Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/8/1996PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA JANUARY 8, 1996 7:00 P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Bruce Flamenbaum David Meyer Don Schad Franklin Fong Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community Development Office, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II 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 accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. R4&FCAGMAGD Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper in the Auditorium and encourages you to do the same. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, January 8, 1996 Next Resolution No. 96-1 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Bruce Flamenbaum, , David Meyer, Don Schad, and Franklin Fong 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 when addressing the Planning Commission. 3. 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: 3.1 Minutes of November 27, 1995 4. OLD BUSINESS: None 5. NEW BUSINESS: None 6. PUBLIC HEARING: None 7. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Reorganization of the Planning Commission 8. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 10. ADJOURNMENT: January 22, 1996 1 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR .;�.`,� REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:058 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Vice Chairman Huff. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners: Chairman Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Huff, Commissioners Schad and Fong. Absent: Commissioner Meyer Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Consultant Engineer Mike Myers, Recording Secretary Carol Dennis. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Craig Clute, 21217 Fountain Springs Road, read a letter from the residents of Fountain Springs Road and Sunbright Drive that had been sent to the Planning Commission. He stated that Clay Chaput, Assistant Superintendent of Diamond Bar High School indicated he is unaware of any landscape plan and plan for placement of a LA Cellular tower on the school property. He requested the Planning Commission pursue these items with LA Cellular and the school district and ask for their cooperation in resolving the matter. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Flamenbaum that he is not aware of the progress. He indicated he will contact the school district and provide a report at the December 11, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. C/Shad stated that, in his opinion, Mr. Clute's presentation is very good and covers all of the major issues. He indicated he wanted to emphasize that the major engineering factor pertaining to the sprinkler installation, due to the severity of the slopes and the size of the slopes that run on the west side of the school, might best be solved by using a drip system instead of an overhead sprinkler. Since many people use the sidewalks in the area, there is a danger of slipping and falling due to the wet sidewalks. November 27, 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of October 23, 1995. C/Meyer made a motion seconded by VC/Huff to approve the minutes as submitted. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS - None PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Variance No. 95-2 (pursuant to Code Section 22.56, Part 2), is a request to construct a series of two retaining walls (crib walls) within the rear portion of the project site. Each retaining wall's maximum height is 13 feet. Additionally, this project includes the construction of an 8,334 square foot two story single family residence with a cellar, deck, pool/spa, and four car garage. The project site is a 1.33 acre vacant lot located within a gated community identified as "The Country Estates". Property Address: 1729 Derringer Lane, Diamond Bar Property Owner: Jeffrey and Eddy Hu, 933 Leyland Drive, Diamond Bar Applicant: Frank Piermarini, 2100 S. Reservoir, Pomona, CA 91766 VC/Huff stated he lives near the proposed development, recused himself and left the dais. AstP/Lungu stated the project is Zoned R-1-40,000 and has a General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR). The project site is approximately 1.33 gross acres and is rectangular in shape. The vacant lot slopes to the rear at a 2:1 slope with grades varying from 10 percent to 67 percent (1.5:1 slope ratio). A flood hazard area is located within the rear portion of the project site. No structures are proposed in this area. The purpose of the retaining walls is to provide a recreational area so that the applicant can have lawn area with pool and spa facilities. Additionally, retaining walls are proposed adjacent to both side property lines to contain a fill. Maximum height of these retaining walls is six feet except for the portion June 12, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission of the retaining wall which meets the crib wall (westerly), adjacent to the north property line. At this location, the retaining wall's height is 11 feet. Pursuant to the City's Planning and Zoning Code Section 22.48.160.D., the maximum permitted height of a retaining wall is six feet. In order to construct a retaining wall which exceeds this height limitation as proposed for this project, the Variance process must be utilized. The Yard Modification process cannot be utilized in this case because the series of retaining walls, as proposed, are not considered a minor modification. The guidelines of the City's Hillside Management Ordinance are applicable to this project. These guidelines state the following: design a project that is sensitive to the natural terrain and minimizes the effects on the hillside; and design a single family structure that is located and terraced to follow the slope and minimize necessary grading. Suggested techniques for guideline compliance are split pads, stepped footings, and grade separations. Pursuant to Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990), the proposed project requires Administrative Development Review performed by the Community Development Director through the public hearing process. However, the Variance review allows the Planning Commission to also review this project from a Development Review perspective. AstP/Lungu continued indicating the staff report