.^'�: ;1^ dad'}-'• CD m- o•�87B'�g0 ✓ iv- \fin \rl. \SFJ 1� :3 6'q:8 't.h�2� i6. �I�.^'�: ;1^ dad'}-'• CD m- o•�87B'�g0 ✓ iv- NEW CUSTOMFOROHOME MRo 0 �MRS.o o�oo� UE � 2502 RAZZAKCIRDCLE DRAMOND BAR, CALRFORNRA GENERAL NOTES & T-24 SUMMARY :::::�XNDEX OEETU iit i LES YILg 5✓DOIWE T TRIS SHEET i%@w6W— ADCIESS' A-1 SLE PLAN .b 4 y0g0YYMiIP S4M1L1- 1?lF6M TO2TORYSINGLEFITION OF T!E LN.iFREIA FAIIIDiNO (ADESCOPE OF YOFDU 1EY 2 STORY SaiQE FIYLY RESIDEAILY A•2 FIRST FL IR PL PLAN RFpLLAREY, pOpGLE6 YNt611WYEA.4FEST FLOOR PLAN YER AYAT PORTION OF lfE Y6IX. k1 RSECONDP FLOOR PLAN Z. lIE COIITRACTORS SIOIL VERIFY, M.1. OiNEYP10Nb APN' T'.1 D57a ROW PINI i S[TE COtEITiOLE BEfRE 9TARTINO YOiD:. E.T.A. LEON. (IPMON!! TYP TYPE VNO Let ED A-6 STALL BE NOTIFim 6 ANT OItAEPA1ILT' BEPOIE GROUP' CR0IT 7Ti+E' TYPE Y NON RATED k6 ELEVATIONS PPOTgOIIR Y21N TFE YQK. - 9/1� /i/�L M7 F3EVg1016 �. CIFEI6ION5 ON ORAYTN09 &YY.I. TME PRECmENCE GRD' ��1 ®91/ w� CYER SCALE giOYN. TTP. OETAl1.e i pETEiYV- 3=ff' NOTES NE NTN. IEOUIFE/ENT6 TO fE V49 YIEN LOT SDE' �•A'TLDSD FS I CLHItTi0N5 ARE IIOT 40N1 ORER1I15E. LOT COVEYLAE, 00 NOT fa;ALE tlMY2NG5. LAIOSCN'E COVERAGE' 4.HOTEB 4 4fA116 W QWY1N09 SY+LL TAicE PAW=APE GOYERALE, PFIECE[EILCE OYER OQEML NOTES i TTP. [cRA[L5. MEA S,. NEW B LEVEL, 497D SF C'RF2HI Y pE�T. YigiAliYlS T TU L NEW FEST STORY, 3=0 SF D. CQP'TRCTION NATERIAlS FU1L1- tE 6PREA0 0lif IF NEW SECOND KSA STORY, 7-60 SF PilGEO QI FSIAIEL fL00R'v' OA RpOF. LOMS tEY OECKS/BN-CCIETS' D SF SYYl NOT EIICE7:O TTE DESIGN LLYE LOGO PER S.F. NEW ACCESS ORrI 0 SF PROY[R AOELIWTE IRO111E i OR Bi:tt(FR YFEIE eats C r 4TIiICTOFE9 iNYE IIOi ATTAIAEC OEDION SREIpTN. NEW OMAGE, L400 SF v®v i VA55 SF G. PROVIDE IETF'UYJ1Y TOILET RI JOB SITE PRIOR TO TOf STPAT OF CQ6RiLCTION. T'MWE�R- 00 N0i OFfLTEO 1ACI S Ia�L NO LO,CBUT �(��f �(A���j�� v SITS Tt TI TEVBT TLIE ET,O�N� 4 YNOTTLBN l/ ICI U rTY MAP uti LIKLWE IMSPERIDR BF TIE ABOVE [TEAS. CONSULTANTS DIVA. ETN>E.EII STRUC'TI.EAL F3AZEER LAIDSCME AFICiSTECt CM. TfVNS NC. CO'L TRANS EC. - LAM BESON NC. DIMOIE BNL CAL UMA pMMOO BAR. CAWMMA POYDNA CALFOBNA JAY ASLAAL PRKCPAL JAY ARAN. PPFMCPN. F. RODIEY TAPP. PWCPAL I-VW39E12O3 t-DOD-3DD-1202 SAFETY SAFETY, ALL CONTRACTORS RNOSE YN— RED-C C,D .TtENCIaG ANT/ALIT uNOERCIftxJNo WML SViL FEST CONTACT.'VDA'. UNDERGRUIO SERVICE ALERT. TO LOCATE ANY UNSEENUNSEENURTY LIKES- USA MMT Be CONTACTED NO LESS I"2 1WIfORYHC GAYS PPoOR TO BRENONC CRDUNIL IWO.423-4L73. � aw �oE3S PiOr 'SCALE 70 100 0,A)1�" 5� E-Asrmewr5 i . Tytimm $.�Z&AY. 5!!0 }!N►p�ov�MCOTS Eettui l?,e% OMICNOON vi c i N lIN mAP . s me f'i-A.1 GENERAL NOTES: ABBREVIATIONS ax marten APPROVED BY: 1. � a unlc Awl. mlmir •m1 mr commas W rPemm PNmm » W ra usnw a,1a.e moa x Imisms GHnre] aim SLW6 n Fm4ss s las swx town Imx M 1..... NMsaO.olr w¢ww¢ Inuta V. 6¢ W Hllall Vii. rwia ore R �• eW. Y Iasi) x M PNW W Sf Wl W1o1F1�2 Yxlt A PnpO Penni W] Rp 69RD m M Cf1Y W W WU B/R IS � 911.R � 16t �—+ 4 4LL Rl Sian 9NLL OE C4VIm6 m 110f [64 1wM t0 vveailr W M NAtadY OFIRiIY. ppp OWNER: msaesrMmar •$ITE �Tp1` 0. SUfiCGG RTT 6 San. FPOPmr05. MCl 9aW ,r itt0 Nn 9 Steno- nt4L OC WO[ mll✓oG Oa,On10 WaNlos ro i>Rr Gauei t wen 06ve aNOol M e6NR W SUPE 16anOS 4iMl m�i1V91Rm M 06 tnM. AS-0Wm ni901a m 1nm1 RlA16r W ME aR. A ,vlPaal TIu,Oe W OGmtY 1615 Aa: ro aC IPDE An rGlr3p: A Opi�[166i{ fOP V011rN-iOPf t9rtCX tltf. RIS 6 � ff�alnO T IPG FP[ Art a q IYPL aI (Rx MR. & MRS. WASIF SADDIOUE cl ItAb! c A XiI®1f�i�AiR f�flWC m�rwTn�ii•KTCM SUKYi a M A�imM�ia Ii�ZO 4„10. SileYPnO W 1S¢TMG. leet4/0. W namG1AE Sans /MO 06iMlAlIU1 I s iccortm m M cons 1Yrn� en oamnnla amnasr. ra PSPiun m wl m1 nam w W tR xmNu m �m[Rli REVIEWED BY: — _ Y. lnlsamam P.0 e11er11m MY�r mu6 Ilea it x�prtwn .uc � � W�ia wroanoa memos (lent. uamm�ww swim ,x VICINE EMAP A Y i��rr�7�v� __ _ _ - u..vul ------ - LEGEND: Unaergrauna S-- AIOH Call: TOLL FREE t-600 mr Mm mm-nm a nreaolm Prtm¢mc oP+norz Pnv4s3rs sxnx x erten s>a m Pnvrtcr �IWi1 W WNL W On9ilm IWS OOm OUlna Na XiOi uL — _ nnmr Ins CSa011Pmrt W +- @tU i,611e PREPARED BY: �4 AFIspvi1,11 alsW.oc nMSA W WII�SMICIIM. a Fu. WFSPe asnommers Awx et: enlnmm m M susrAelloe W M arc alevrme. 10. PGG m1.OrW fmlmaaC In1Sr tt 9Pm m 5045 na nA aaPW0II6 Mao iRAmW m M art eemielm Penn m sso++la W aona,W Pmuns m ammrm m M Wewmna emmar Gaeo PU0.S >D ,INT wr 4n1,4[ — CH1 Toa mLC a' nAalf ��: -- engem sen 422-1IS3 SEC77ONA•,4 Se+tL; HOx i•.1P 1me Y -r NIS 9eMl 1. � Iooslrn+.wo� a�a+I.aaMo azla¢slm. 1x MM In .a. M..om a,m.a w.rs MIm c tPvnoim m ra ms • 114LL GIYOm SIRS IIVSr ILnt mTN t SviiS. 0004 l,a mfnR GU,v4i RnC6 Y➢n1mID M M rtG.C1 GnaWn Si1R _ —a— —rtse® n3G - —o— _ _ wM�Na m � S[L _ w 1OY1. R 10 AWA uamw. ORM[n Tawe tY n awtmm wl ff nnCm w M l41. ua6s Ia ���� roe sG rtaeAma Ims ame wmllm m M sw e>wwml arm wmGm m M [m. r w nOwxi la � msWam asam M ommvucP W mE sou maa®1 Moon In � .ro"m,nlKm M�mvs o�� o °lm�l Wersn� Pa�me m ° �%r::° IT• mMu59�mr�mon m ewmPle�m t�M�ewia � aa�ersuaeAO1CNAs-Foam crosP.+cx Iw. ,eP Yea. or4nms lam oc ammsm Mm Ynxrlm n mm.W m M m,s Ia inr'u aiOXw M oa®ea �aam rlaon ro nMm slm. a1 cvaooenc A nE0a1P® an. Wmm1 9N1C 9.a1ef �NNW�C m M Cm danml A Ial6lnw Ia. .oMaa v.Ys am onwnae W maArew. mITW.1s W ieoTMAY IIiO Wl. BC a91m 91aeELT m M CITY mfJaQAS /tPiRIK 6 SaL QFxE0Y5 mfRWG .. _ _ vO V A �Ax110s CIbG nNe Y�iO Mei. CPt�IMr®�iOlne]aSwLL 6 Ya' i�a1m m v. A mPr W M ava000 PFneaf Mm iePnmm meaea Pvia Inar ea n M rosgssssG W . rsAasssc reGson Meo ePnist u M sns u 4u corn ' B -B - xom 1`no; � sae 1•.Y m rwu slvma Mtsr � Amrmsn mens e>azaMrr v M 01¢0055 YAs ec MVAR1 u Mu ev.s Iws e1zM oat®m M Pn W oama vM wss ren ezrssaMaP: lame emr mMa+®. mIsllYucc wen aGCIWa1mY 1nxs11n¢ An ron COo1R oi.crpnw. AGI INDEX SHEET.• P2Ct fv5 W4 NIS 11aCILPaINnOF M EASIM Pf OW6sf4mµmY1L4 WOm sW.x wows ut i:as000 Insrrss sow m lam swwe. . EARTffWORKQUANT(iTES Se. a1Mrt1mOR ANLL IeOtR M PlY OIOIm11 OrF10[ k IaOq „YS4m trt}m' FOo01 UeI mGP ta,Ts< ro mOlmx To xo1 ANwa. ]S. 6nWtm mMlaa DMC: �� CmaNlm WaRmG OAIE: �.. Ort vwYC SCOS PO®A6 K pp Wim L6SMGA 0.3001 -M 3CNAC Sm R FILL YaOs+G 110 R NWn n � . ]0. M SP6 Mn OmmCr w.PpR PIQPY® SMR{. BCCOni A PMR OP na WiDaa PUW JMO 4LL rtGyWGMPtM 1511f141m ioaP 1 sw1. sllmYn Ynm1m m NOTES: M dwlrlrr 61wim MR fM aWPaeior orar. emm.Pn1 svu ' smr les o.P vimnaMl GNRnIa Mom ro mumW loaec ! • II _ REVISION APPROVED BY: LnaNL LTit1RYO TACNO. 30576. M.B. 765, 1-5 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR OWNER: msaesrMmar •$ITE �Tp1` • MR. & MRS. WASIF SADDIOUE cl ItAb! a sPn 1 REVIEWED BY: SITE ADDRESS: =011 cwaE ONOT BM, G 91765 VICINE EMAP A Y i��rr�7�v� a.l� � � � GENERAL NOTES &DETAILS Unaergrauna S-- AIOH Call: TOLL FREE t-600 GEOLOGICAL ENGINEERS STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE THE SOILS AND GEOLOGY REPORT PREPARED BY: LOTUS CONSULTING ENGINEERS DATED 2005 SHALL BECOME A PMT 4F THIS GRADING PLAN( PREPARED BY: �4 AFIspvi1,11 CIVIL TRP1N5 INC ENERmG PEAtimNG SURVENHO mea Pao. e. ea,s vl. u 151, e SINGLE FAM Y RESIDENCE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Inn ao xan Pa m: scut Imo W2 W -0S -m RG2@ Ay X2 NGbO-1aY] Cl 422-1IS3 INC. AND .IUNEl4, AND ALL RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED THEREIN SHALL STRICTLY ADHERED TO. �+f1�F.y` �— 0?Tr� WIE / _ m /1 + '/•/ 'REs��acar� �� da dlnawl m nc .(� � A LOT 183 i�� Fa Oyp1C lID MCOe aC. i,or Underground Service Alert &,,,: TOLL FREE 1—DDD 422-4133 APPROVED BY: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR v1EWE0 Bt: out an c w nrt C►VIL TRANS INC TO•'!:�� Clv% RAO+ORG smtEY a S.s. 7s sa a...+ r W.a. I•'�imu 0 NORTH I � / LOT IDT, TRACT NO. 30578. "- 785. 1-5 .R: ML E NRS. WASIF SWOME ADDRESS: �"'I aRaE DWlON9 DAR, CA. 91765 -SGGIE p Y RESIDENCE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR`S KO OW Olt aN SCR!' . i.,._..vr Cit CONSTRUCTION NOTES p w•.c*vam.xww+s OF �®! no sa Ir+trmKm MAWS® O mci.arma moss �+ O vsnor®c•o<ean � ao 1Wt Ias.1 a •s © umrt�nraom�t M. ®LOT ® 4a[1P6a00ICIM Ib 180 s OWOC@•COL ob APPROVED BY: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR v1EWE0 Bt: out an c w nrt C►VIL TRANS INC TO•'!:�� Clv% RAO+ORG smtEY a S.s. 7s sa a...+ r W.a. I•'�imu 0 NORTH I � / LOT IDT, TRACT NO. 30578. "- 785. 1-5 .R: ML E NRS. WASIF SWOME ADDRESS: �"'I aRaE DWlON9 DAR, CA. 91765 -SGGIE p Y RESIDENCE IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR`S KO OW Olt aN SCR!' . i.,._..vr Cit p AAP ♦ ` s r ,X ® tiN�1 IGNI Ly LU N G i" I''�'• 1 -,1 �'. :: 1' �� ; _ _ _ �.� d 1. � � t� 41 uj Q p¢ r ,✓ < LL CDi PREL (36!hq!FIARY=4C.CSCAc''c ha0 GRADING PLAN I ¢ Q �® B)— EMST{NGTOPO ®' (Basically a.rh sh—et a� uj — C7 PRO POSEDTOFOiGP.ADES I W 1 tPSL?M. PROPOSED EI.EiA T1 11 2 FS—F!N!SN=S SO?FACE ;CO1C.) =—FIN" I-S ES'GR-IDEr i OP OF WALL over t P+ —FCOL CP(NG - - ---..�p�ra� �n�r .gradir��Ean_.....__ _ ---' — �t. - tW C+v�e�yt� Pit' W t't1� SCALE.1,16'=1'-0" Min ROOM 5` Cv�+L1�AQy eArH AIIGH1H1116 116 1 / ln,K%O PATIO 6 � / / - HALI. I \ i.AUHORY I Iill IIr--- 11L L--- ---li 6 e / 6 GAR 6ARAba f lob ( 1 i ! I 1 pLoot Qui C6GA eA r. 0 i `\ nAur 2 `Ll � 1 a . \\ LlecAcr� � 6�iZ�l4 3bsj tAYiLY It. d`( BYN RDmi 4 P7 r (% fAAfS2 g L3 1!3 ? the Alf" � \\ 0010 sm Go .10K e 1 2 ` \ We16 too. `\ eeAAArASY `� \ encs LIVING ROOM o1NiN6 e00Y a :ice 'F' I.Oo — N® DtM�sNStoeJS UP 3 PRIA. :FLoolz 3,r'og �6o a on €�SEo a5yo e Sig is. �•" 4 O E vE=coo E8�avv A -t NoR ry ■■n ■■■■ 1■■■■■NIANINI Iall ■lwas ■ammo■ n.10 ami■■ mama■■ ■Imago 111slogan _ lIl1m11t, l_ nm■m■a// /mNoun ■■amn ■■■o 1/lml non■ �71aI1 , __ It r _ REAP ELEVATION bvv= VL a ya,1'•p" tea N �1V�W�►�ryf A i LC..yA O over - ar G ytm C q EEE5 m �8Lavv A-7 o; �.. ' �i�`-� ' ' % �•. �'57,1•�7��T��� _ � --- �l;�h 'r1 �`�:.� 11 ;1/� 15.1 �I�Ca;' / �111� � v �+�! r `v 9� _=.i�fL�!�:, t�� ) i ( (i 7f�l,p,� i�i�. 1 •_� .4�::1� � r �� f �l �f�, �►t� r _— ��1I ►V�rttart�1,,��,.