includes a comparison of the City's development standards and the proposed project's development standards. This proposed project complies with the City's codes except for the retaining walls heights, pilasters' height within the 20 foot front yard setback, and the average finished grade (AFG) calculations. Additionally, this project does not comply with the intentions of the City's Hillside Management Ordinance. The Hillside Management Ordinance requires that retaining walls, associated with lot pads, shall not exceed four feet in height. Where an additional retained portion is necessary because of unusual or extreme conditions (such as lot configuration, steep slope, or road design), the use of terraced retaining structures shall be considered on an individual lot basis. Terraced walls shall not exceed three feet in height and shall be separated by a minimum of three feet and incorporate appropriate landscaping. The proposed project site is steep sloping. Therefore, the site's development causes the use of June 12, 1995 Page 4 Planning Commission terraced retaining walls. However, the retaining walls, as designed, even though appropriately landscaped, do not comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance's guidelines. According to the City's Planning and Zoning Code Section 22.48.160.A., the maximum height of structures within the 20 foot front yard setback is 42 inches. The conceptual landscape plan delineates two pilasters, seven feet high, located on both sides of the driveway. To comply with the Code, the pilasters' maximum height shall be 42 inches. The conceptual landscape plan also indicates low planter walls within the private street's easement. These walls need to be moved out of the easement or deleted. Pursuant to the City's Planning and Zoning Code Section 22.20.110, the maximum height of a single family structure is 35 feet and two stories. Also, a third level may be constructed as a cellar, if it is located 50% or more below the grade. As defined in the Code, grade is the average of the finished ground level (AFG) at the center of all the single family structure's walls. In order to calculate the AFG, the Code requires the utilization of the elevation at the mid -point of all the structure's outside walls as a reference point for estimating the grade. Next, each indicated mid -point measure is identified on the grading plan. Total the mid -point measures. Divide by the number of measures taken for the actual AFG. The applicant calculated the AFG using the mid -point of the structure's outside walls. However, when doing these mid -point measures, the left portion (westerly) of the rear elevation's outside wall was not considered. This wall is part of the residential structure and should be considered. When considering this elevation (1175.7 and 1181.0), the AFG calculation is 1184.76 instead of 1187.26, as proposed. With an AFG calculation of 1184.76, the residential structure's height from the AFG is 37.5 feet and the cellar is not 50% or more below the AFG. As such, the cellar (pursuant to Code) is a basement (third story) and not permitted and the residential structure exceeds the 35 foot height limitation as measured from the AFG. When reviewing this project's design, the rear elevation must be considered from the view of neighboring properties below. This view will incorporate the rear wall (three levels) of the residential structure and two thirteen feet high retaining walls. Therefore, the total view of walls from neighboring properties below is approximately 63.5 feet high. June 12, 1995 Page 5 Planning Commission AstP/Lungu continued stating the applicant's conceptual landscape plan indicates extensive landscaping of the crib walls and rear yard's recreational area, as well as in the side and front yards. However, this landscaping can be considered a bandaid for the reality of walls totalling to approximately 63.5 feet in height. The proposed project was reviewed by the City's Building and Safety Department and the Engineering Department. Their comments and recommendations are included in staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony, and continue Variance No. 95-2 in order to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project. AstP/Lungu responded to Chair/Flamenbaum that there are no special circumstances that would necessitate the Planning Commission granting a variance. CDD/DeStefano stated the Planning Commission can request the applicant make changes to bring the project to compliance, continue the project and to deny the project as it is presented, or approve the project. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that the applicant has the opportunity to redesign the project. He indicated this is a self-induced hardship because there is not the necessity for this size home or for the proposed pool that requires the higher retaining wall. The home could be stepped. There are a number of changes that could be incorporated. The applicant has a right to propose a project and the Planning Commission can make a decision as to whether it is consistent with the character of "The Country Estates" neighborhood, consistent with the standards and practices the City has employed over the years and, in this case, whether those items will result in the need for a variance. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing open. Frank Piermarini, applicant for the proposed project stated he is in favor of the project as presented. He reviewed the staff report and is present to answer any questions the Planning Commission might have. Dan Wildish, 1704 Derringer Lane, indicated he lives across the street from the proposed project. He stated he is very much in favor of the project even though it blocks a portion of his westerly view. He further stated that, in his opinion, the proposed project conforms to June 12, 1995 Page 6 Planning Commission many of the homes currently in "The Country Estates". It is a lot that is difficult to build on and Mr. Piermarini has demonstrated his ability to effectively build on such lots. Kenneth Wilch, engineer for the proposed project, stated his firm has proposed extensive landscaping which, in his opinion, will be very effective in mitigating the view of the crib wall. He further stated he feels his calculations with respect to average finish grade are correct and he intends to discuss this matter further with staff. He indicated that the stepping process was utilized in the design of the project. Mr. Wilch responded to Chair/Flamenbaum that the retaining walls could be broken up further by having a series of six walls or four seven foot walls. In addition, there is no engineering obstacle to lowering the height of the structure. Mr. Wilch responded to C/Schad that a three step retaining wall would not enhance the stability. CDD/DeStefano stated that with respect to the calculation of the AFG there was a dispute between the Planning Department and the applicant. Because the staff has changed with respect to the review of this project, it has not changed the six and one-half year old policy of how the number is determined. In order to resolve the applicant's concern, staff requested Mike Meyer, Consultant Engineer, and Joe Buzzone, Plan Check Engineer for the Building and Safety Department, to calculate the AFG independently and both of them arrived at calculations similar to the Planning Staff, all creating a proposed structure that was above the allowed height maximum. The bottom line from staff's perspective is that this house has difficulties and the project is worthy of further consideration. It is staff's opinion that the differences can be worked out and eliminate a number of the variances that are now before the Planning Commission. Harold Sandifer, Fire Hollow Drive, stated he looks directly up at the proposed project from his home. He indicated that, in his opinion, it is very massive in appearance and he is concerned about the stability of the retaining walls, especially with a pool in the rear portion. Terry Straley, Fire Hollow Drive, indicated she is concerned that the 13 foot high retaining walls are too June 12, 1995 Page 7 Planning Commission massive and might not be stable. She would prefer to see stepped retaining walls. Claudia Huff, 1641 Fire Hollow Drive, stated she is concerned that the size of the project for the lot is pushing the envelope. This is an 8300 square foot house that appears to be too massive for the lot, especially with the limitations of the slope grade. She indicated she is also concerned about the height of the structure because it exceeds the City Code. She further stated that, in her opinion, it is not wise for the City to make too many exceptions. She stated she is not singling out this project, this is her opinion on projects citywide. She is also concerned about a pool in the crib wall area. Mr. Piermarini presented a rendering of the proposed crib wall landscaping. He stated that the proposed home is similar to most of the homes in existence along the ridge line. Mr. Piermarini responded to Chair/Flamenbaum that the proposed structure is approximately 500 feet above Fire Hollow Drive. Mr. Piermarini stated the crib walls must be approved by the City and there is no problem with stability. In addition, a swimming pool is lighter than the dirt that was originally in the location. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public hearing closed. C/Fong stated he feels the two 13 foot retaining walls are too massive and too high. He agrees with the concerned resident regarding the visual impact. The proposed project does not comply with the City's Code. He suggested that the applicant redesign the retaining walls to consist of a series of retaining walls and slopes to conform to the topography. In addition, the engineer should work with staff to resolve the AFG issue. C/Schad stated he is concerned about the retaining walls. They are too massive and should be sloped down to provide a more suitable visual appearance. He indicated he is also concerned about the proposed landscaping and the height of the trees that would be required to cover the retaining walls which could cause root damage to the structure. Chair/Flamenbaum reiterated the retaining wall issue. Two 13 foot walls is unacceptable. He stated he is concerned about the massive structure. He indicated he June 12, 1995 Page 8 Planning Commission is also concerned that the applicant might be proposing a two-family home. CE/Myers responded to Chair/Flamenbaum that the driveway grades are 15 percent and there is a landing at the top of the driveway which accesses the street. Chair/Flamenbaum indicated he would be in favor of reducing the size of the structure by two feet. C/Fong stated he feels the proposed landscaping is too extensive and is not compatible with the surrounding natural vegetation. Crib walls should be curved to conform with the natural slopes and terrain. C/Schad made a motion, seconded by C/Fong to direct staff to consider the comments of the Planning Commission and continue Variance No. 95-2 to January 22, 1996. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. VC/Huff returned to the dais. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: 1. Presentation of plaque to outgoing Commissioner Bob Huff. Chair/Flamenbaum presented a plaque to VC/Huff commemorating his service to the Planning Commission and wished him success in his new position as City Council Person. VC/Huff thanked the Commissioners for their support. C/Fong congratulated Mr. Huff and extended his support and good wishes. INFORMATION ITEMS: CDD/DeStefano stated the General Plan that was submitted by the citizens group has qualified for the ballot. The City Council will review the issue at the December 5, 1995 meeting. CDD/DeStefano indicated interviews for Senior Planner will be conducted on Monday, December 6, 1995 and the final selection will be made within the next two weeks. CDD/DeStefano responded to C/Fong that he will investigate the sign at the corner of Cold Springs Lane and Diamond Bar Boulevard for conformance. Chair/Flamenbaum requested a study for a road to the high school. CDD/DeStefano responded the City Council is June 12, 1995 Page 9 Planning Commission considering a strategic plan which will have different elements that need to be addressed over the next several years. One of the elements will be the question of a second access to the high school. .feta ANNOUNCEMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, Chairman Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Community Development Director Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman Fite fOX14W by ntl is File w�rev eby U - on It — and is ready for destr 6b; b�y City Clerk