�if iut — — — ~�= _ '111��1 ®'i � ��� , � � 1111 '� 11111 Il�il 1'1� rrr -�4-• r 1 I<W1w=■ �1� ��� ���R� �� �uil ��' ■ i•illE �R� INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM IXWOM BAR CowviumTy & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Milan L. Garrison, LDM Associates, Inc. (Planning Consultant) DATE: February 14, 2006 SUBJECT: Design Review No. 2005-31 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03 for property located at 2502-Razzak Circle (Lot 181, Tract 30578; APN 8713-009- 066) The above -subject project had been duly noticed and scheduled for the February 14, 2006 Planning Commission hearing, however, corrected drawings were required of the applicant to be submitted to City staff in order to ensure compliance with all Code provisions. The applicant was unable to provide the plans in a timely manner which would have allowed staff the opportunity to review and prepare the necessary staff report and accompanying resolution. Therefore, we request that the Planning Commission continue this item to the February 28, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DIAMONDBAR CommuNn-y & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner 4V DATE: February 29, 2006 SUBJECT: Development Review No. 2005-31 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03 for a project located at 2502 Razzak Circle The above referenced project was noticed and scheduled for the February 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. However, the applicant did not submit required corrected plans in a timely manner for staff to review and prepare a staff report. As a result, the Commission continued the public hearing to February 28, 2006. Staff has tried to contact the property owner and applicant several times and has not received a response. Therefore, another continuance is needed. Per the City Attorney's recommendation, this is the last continuance. The project will need to be advertised and noticed again. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue this project's public hearing to March 14, 2006. If the project is not ready for the March 14, 2006, it will need to be noticed and advertised for another date. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DIAMOND BAR Comim,M & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM: Milan L. Garrison, LDM Associates, Inc. (Planning Consultant) DATE: March 14, 2006 SUBJECT: Development Review No. 2005-31 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03 for property located at 2502 Razzak Circle (Lot 181, Tract 30578 The above referenced project was noticed and scheduled for the February 14, 2006 Planning Commission hearing. However, corrected drawings were required from the applicant for Planning Division review in order to prepare the staff report for the February 14, 2006 Planning Commission hearing. The applicant was unable to provide the plans in a timely manner. Subsequently, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 28, 2006 The applicant had indicated that the revised plans would be submitted within a few days after February 14, 2006. However, staff never received the drawings. After several attempts to contact the applicant's architect, to no avail, the property owner was contacted. The property owner indicated that he was still working with the architect on the required changes. As a result, the Planning Commission continued the March 14, 2006. Pursuant to the City Attorney's recommendation, this was the last continuation and a future public hearing would need to be re -advertised. Staff received revised d . rawings on Friday, March 3, 2006. However, clarification is needed regarding a new retaining wall and its height, which may require additional discretionary action. As a result, staff will request further clarification on the height of the new retaining wall from the applicant, and notice and advertise the project's public hearing for a later date. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission close the public hearing and direct staff to re -advertise and re -notice the public hearing. doe U MOA f-� VY\ 3 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 14, 2006 Chairman McManus 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, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Dan Nolan Tony Torng, Vice -Chairman Ruth Low and Chairman Joe McManus Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Bradley Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner, Milan Garrison, Contract Planner; Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: . As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 10, 2006 — Approved as corrected with C/Nolan abstaining. 4.2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 24, 2006 — Approved as submitted with VC/Low and Chair/McManus abstaining. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-15 AND MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2006-03 — In accordance to Chapters 22.48 and 22.56 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story single family dwelling of approximately 9,288 FEBRUARY 14,2006 PAIGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION square feet (including porches, balconies, covered patios, swimming pool, tennis court and an attached six -car garage) on an existing vacant 1_68 acre parcel in the R-1 20,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential. The applicant also requested approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to, allow a driveway width greater than fourteen (14) feet at the street property line. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2502 Ra77ak Circle (Lot 181, Tract 30578; APN 8713-009-066) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. Wasif Siddique 11076 Venture Drive Mira Loma, Ck91752 APPLICANT: Bob Larivee 17 Rue Du Chateau Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 ICDD/Fong requested that the item be continued to February 28, 2006, to allow the applicant time to submit additional revised project drawings. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus continued the public hearing to February 28, 2006. 7.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 2005-37, MINOR VARIANCE 2005-10 AND MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2006-02, — In accordance to Chapters 22.48, 22.52 and 22.56 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new two-story dwelling of approximately 7,200 square feet (including porches, balconies, covered patios, swimming pool and an attached four car garage) on an existing vacant 34,848 (.89 acre) square foot parcel in the R-1 8,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Medium Density Residential (RLM). The applicant also requested approval of a Minor Variance to permit retaining walls with an exposed height of eight (8) feet; and a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a driveway width greater than fourteen (14) feet at the street property line. FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 3121 Steeplechase Lot 3 of Parcel Map 23382 (APN 8713-017-112) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Arun and Indira Jain 20825 Quail Run Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91789 Pete Volbeda 615 N. Benson Avenue Upland, CA 91736 Milan Garrison, Contract Planner, presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review 2005-37, Minor Variance 2005-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 2006-02, Findings of .Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. CP/Garrison responded to VC/Low that the apparent discrepancy in the size of the driveway was because the site entry at the east and west entrances were 20 feet wide at the turn into a half -circle and staff recommended. a reduction from 20 feet to 12 feet to provide additional landscaping to meet the 50 percent requirement. A width of 14 feet is the maximum allowed at the half -circle area and staff is recommending that it be reduced to 12 feet to reduce the amount of paving in the front yard area. C/Torng asked if it was normal to seek Planning Commission approval prior to the applicant receiving approval from "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association and ICDD/Fong responded that'it was not unusual even though staff would prefer that the applicant get conceptual approval from the association before the Planning Commission's review of the project. CP/Garrison stated that in this case staff received confirmation that "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association approved the project. VC/Low said she was -interested to know the height of the attic and the purpose of having an attic in this development. CP/Garrison asked VC/Low to address her question to the applicant. PC/Garrison explained to C/Lee that the 4800 cubic yards of fill was derived from the grading plan provided by the applicant. Staff inserted the larger amount because upon review by staff it was determined that slightly more fill would be required to create the graded pad to comply with current code FEBRUARY 14,2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISIS110il provisions. C/Lee wanted to know where the numbers came from and PC/Garrison responded that- he thought the applicant was indicating the amount of cut and the amount of fill in the triangular portion — the distance between the end of the natural grade to the finished grade and estimates the area to be 815 square feet x 150 feet of depth for a total of the estimated cubic yards. C/Lee said it would be helpful to view a detailed plan of the proposed retaining wall because reference to a "T or 8' retaining wall" did not mean anything to him. He wanted to know what kind of material would be used for the wall, how deep the footings, etc. and there was not enough information about the wall for him to make a decision and the wall was very important. ICDID/Fong explained that typically, staff conditions the project that the applicant must conform to code and use decorative materials such as split - faced block or slump stone block. The details are plan checked by the City's Building Official to make certain the wall is constructed to the City's safety standards. In this case, the retaining wall is not seen from the street because it is holding up a portion of the street. Someone driving on Steeplechase would not see the retaining wall only the homeowner would see the wall. Certainly the City wants to make sure that the retaining wall materials are compatible with the architectural style of the building. C/Lee said that the retaining wall and safety were co -related and when an applicant applies for a Minor Variance he should provide a plan that the Commissioners can view and understand because if the Commissioners do not have the information they cannot vote yes or no. ICDID/Fong referred C/Lee to the illustration on Section 8 a. on Sheet ss. The scale is small but it shows that there is a retaining wall and that it slopes down into the driveway that leads to the garage. C/Lee asked staff for the structural detail of the retaining wall, what kind of footing, what kind of concrete, etc., because there is pressure on a retaining wall and if it is not constructed properly it could fall down. If staff provided these details and a cross-section of the wall, for example, then he could easily make a decision. Seven or eight feet mean nothing to him. There is no way he can reach a conclusion. ICDD/Fong reiterated that the Planning Commission's role is to grant entitlement. Technical matters involving construction and engineering of the walls is a staff function. Commissioners need to review whether or not the Minor Variance is a necessary item for the project to move forward. C/Lee said he understood that and that he did not want to invade functions of City departments but in order to decide he needed sufficient information and he asked the City Attorney for clarification about whether as a Commissioner he was entitled to the information in order to make a decision. ACA[Wohlenberg explained that a variance is requesting to exceed the retaining wall height allowed by code. FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION The engineering data and technical information should not be relevant to the decision because it is an aesthetic question if the City wants to allow the applicant to exceed the height limit. Based on the City's standards for granting a variance which are outlined in staffs report, the height limit is an aesthetic limit that affects the appearance of the neighborhood and one should assume that the project would be properly engineered according to the City's' Code. C/Lee said he was confused about what information he should use to make his decisions. C/Nolan said he had sufficient information to move forward and would like for the applicant to make his presentation. Chair/McManus said that if Commissioners wanted to review the technical aspects of a project they could ask staff for a copy of the plan check drawings. Pete Volbeda, applicant, said he had built several houses in "The Country Estates." This particular lot requires more fill due to the existing condition of the lot. The reason for the variance request is because the pad is lower and the intent is to hide the garage from street view that necessitates a driveway in front of the house and creates the need for a taller retaining wall at the corner. If the higher retaining wall were disallowed it would necessitate moving the house further down on the lot and create more fill. This is the first step in acquiring a number of approvals in order for the project to move forward. If the Planning Commission failed to approve the variance there would be no need to provide plans and specs for a seven -foot wall. in addition, the applicant intends to screen the walls in accordance with staffs conditions. Mr. Volbeda stated that with respect to the attic space, the owner may at some point wish to convert the attic to a living area. in that case, the applicant would submit the proper application and drawings through the Planning Department. At this point in the project the space will be an unfinished attic. Mr. Volbeda responded to C/Nolan that he had built more than 20 homes in "The Country Estates." VC/Low asked if Mr. Volbeda intended to leave the tree in place and build around it. She asked if the tree was on the applicants or neighbors property. Mr. Volbeda responded that the tree was on the neighbor's property and that part of the parcel conditions for splitting the three lots included maintenance of the oak tree. The tree appears to him to be thriving and he said there would be no construction near the tree. FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee said that he was seeking a basic plan orcross.section _of the wall and the depth so that he could understand what it would look like. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus closed the public hearing. I ICDD/Fong recommended that the following condition be added: "Conversion of the attic space to livable space is subject to the City's review process." C/Nolan asked for confirmation that the specifications of the retaining wall were within the purview of staff and that it met all of the specifications of the City's Building Code. ICDD/Fong said she believed so because the City's Engineering Department reviews the plans prior to Planning Commission review. This would be constructed to the specifications of a typical seven -foot retaining wall that is allowed within the Hillside Ordinance because of the topography of "The Country Estates." Prior to the issuance of the building permit the construction specifications would have to meet code. C/Lee said that it would be helpful to have the inside elevation (floor plan). ICDD/Fong explained that typically, staff does not have the elevation of the inside walls. The floor plan indicates how the space will be used. Staff asks for exterior elevations only because the City is concerned with the exterior design and aesthetics only. If the applicant decided to convert the attic to livable space he would need toprovide information about the use of the space for staff to determine that the use was appropriate for the zone and that it met the City's standards and requirements. ICDD/Fong confirmed to VC/Low that the permit to finish the attic space would be subject to staff review only. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Development Review 2005-37, Minor Variance 2005-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit 2006-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the addition of Condition (mm) to wit: "Building plans for converting unfinished attic space to livable space shall be subject to staff review prior to issuance of building permits." FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Low stated that with some of the issues voiced during the discussion of this item page 6 of the Draft Resolution - subsections (n) and (o) clearly referenced the criteria for granting a Minor Variance. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Lee, Torng, VC/Low, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Low wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day. C/Torng said that many residents have asked him about the progress of the Country Hills Towne Center and asked staff for an update. He wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day. C/Lee thanked ICDD/Fong for her help and wished everyone a Happy Valentine's Day. 9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. ICDD/Fong reported that she met with Mike McCarthy today to. discuss the conditions of approval and plans for proceeding with the refurbishing of the Country Hills Towne Center. The applicant intends to submit plans in a timelyfashion so that the supermarket could be fully functional by the end of the year. The new HMart is a Georgia based company and this location will be the first prototype in California. There will also be a Starbuck's drive-through. Mr. McCarthy said that he had signed many letters of interest and was working with existing tenants to retain their business as well. Mr. McCarthy plans to approach the Planning Commission with a request for modification to the Conditional Use Permit for the two-story building because he has acquired enough leases that he needs to build the new building to relocate some of the existing tenants while he renovates the existing buildings. The website for HMart is www.hmart.com. The owner of HMart is a Korean family and the market is a multi-ethnic "World Market" type of business. -EBRUARY 14,2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION ICDD/Fong responded to C/Nolan that Dr. Doshi had indicated that he wanted to move to the second floor.of the new two-story.4vilding,, C/Nolan felt that his decision was a win-win for everyone. Chair/McManus said it was unfortunate that everyone could not make the Economic Workshop on February 6 because it was very enlightening. The moderator was very good at keeping everyone on point. ICDD/Fong reported that the City Council, *Chair/McManus and staff participated in the Economic Workshop. Council set priorities for economic goals. For example, redevelopment of the Kmart center is a high priority project and Council wants staff to move forward. Building a golf course is a top priority project as well and is part of the annexation being pursued by the City. Council wanted to conduct a land use study for Site D and perhaps change the General Plan to make it clear that the site would be available for commercial development and not as residential in the future. Chair/McManus said the redevelopment of the Kmart area included the area from the SR60 to Golden Springs Drive to the condominiums to the west and to Diamond Bar Boulevard to the south. ICDD/Fong explained that the condominiums would not be demolished but rather included within the Specific Plan area for pedestrian connections. ICDD/Fong responded to VC/Low that the area including the Chevron and Shell stations across Diamond Bar Boulevard and excluding the condominiums was recently rezoned from C-2 to C-3. VC/Low suggested that the City Council and Planning Commission meet with individuals concerned about economic development during discussions involving the Form Based Code. - 9.2 Form Based Codes At the request of Chair/McManus to investigate Formed Based Codes staff provided the Commission with information and sent a memorandum to Council indicating that the Planning Commission was interested in a mutual discussion of the subject. Because Diamond Bar is somewhat built out, there would be certain areas of the City that could fall under Formed Based Code and redevelopment. In order to facilitate the Formed Based Code the Planning Commission could forward a recommendation to the City Council that the General Plan could be amended to add policies and goals that referenced Form Based Code as a tool for use as part of the future Specific Plan. In response to VC/Low, ICDD/Fong said that it would be a general recommendation to consider implementing the Formed Based Code FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION specific to the project areas. Adding the words "Formed Based Code" or "urbanism" would set the tone for developing the Specific Plan. VC/Low thanked staff for an excellent report. She felt that in spite of the City being pretty well built out the Formed Based Code could be useful. On the other hand, this concept was 25 years old and she would not want to push the Form Based Code if something better came along. ICDD/Fong said that Diamond Bar would most likely use a hybrid form of the Form Based Code rather than a pure Form Based Code. She believed that cities should be able to regulate what types of uses would be compatible with each other as well as compatible to the surrounding area. ICDD/Fong responded to C/Torng that from a public purpose (quality of life) standpoint Form Based Codes were established as a tool prescribed to a Specific Plan so that cities could describe what form and architectural style the buildings should take on, where the buildings should be placed, what kind of pedestrian connections should be included and what kind and size the plaza areas should be to attract pedestrians to remain and enjoy the environment. She pointed out that The Groves on Third Avenue in Los Angeles is a very vibrant area with lots of pedestrian traffic and it would be that type of atmosphere that Diamond Bar would seek to create for its residents and using the Form Based Code it would be feasible to prescribe that kind of environment. lCDD/Fong indicated to C/Torng that the approval process would remain the same as it is today. 9.3 Art in Public Places ICDD/Fong presented the Commission with a report including,a chart that compared several cities from Brea and Claremont to Laguna Beach, Pasadena and Rancho Cucamonga. Art could be obtained through, a prescribed program. For example, Brea requires that each project of a certain value would have to contribute *a specific amount of money. Another way of acquiring art is through the entitlement process on a project -by -project basis. For example, if the City has something in its design guidelines or General Plan Goals and Objectives to encourage the placement of art, the City could, through entitlement -7 a Conditional Use Permit, condition the Country Hills Towne Center to place an art piece within the project site. The Brea concept is for any project that exceeds a certain value contributes one percent toward art in public places. The question is whether the City is attempting to achieve a "public purpose" and how does the City define that "public purpose." Obviously, the "public purpose" is for aesthetics and quality of life that the City wants to achieve. On the other hand, how would that fiscally affect the development community because they would have to set aside funds in advance for placement of FEBRUARY 14, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION art. Staff would recommend that the City develop guidelines or General Plan goals that would encourage art in public places and explore the idea of creating -an "art fund." Chair/McManus recalled that an artist obtained private funding for donation of the Cougar at Summitridge Park and wondered how that project came about. ICDD/Fong felt that not too many private individuals would fund an art project unless they were compelled to do so. C/Nolan commended staff on the report. He said he believed in this type of program and said that the onus was on the City to figure out how to fund the program and whether it should be funded primarily through commercial projects. C/Nolan felt the City's entryways were aesthetically pleasing. ICDD/Fong thanked CP/Campbell for preparation of the report. C/Torng asked if staff planned to discuss this matter with the Council and VC/Low asked if the Planning Commission had the authority to amend the design guidelines. ICDD/Fong said that staffs recommendation was for the Commission to send a recommendation to the City Council to initiate a General Plan amendment that would add language to facilitate art in public places as well as the Form Based Code. C/Nolan asked if the General Plan supported the notion of art in public places. I CDD/Fong said she read through the General Plan and did not recall that there was any mention, policy or goal that spoke to art in public places. Chair/McManus stated that if the City went to Form Based Code it could dictate the parameters under which contractors were to build. VC/Low recalled Mr. DeStefano, former Assistant City Manager, indicating that art in public places would not conflict with the General Plan and that there was no such prohibition within the General Plan. ICDD/Fong said that at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, staff would prepare a memorandum to the City Council. VC/Low felt there was a better word than "extract" and ICDD/Fong said that staff would make the change. PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Low moved, C/Nolan seconded to forward a recommendation to the City Council that the City adopt Form Based Code for Specific Plans and that policies and goals be incorporated for an "art in public places" program. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. VC/Low, Nolan, Lee, Torng, Chair/McManus None None ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Interim Comm Joe MbManus, Chairman opment Director MINUTES OF THE CITY OF, DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Low called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Dan Nolan, Tony Torng, Vice -Chairman Ruth Low. Absent: Chairman Joe McManus was -excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Associate and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 14, 2006. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve the minutes of February 14, 2006 as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: Commissioners: Commissioners: Commissioners: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None Nolan, Lee, Torng, VC/Low None Chair/McManus FEBRUARY 28 ,2006 PAGE 2 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC ■ 7.1 Development Review No. 2005-31 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03 — In accordance with Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, this was a request to construct a new three-story single family dwelling of approximately 9,288 square feet (including porches, balconies, covered patios, swimming pool, tennis court and an attached six car garage) on an existing vacant 1.68 acre parcel in the R1 20,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential. The applicant also requested approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a driveway width greater than fourteen (14) feet at the street property line. (Continued from February 14, 2006) Project Address: 2502 Razzak Circle (Lot 181, Tract 30578 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner: Mr. And Mrs. Wasif Siddique 11076 Venture Drive Mira Loma, CA 91752 Applicant: Bob Larivee 17 Rue Du Chateau Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 ICDD/Fong stated that once again the applicant failed to produce the necessary plans to allow staff the opportunity to forward this item to the Planning Commission and according to the city attorney this would be the last continuance allowed. If the plans are not received, this item will be pulled from future agendas and staff will re -advertise the public hearing as appropriate. C/Torng moved, C/Nolan seconded to continue this matter to March 14, 2006. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Torng, Nolan, Lee, VC/Low NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Chair/McManus 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Development Review No. 2006-06 — In accordance with Code Section 22.48, this was a request to construct a three story single-family FEBRUARY 28, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION residence of approximately 7,360 gross square feet including the three car garage, Porte Cochere, terraces, balconies and. deck. The request also included a play court, swimming pool/spa, and retaining walls with a maximum exposed height of eight feet. Project Address: 24141, Lodge Pole Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner/ Mr. and Mrs. Juzer Jangbarwala Applicant: 1441 Autumn Hill Lane Chino Hills, CA 91709 DSA/Smith presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2005-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Low asked if the covenant regarding the sewer would be attached to the draft resolution and DSA/Smith responded that it was a separate document that came from the Public Works prior to issuance of the building permit. VC/Low said it was nice to see a house within "The Country Estates" being presented without any Variances and Conditional Use Permits. VC/Low opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, VC/Low closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, CrTorng seconded to approve Development Review No. 2006-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Nolan, Torng, Lee, VC/Low NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Chair/McManus 8.2 Development Review No. 2006-04, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01 and Minor Variance No. 2006-01 — In accordance with Code Sections 22.48, 22.52, 22.56 and 22.68, this was a request to remodel and construct an approximate 1,683 gross square foot addition including porch, balcony/patio cover, storage room and garage to an existing 2,577 livable square foot two story single-family residence. A Minor Conditional Use Permit approval permits the continuation of legal non -conforming front and FEBRUARY 28, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION side yard setbacks. The Minor Variance approval permits a decrease of the required setback/yard area for this irregularly shaped lot .11 Project Address: 22088 Cedardale Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner: Dr. Jacob Said 22088 Cedardale Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: Khanjian Agop 2721 N. Michigan Avenue Pasadena, CA 91106 DSA/Smith presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-04, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01 and Minor Variance No. 2006-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Low asked if the material colors shown on the renderings were accurate for the remodel and DSA/Smith responded that they were accurate. C/Torng asked DSA/Smith to point out the location of the three-foot minor variance because he visited the site and felt that it was very tight. DSA/Smith showed C/Torng the area on the map and pointed out the location of the building and the variance in relationship to the lot. She also explained the setbacks that Diamond Bar inherited from Los Angeles County as they related to the current setback requirements. C/Torng hoped the applicant could improve'the home's front views. VC/Low felt that the large amount of landscape materials tended to make the lot look more crowded than it would normally appear. C/Nolan felt that a three-foot section out of 55 feet was not unreasonable. The legal non -conforming is compelling because the house was originally built within the Los Angeles County Code and a new property owner should probably not be held to the new standards. VC/Low opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item; VC/Low closed the public hearing. I FEBRUARY 28, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2006-04, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-01 and MinorVariance No. 2006-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. AYES: Commissioners: Lee, Nolan, Torng, VC/Low NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Chair/McManus 8.3 Development Review No. 2006-03 — In accordance with Code Section 22.48.020(a) this was a request to construct a two-story office building of approximately 25,000 square feet on a vacant lot within the Gateway Corporate Center. Project Address Property Owner/ Applicant: 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dr. Acbar Omar 222 N. Sunset Avenue West Covina, CA 91790 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-03 and Negative Declaration No. 2006-01, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. AssocP/Lungu responded to C/Torng that. the applicant met the traffic study requirements prior to issuance of the permits. C/Torng asked if there was a requirement for a contribution to art and AssocP/Lungu responded not at this time. AssocP/Lungu confirmed to VC/Low that this application was completely revised as of the January 20, 2006, submission. C/Torng asked whether it was a two or three story building and ICDD/Fong responded that it was a two-story office building. Because the building is situated on a slope and caissons are being used to build up the foundation it appears taller than other two-story buildings. ICDD/Fong responded to C/Lee that the EIR was done underthe auspices of the Gateway Master Plan that was approved by the County. The use is FEBRUARY 28, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISS1101 allowed and a pad was provided in the plan. Accordingly, this is a Design Review of an office building within the Gateway Master Plan. C/Lee said he received this package on Friday, and that it was a large project and he felt he had not had sufficient time for review. lCDD/Fong responded to C/Lee that the Planning Commission approved this project in 2002. The reason the applicant came back to the Commission was that he was not vested into the project because they had not started construction. According to the city attorney the applicant must reapply. Since the project was previously approved staff did not tell the applicant to redesign the entire project so it is staffs objective to make certain that the current plans are consistent with the previous approval and the conditions of approval. AssocP/Lungu responded to VC/Low that there were no substantial or material changes from the prior submission. Dr. Omar stated that his project was approved and all of the permits were pulled. The entitlement required that sufficient grading should have been done. He misunderstood the amount of grading that was required and thought it had been done in accordance with the requirements. The contracts are signed and the contractors are prepared to proceed with construction. C/Torng asked if art was included in this project. VC/Low asked Dr. Omar if he "was willing to place a piece of art in the 'public area of his building and Dr. Omar said that he would take it under consideration because it would be a good addition to his structure. ACA/Kovac ' evich cautioned the Commissioners that they could hot condition the project in this manner. He noted, however, that the applicant had offered to consider the option within this public forum. VC/Low thanked Dr. Omar for his consideration. VC/Low opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, VC/Low closed the public hearing. C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve Development Review No. 2006-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: 0 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: Commissioners: Torng, Nolan, Lee, VC/Low NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Chair/McManus PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nolan said that this would be his last Planning Commission meeting. He served on the Commission four years and on the Parks and Recreation Commission for the two prior years. He has enjoyed his service on the Commission and has enjoyed working with staff and Paul Wright. He attended the Sycamore Canyon Trailhead ribbon -cutting ceremonies and felt that it was a great project. One of his goals for the City is to work on the Lorbeer Middle School project. C/Lee strongly believed that retaining walls were one of the most important elements in a residential project. He proposed that for any residential proposals containing retaining walls the applicant should be required to submit retaining wall cross-section elevation plans like those that were included in the first project presented this evening. He said that it was a simple drawing that contained sufficient information to assist him in evaluating projects. VC/Low said that she had truly enjoyed working with C/Nolan who had been very helpful to her. She appreciated his insight and hard work. She learned a lot from him and he had been a great inspiration to her. She believed that this would be her last Planning Commission meeting as well and said she had enjoyed every meeting over the past two years. She hoped that the Planning Commission would continue to do good things for the City. 10. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. ICDD/Fong said she understood C/Lee's request for sufficient information to properly evaluate the application and indicated that staff would make certain to include sufficient cross sections wheneverthere were retaining walls within a project area. ICDD/Fong stated that the Planning Commission would receive a report from staff on reconsideration of Scribble's Conditional Use Permit for review, modification or possible revocation. The sheriffs department has alerted staff to several incidents that have caused safety. concerns and required a considerable amount of sheriffs department resources to address the situation. PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION I CDD/Fong presented plaques to C/Nolan and VC/Low and thanked them for their service on the Planning Commission and., to the. City. She appreciated the their commitment and felt they were very fair and professional in their deliberations. She thanked C/Nolan and VC/Low for their hard work toward making Diamond Bar a better place. VC , /Low thanked ICDD/Fong and her staff for their hard work and dedication to the City. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, AC/Low adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Nancy,,Po—ng- Interim 'CommunitLeve-ro-pment Director Aide McManus, Chairman MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 14, 2006 CALL TO ORDER: Chair McManus called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Ron Everett led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE: CC/Cribbins administered the Oath Of Office to all Commissioners. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ron Everett, Kwang Ho Lee, Joe McManus, Steve Nelson and Tony Torng. Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Bradley Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 3. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: a. . Selection of Planning Commission Chairman. Commissioner McManus nominated Steve Nelson. Commissioner Lee nominated Joe McManus. There were no other nominations offered. Commissioner McManus was elected to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: Commissioner Lee: Commissioner Nelson: Commissioner McManus Commissioner Everett: Commissioner Torng: Joe McManus Joe McManus Steve Nelson Joe McManus Joe McManus A--H-- L� 0 G'\ fly\ f I- � (-C�C)�&(rAr�4 313') MARCH 14, 2006. PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION b. Selection of Planning Commission Vice -Chairman. Comrhissioner Torng nominated Steve Nelson. There were no other nominations offered. Commissioner Nelson was elected to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: Commissioner Torng: Steve Nelson Commissioner Everett: Steve Nelson Chairman McManus: Steve Nelson Commissioner Nelson: Steve Nelson Commissioner Lee: Steve Nelson 4. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 28, 2006 C/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve the minutes of February 28, 2006, as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Torng, Lee NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Everett, VC/Nelson, Chair/McManus ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7. OLD BUSINESS: None 8. NEW BUSINESS: None 9. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-31 AND MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-03 — In accordance with Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, this was a request to construct a new three-story single family dwelling of MARCH 14, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION approximately 9,288 square feet (including porches, balconies, covered patios, swimming pool, tennis court and an attached six car garage) on an existing vacant 1.68 acre parcel in the R! 20,000 zone with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential. The applicant also requested approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a driveway Width greater than fourteen (14) feet at the street property line. (Continued from February 28, 2006) PROJECT ADDRESS: 2502 Razzak Circle (Lot 181, Tract 30578 APN 8713-009-066) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. Wasif Siddique 11076 Venture Drive Mira Loma, CA 91752 APPLICANT: Bob Larivee 17 Rue Du Chateau Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 CDD/Fong stated that although the applicant submitted new plans there were technical issues that needed to be resolved and staff was recommending that the Planning Commission receive testimony and close the Public Hearing. Staff will re -advertise the project for a future public hearing when the project is ready to move forward. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus declared the public hearing closed. 10. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2003-01 — Originally approved on May 27, 2003, to allow for the operation of a restaurant and bar with entertainment (i.e., entertainment shall include only a jazz band, guitarist and pianist on a small state within the bar; and a DJ with dancing for banquets and private parties held within the banquet room) at the location referenced below. Condition No. 5(o) of the Conditional Use Permit requires that the City periodically review the operation to assure compliance with conditions of approval and consider whether to modify, add conditions as necessary or revoke the permit. I I a a -so" I ..0. 61 :4 604 F&TITE111"S" FAT PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION 245 -Gentle Springs -Lane - (Scribbles Grill & Restaurant) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 P.N. Patel, Ratan Hospitality, LLC 1205 W. Sierra Madre Avenue Glendora, CA 91765 Raj Astavakra 6226 N. Calera Avenue Azusa, CA 91702 CDD/Fong stated that the owner was out of the country and requested the public hearing be continued to April 11, 2006. Chair/McManus opened the public hearing. Henry Lee, 364 Prospectors Road, presented the Commission with a letter signed by residents who are concerned about the restaurant and would like for the Commission to revoke their permit. Mr. Lee said he Was not sure that he would be available to return on April 11, 2006, for the public hearing. Mr. Lee stated that he believed Scribbles was violating their Conditional Use Permit by allowing loud rap groups that drew unsavory elements to the community. Vehicles have been vandalized and open containers of alcohol are being strewn about the cul-de-sac area at the end of Gentle Springs Lane. Patrons of the restaurant have been observed vandalizing the entry gate, parking illegally in the complex, urinating on the premises and female patrons have been observed changing their clothes. He and his neighbors are very upset because Diamond Bar is a family community and children are present. Ming Wen Su said she lives close to the gate and every weekend (Thursday, Friday and Saturday) the music is so loud that it vibrates her windows. She is a speech and hearing scientist and used her sound meter to measure the decibels. In front of her door she measured the sound at 84 decibels and closer to the restaurant it was at about 120 decibels. People who live on the same side of the complex as she complain that they are unable to sleep at night and even when she sleeps on the opposite side of her unit she can hear the loud music vibration. She says she frequently calls the police to complain and the police tell her that the business was not just a restaurant but a disco pub as well. When the department sends officers the business MARCH 14, 2006 PAGE -5 PLANNING COMMISSION turns off the. music and when the officers leave the music starts up again. She said the Sheriffs Office encouraged her to call each time there is a problem but after several months of nothing being done they feel helpless. Every Thursday, Friday and Saturday the complex has to shut down their gate to keep the patrons out. One weekend a group was hanging out in the parking lot and walked toward the car so she felt like she had to drive away. She has seen groups try to force the gate open and she and her neighbors can detect the odor of burning marijuana. Her father asked them to stop and they retaliated by shaking cars in the parking lot until the alarms went off. She said it happens on a frequent basis and she and her family are very concerned Tor their safety. Some of her neighbors feel they must move out because they cannot live under these conditions. Chair/McManus asked the speakers to come back to the meeting on April 11 and bring as many of their neighbors as possible so that the City would be able to get their concerns on the record. VC/Nelson asked Ms. Su to give an example that was equivalent to 84 decibels. Ms. Su said that 84 decibels was equal to honking traffic in a large city and 120 decibels would be equivalent to standing next to a moving train. Mrs. Su responded to C/Everett that the bass sound records at 84 decibels at her door. Mr. Lee stated that some of the residents told him last night that they had been verbally accosted by patrons of the bar demanding that the resident open the complex gate and allow them into the parking lot. C/Torng asked staff if there were similar Conditional Use Permits in the City. He recommended that at least one Sheriffs Deputy be asked to join the April 11, 2006, meeting. CDD/Fong responded that as indicated in staffs report, the approved entertainment for this facility is limited to a DJ and dancing only within the banquet room and not within the main bar and restaurant areas. She believed that according to the police report the restaurant has gone beyond the City's approval. Most certainly the Sheriffs Department will be available on April 11 to provide testimony as well. The Sheriffs Department personnel were not present tonight because the applicant requested continuance to April 11, 2006, and the applicant must be given due process to respond to the issue of public safety. On April 11, 2006, staff will provide the Commission with a presentation that includes evidence of possible non-compliance, response to public safety, police reports, etc. ajrjrp�q • kT The speakers -are-invited to bring all of their information to the April 11, 2006, meeting so that it can be included in the report. C/Lee asked if noise levels exceeding levels allowed under the Municipal Code could be considered a public safety hazard and CDD/Fong responded that the code indicates a.maximum decibel level that a business is allowed to generate. If the decibels are exceeded the business must provide noise attenuation inside of the building to meet the minimum noise standards. C/Lee asked if noise could be considered a violation of the Conditional Use Permit. CDD/Fong responded thatthis forum gives the Planning Commission the opportunity to determine whether the applicant meets the noise ordinance standards under the Conditional Use Permit that was granted by the Planning Commission and if the Commission determined that the applicant did not meet the standard the Commission could impose additional conditions or revoke the Conditional Use Permit. C/Evereft asked staff to include the detail of reported incidents in their April 11, 2006, report and indicate whether crimes occurred as a result of those incidents. He felt it would be also helpful to have feedback provided by the Los Angeles County Fire Department because of the reference to the department handling a possible safety hazard/code violation on July 22, 2005. CDD/Fong stated that due to the confidential nature of incident reports staff is allowed to provide only a certain amount of information with respect to incidents. C/Torng asked why the Planning Commission should not suspend the Conditional Use Permit at this time based on the applicant's non-complianice and ACA/Wohlenberg explained that Conditional Use Permits are considered "land use entitlements" and the City must observe due process before permits can be reduced or revoked. The public hearing process allows all sides to present their evidence and because the reports are not complete and the applicant is unavailable the City could not take any action to reduce or revoke the permit at this time. Chair/McManus asked if the Sheriffs Department had records back to 1995 and CDD/Fong said she believed so although only one years worth of service calls would be considered. Chair/McManus felt that the evidence should reflect the history of complaints over the past number of years. Without objection, Chair/McManus declared the public hearing continued to April 11, 2006. MARCH 14, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION 11. PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTSIIN FORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Lee welcomed new Commissioners Everett and Nelson and hoped the Commissioners would work together to make wise decisions that would benefit the people. - C/Torng said it was his honor to be a Planning Commissioner and to work with two new Commissioners and Chair/McManus. Today's issue was the first matter that he felt required input from the Sheriffs Department. C/Everett thanked staff for his welcome and orientation and said he looked forward to their continued support as well as the support of his colleagues. He congratulated Chair/McManus and VC/Nelson on their appointments and thanks Council Member Tye for appointing him to serve on the Commission. He said he looks forward to serving with integrity. VC/Nelson thanked Council Member Zirbes for appointing him to the Commission and thanked his colleagues for their vote of confidence in appointing him Vice Chairman of the Commission. He vowed to support his colleagues and Council. Chair/McManus welcomed his fellow Commissioners and thanked them for asking him to continue serving as Chairman. 112. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 12.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Fong reported that C/Chang appointed Ruth Low to serve as a Parks and Recreation Commissioner. She said she planned to attend the Planning Institute Conference next week along with C/Lee and C/Everett. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. MARCH 14,2006 PAGE 8 ' PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair McManus adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m. Submitted, Naffcy Fong y Interim Comm4ity Dedpment Director , City of Diamond Bar Development Review Application No. DR 2005-31 2502 Razzak Circle Date Event Jan. 18, 2006 LDM Associates (Plan Check Consultant) tentatively approved the project for further processing provided: 1. A MCUP application is submitted; and 2. The landscape plan is revised to match site plan. Applicant informed that additional information must be received by January 27, 2006 to be scheduled for February 14, 2006 PC Meeting. Jan. 30, 2006 LDM Associates (Plan Check Consultant)emailed applicant's architect required notice for posting for February 14, 2006. Applicant's architect also called to obtain status of corrected plans (no response from app licant's architect). Feb. 14, 2006 Project scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Corrected plans were required in order to complete the staff report. The plans were not provided. The Public Hearing was continued to February 28, 2006. Feb. 23, 2006 LDM Associates (Plan Check Consultant) contacted property owner by phone to inform him of his architect's continued non -responsiveness to providing corrected drawings, and that the staff would again request a continuance. Feb. 28, 2006 Corrected plans were not provided to staff. The Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing to March 14, 2006. Attempts were made to contact the applicant to no avail. March 3, 2006 Revised plans were received. However, the required information was missing. A detailed list of the required information was provided to the applicant on March 14, 2006. March 14, 2006 The Planning Commission tabled the item. The project would be re -noticed when corrected and complete plans have been submitted to the staff for review and analysis. March 27, 2006 Applicant met with the Director of Community Development and the plan check consultant (LDM Associates). Director of CD indicated that if the corrected plans were submitted to the City by Friday, March 31, 2006 the item would be placed on the April 25, Planning Commission Agenda. Director of CD emailed a summary of the meeting and a detailed explanation of the information required to continue processing the application. DR 2005- 1 4; A �� Page No. 1 A* DR 2005-31 Page No. 2 March 28, 2006 Applicant emailed the City and indicated his displeasure with the processing efforts of the City. Applicant indicated that it was impossible to provide the needed information by Friday, March 31, 2006. April 4, 2006 Director of CD emailed applicant and indicated that the April 25, 2006 -planning Commission meeting could not because be - met becase t - he -1 required corrected plans had not been received by the City. April 13, 2006 The property owner was contacted by a representative of LDM Associates (Plan Check Consultant). Property owner was advised of the disposition of the development application. Property owner indicated that he would contact the architect and encourage the preparation of the required building plans. DR 2005-31 Page No. 2 Page I of 4 Subj: RE: 2502 Razzak Circle Date: 4/4/200610:18:13 A.M. Pacific Standard Time From: Nancy.Fong@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us To: qwardw1nningdesign@yPh_QQtQPM -bar sid,.d,.tque@.active.appaLrp!.P(?m, l.dJnasso.@.qq[.com, CC: Tommye.Cribbins@ci..diamond I. ca.us, w . . Ann.Lungq@pi.d.i-a..mo.nd-b.ar.ca,..us, David.doytp@Qi.diamond-bjar..cP..!As Per my e-mail to you on March 28, 2006 that summarized our meeting of March 27, 2006, you were to submit 5 sets of revised plans to City Hall by March 31, 2006 so we could check them for completeness and accuracy. Once staff determined the revised plans are acceptable then we would schedule your project for the April 25, 2006 Planning Commission hearing. You were to submit 15 more set of plans and 20 sets of reductions by April, 7, 2006. 1 have given you time flexibility in submitting a set of colored plans and a material sample board by April 18, 2006. To date I have not received the 5 sets of your revised plans that were due March 31, 2006. You failure to submit the revised plans by the deadline will affect the date for Planning Commission. We are committed to help you process the project but we cannot do it without you submitting the revised plans. Sincerely, Nancy Fong,, AICP Interim Community Development Director City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 839-7030 naricy.fong@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us ----- Original Message ----- From: Nancy Fong Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 9:08 PM To: 'Robert Lariveel cc: Tommye Cribbins; Tommye Cribbins; wsiddique@activeapparel.com Subject: RE: 2502 Razzak Circle If you need more time to prepare the colored plans and material sample board just let me know. The colored plans and sample board are presentation materials at the Planning Commission meeting. You as a designer representing your client would want to present your design in color to the Commission. You can give me the color plans and material sample board for exterior elevations by April 18, 2006. Nancy Fong, AICP Interim Community Development Director Tuesday, April 04, 2006 America Online: LDMASSO Page 2 of 4 City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 839-7030 nancy.fong@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us -----Original Message ----- From: Robert Larivee [mailto:awardwinningdesign@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2006 8:30 PM To: Nancy Fong Cc: Tommye Cribbins; Tommye Cribbins; wsiddique@activeapparel.com Subject: Re: 2502 Razzak Circle Dear Nancy, Thanks for your email. However you have struck another level of concern with me. I noted that you have now added two additional requirements. 3. A set of colored plans to include building elevations and landscape plans 4. A colored material sample board There is no way to complete your request in the time allotted. Even now the intent for me to respond to your request outlined in our meeting Monday is delayed do the inability to access your municipal code online. It is my intent at this time to seek a higher level of intervention in this entire matter. I clearly recall asking the specific question, "Is 'there anything else beside what we discussed here today (sections cuts) that you require for going before the planning commission." Your answer, and David concurred, was only the section cuts, plus 15 new sets. It is my intent to request that the city flip the bill for the cost of reprinting and the now required additional work of a colored rendering of the landscape and elevations. In addition I believe my client is entitled to damages for the delays caused by the Cities inability to make up there mind on how long the approval process is going to take and what is required! To reiterate, we made our submittal on August 1, 2005. We were told we would hear from a planner within 4 weeks. We made several attempts to obtain a status and the only time we were able to talk with some one was in September and we where told that it was still under review. We received a phone call from a Mr Milan Garrison in November, 2005. He said he would be forwarding a copy of corrections. It was never sent nor received. We heard again from Mr Garrison in mid January of this year. He stated that our project had been approved for review by the Planning Commission. He said he would be sending a list of items for final submittal as well as the notice for posting on the property. As you recall it was a 2 page document that request four items: A CUP application for the driveway; up to date landscape plans; 15 full Tuesday, April 04, 2006 America Online: LDMASSO Page 3 of 4 size sets; 15 8 1/2 x 11 sets. This letter was received by both myself and my client on January 26, 2006. It requested that the four items be taken care of by January 27, 2006! - The CUP was filed on 1-27-06. The mini sets were delivered 2-1-06. The full size sets delivered 3-3-06. And of course the up to date landscape plans were included. the receipt of the mini sets was ok'd by Mr Garrison and through various delays initiated by Mr. Garrison's office the full sets could not be delivered to the City until 3-3-06, this was ok'd by City Planner Ann Lungu. Ms Lungu, when I last spoke with her about 2-28-06 sated that upon receipt that the project would be scheduled on the Planning Commission calendar. After not hearing from Ms. Lungu for over a week I telephoned and left a message. No return call was made or received. I then subsequently received Mr Garrison's letter stating the project was taken off calender completely and that there where additional requirements. In addition attached to his letter was the never seen before "conditions of approval". I contacted you concerning this matter and you agreed to a meeting to discuss getting this project back on track. I underscored my objections to being sand bagged with additional items as well as the length of getting this far after being told FOUR WEEKS! I also stated the my purpose for meeting with you is for some one to take accountability for the delays. You did so and duly apologized. So I object to these additional requirements and refuse to provide any additional information until I can speak with the Mayor. I still plan on attending the scheduled Planning Commission meeting on the 27th so that the Planning Commission can address these issues. City officials, elected or employed by the City need to be accountable and answerable for there errors, just as you require from the constituency. Thank You Sincerely, Bob Larivee 1-949-936-0285 Nancy Fong <Nancy. Fong@ci. diamond-bar.ca. us> wrote: Thank you for meeting with staff. I do appreciate your comments and observations. They will help us improve our review process and our service to the customers. The following is a summary of our action meeting: • You agreed to revise the grading plan(s) to show the future tennis court, pool/spa and the pool pavillion. You also agreed that any retaining wall will be less than 6 feet high including the ones that Tuesday, April 04, 2006 America Online: LDMASSO Page 4 of 4 may be needed for the tennis court. You will provide the cross sections as requested and clarify the building height dimension. ® You will submit 5 sets of the revised development plans to City for review by the end of Friday, March 31, 2006. ® Once staff has review the revised plans and found them to be acceptable then we schedule the project for the April 25, 2006 hearing. ® Here are the items that need to be submitted on or before -April 7, 2006 for the April 25th meeting: 1. 15 sets of full size development plans, folded 2. 20 sets of 81/2 by 11 reductions 3. A set of colored plans to include building elevations and landscape plans 4. A colored material sample board Please submit the plans to City Hall office. Thank for your patience. Nancy Fong, AICP Interim Community Development Director City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 839-7030 nancy.fong@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us Confidential Communications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals named above. If the person actually receiving this message or any other reader of the message is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately destroy AND notify us by telephone at 909,839.7058. Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Make TC-to_Phone LCalls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 20/min or less. Tuesday, April 04, 2006 America Online: LDMASSO Project Meeting Schedule DR 2005-31/ MCUP 2006-03 May 23, 2006 BOB LARIVE New Single Family Residence PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW PROJECTS Project Location NF/ } srCa55e #_, 3 } PQM TTM 06166 TM 2005-02 SC (Acquisition of .93 acres of AMENDMENT AKBAR OMAR CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 2505 RAZZAK DR 2005-31/ MCUP 2006-03 LDM/ AJL BOB LARIVE New Single Family Residence DB BLVD./BREA CYN RD. MND 2006-02 NF/ CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CLEAR CREEK CYN/ MONUMENT CYN TTM 06166 TM 2005-02 SC (Acquisition of .93 acres of AMENDMENT AKBAR OMAR AJL undevelo ed ro e 21335 & 21337 COLD CUP 2006-09 AJL YIC TAEKWONDO Residence) (Relocating within Country Hills SPRINGS Towne Center) ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS Project Location NONE 2600 BROKEN FEATHER PENDING PROJECTS 1200 CHISHOLM TRAIL Project Location CITYWIDE DCA 2006-01 CLEAR CREEK CYN/ MONUMENT CYN 1336 BRIDGE GATE DR 2005-32 2600 BROKEN FEATHER DR 2005-41 MCUP 2005-16 MV 2005-12 1200 CHISHOLM TRAIL DR 2006-19 CITYWIDE DCA 2006-01 CLEAR CREEK CYN/ MONUMENT CYN TTM 06166 TM 2005-02 2366 CLEAR CREEK LN. DR 2006-13 AJL KAISER MEDICAL Medical Offices HOU/MILES FOLSOM LKS (Addition/Remodel — over 50%) LEE LDM/ AJL DEVELOPMENT CODE AJL AMENDMENT AKBAR OMAR AJL (5 -lot Single Family Residential) GEORGE MIDLEY LDM/ AJL (Demo and rebuild Single Family Residence) PC, GC '�' _ PC GC PC ��m , _ /C/.(75...a 6/13/06 , 6/20/! 6` , 6127106 IO X m APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROCESSING PROCESSING APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. NEW PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPER. LEGEND PH = PUBLIC HEARING X = NON PUBLIC HEARING Project Meeting Schedule CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Page 2 ro.w?,A gnnr, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PENDING PROJECTS (continued) Project Location M IN --l' 23649 COUNTRY VIEW DR 2006-15 AJL HUBERT WILSON APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — 1 st and 2nd Floor Additions) WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION PROCESSING TERMINUS AT CROOKED VTTM 54081 AJL DANIEL SINGH APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — CREEK (19 Lot Residential/ Subdivision) WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 150 DIAMOND BAR BL. CUP 2006-02 SC CHEVRON PRODUCTS APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — DR 2006-05 (Demolish and rebuild gas station) WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CSP 2006-01 206 DIAMOND BAR BI. ZC 2005-02 AJL SHELL APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — CUP 2005-07 (Remodel/addition of car wash) WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DR 2005-36 SR 2005-32 2707 DIAMOND BAR BI. DR 2005-38 LKS T -MOBILE APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — MV 2005-11 (Wireless Telecom Facility) WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 23655 FALCONS VIEW DR 2006-02 LDM/ CHIEN YEH APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — AJL (Demolish and build new SFR) WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 24074 FALCONS VIEW DR 2004-06 LDM/ SYED RAZA & ASSOCIATES PROCESSING AJL 1600 GRAND CUP 2005-08 AJL CINGULAR APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — (Wireless at Diamond Bar Center) WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION LARKSTONE DR. EIR 2005-01 NF JCC - SOUTHPOINTE EIR IN PROCESS (102 Single Family Residential) 21324 PATHFINDER DR 2004-33 LKS MOHAMAD SALIMNIA APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — Gas Station Remodel) WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 2755 PROSPECTORS DR 2006-10 LDM/ ROYAL STREET COM. APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — AJL (Cell Site WAITING FOR -ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 23121 RIDGELIKE DR 2006-18 AJL HGUI PROCESSING 2887 SHADOW CANYON DR 2005-35 LKS EKO KUNJORO APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — TP 2005-09 (Single Family Residence) WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. NEW PLANS TO BE SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPER 2695 SHADY RIDGE DR 2005-21 LKS XLART GROUP APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — I I WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Project Meeting Schedule May 23, 2006 PENDING PROJECTS (continued) Proiect Locationase,_ CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 1425 SUMMITRIDGE Diamond Bar Center CUP 2006-03 DR 2006-16(Wireless AJL OMNIPOINT COM. Co -location) 24142 SYLVAN GLEN Peterson Park CUP 2006-01 DR 2006-01 LKS CINGULAR (Expand telecommunication 24418 TOP COURT DR 2006-12 LKS HIMANSHU TANNA 1 st & 2nd story addition 3015 WAGON TRAIN DR 2003-27/ TP 2003-08/ AJL LAUREN PARK (Extension of Time) MCUP 2004-02 20405 WALNUT DR 2005-34 AJL LAMPS PLUS arehouse/Retail Building 441 WAYSIDE DR 2006-09 LDM/ AJL BARBERO Add/Remodel 24115 WILLOW CREEK DR 2006-14/ MCUP 2006-05 AJL MARTHA MIJARES Remodel/Addition Page 3 APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION APPLICANT NOTIFIED OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION — WAITING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR On May 23, 2006, the Diamond Bar Planning commission will hold a regular session at 7:00 p.m., at the South Coast Quality Management District/Government Center - Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. 1, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. on May 18, 2006, a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar Planning commission, to be held on May 23, 2006, was posted at the following locations: South Coast Quality Management Heritage Park District Auditorium 2900 Brea Canyon Road 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Center 1600 Grand Avenue i. ft r'„i 1 Diamond Bar, CA 9176 "r: .11 2-- N I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on May 19, 2006, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella Marquez Community Development Department lot sIX4 ou gA\affidavitposfing.doc,,y,' . mislo An Aq U011 nilsep jol Apsai S! PUB UO Aq 0 AGJ 9113 -M--.JOI A069i sl pu Buluu Ams ."Uo G!A a lu