Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/11/2001 PLANNINi FILE COPY C.OMMISSIOIN AGENDA September 11, 2001 South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Bob Zirbes Joe Ruzicka George Kuo Steve Nelson Steve Tye 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 E. Copley Drive, 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 // 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 accomrriodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Dept. of Community & Development Services at (909) 396-5676 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 City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission ---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. In 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) 396-5676 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Friday. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 396-5676 Computer Access to Agendas (909) 860 -LINE General Agendas (909) 396-5676 email: info@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Tuesday, September 11, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Next Resolution No. 2001-30 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1 ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Bob Zirbes, Vice Chairman Joe Ruzicka, George Kuo, Steve Nelson, and Steve Tye. 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 recordinq Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntarv.) There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planninq 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: August 14, 2001. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. September 11, 2001 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Y 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING': 7.1 Variance No. 2001-06 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.54) is a request to construct a wrought iron perimeter fence and entry gates that will. exceed the maximum allowable height within the front setback. (Continued from July 24, 2001) PROJECT ADDRESS: 2859 Watercourse Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. Liu 2859 Watercourse Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Rodney Tapp 351 S. Thomas Street Pomona, CA 91766 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(e), the City has determined that this project is categorically exempt. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2001-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. September 11, 2001 ild Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:. , STATE LANTERMAN COMMUNITY ADVISORY: Tuesday', September 11, 2001 — 7:00 p.m. Research Conference Room Lanterman Development Center 3530 W. Pomona Blvd., Pomona TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION Thursday, September 13, 2001 — 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION MEETING: AQMD/Government Center Board Hearing Room 21865 E. Copley Drive CITY LANTERMAN MONITORING COMMITTEE: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: 11. ADJOURNMENT: Monday, September 17, 2001 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD/Government Center Room CC -8 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, September 18, 2001 - 6:30 p.m. AQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, September 25, 2001 — 6:00 p.m. AQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive .Tuesday, September 25, 2001 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD/Government Center Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, September 27, 2001 - 7:00 p.m. AQMD/Government Center Board Hearing Room 21865 E. Copley Drive MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 14, 2001 Chairman Zirbes called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kuo. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Bob Zirbes, Vice Chairman Joe Ruzicka, and Commissioners George Kuo, and Steve Tye. Commissioner Steve Nelson was excused. Also Present: James - DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Gary Olivas, Recreation Superintendent; Sara West, Athletics Specialist, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair/Zirbes requested that Item 8.1 be discussed prior to New Business. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 24, 2001. VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes for the regular July 10, 2001, meeting as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: OLD BUSINESS: None VC/Ruzicka, Kuo, Tye, Chair/Zirbes None Nelson AUGUST 14, 2001 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMSSION 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 94-04(2) (pursuant to Code Section 22.66.060 -Changes to an approved Project) is a request to modify a project approved by the Planning Commission on March 13, 1995, which allowed the construction of Pantera Park. The modification request would change the existing time schedule for operating the ball field lights. Current schedule: Sunday through Thursday - Sunset to 8:00 p.m. and Friday through Saturday - Sunset to 9:00 p.m. Proposed Schedule: Daily except Wednesday - Sunset to 9:00 p.m. and Wednesday - Sunset to 10:00 p.m. The proposed schedule is temporary until the renovation of Peterson Park turf areas are completed. If approved, the temporary schedule will commence in mid-August and conclude by December 31, 2001. PROJECT ADDRESS: 738 Pantera Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Bar 21825 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 VC/Ruzicka said he hopes that when this CUP is approved, all of the sports organizations that use the Pantera Park field take an aggressive stand to make certain that the attendees are considerate of the neighborhood. Chair/Zirbes opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Zirbes closed the public hearing. C/Tye stated he is concerned about traffic at the park and he does not believe that lighting the park will alleviate this problem. He asked what input has been offered to Ms. Gill. CSD/Rose said he spoke with Gloria Gill about this issue. The primary concern is that some people who attend the facility park on the street, rather than use the parking lot, which offers easier access to the ball fields. Since this prompts a transportation issue, it needs to be address with parking restrictions in that area. C/Tye asked if direction could be given to the sports organizations to use the parking lot. CSD/Rose responded that the Planning Commission may wish to make the request a condition of this approval. C/Kuo expressed concern about the adult softball members remaining in the park after 11:00 P.M. AUGUST 14, 2001 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION CSD/Rose indicated to C/Kuo that the City's municipal code states that parks with lighted facilities close at 10:00 p.m. Staff could request that the Sheriff's Department conduct a drive-through at about 10:00 p.m. to make certain individuals vacate the facility. VC/Ruzicka moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 94-04(2) with the following provision: That the sports organizations that use Pantera Park have board members on regular tour duty around the park to note improperly parked vehicles, get the license numbers, and immediately request that the vehicle be moved by announcing same over the loud speaker system. Motion died for lack of a second. C/Tye moved, Chair/Zirbes seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 94-04(2) with the condition that staff provide flyers containing strong language regarding the use of the parking lot facilities and consideration of the surrounding neighborhoods during the use of the practice field and/or ball field on Wednesday night. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMNIISSIONERS: Kuo, Tye, VC/Ruzicka, Chair/Zirbes NOES: COM IISSIONER& None ABSENT: COMIVIISSIONER& Nelson 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Standards Requiring the Installation of Front Yard Landscaping within Residential Zones: DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission discuss the attached information and direct staff appropriately. Chair/Zirbes proposed that the Commission consider modifying the existing property maintenance standards for residential properties to include landscaping requirements such as those contained in the property maintenance standards for the City of Arcadia to wit: "Yards and setback areas shall be landscaped with lawn, trees, shrubs, or other plant materials, and shall be permanently maintained in a neat and orderly manner. Pedestrian walkways and vehicular access ways shall not occupy more than (insert the current Diamond Bar standards) of the required front yard." Further, with respect to landscape maintenance, include the standards incorporated by the City of Upland as stated in Paragraph (g) in its entirety with the following amendment: Change "single family" to "residential" in line 3. C/Tye asked what happens when property owners do not comply with the property maintenance standards. DCM/DeStefano said that missing from Diamond Bar's standards is "shall be landscaped" as stated in Arcadia's standards. If front yards are not landscaped and held to defined AUGUST 14, 2001 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION standards, the City's citation process would kick in. In addition, the legal non -conforming residences could be directed to become conforming within a specified period of time such as one year. The specified needs to provide a reasonable notification period for compliance. Chair/Zirbes moved, VC/Ruzicka seconded, to direct staff to present draft landscape and maintenance standards for the Commission's consideration in accordance with tonight's discussion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. As detailed in the agenda. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: Kuo, Tye, VC/Ruzicka, Chair/Zirbes None None None There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Zirbes adjourned the meeting at 7:54 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Chairman Bob Zirbes glel:fiml 07-11111114 1, 1 ki I. I I IT, 1*4 "14:101"111111 MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROJECT LOCATION: I t TA91gui City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 7.1 August 11, 2001 September 11, 2001 Variance. No. 2001-06 A variance to construct a wrought iron fence of five -feet (5) in height supported by six foot (6) pilasters, and entry gates and connecting ten - foot high masonry entry walls within the required 30 -foot wide front yard setback: 2859 Watercourse Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Ming Ching Liu and Yang Cheung 2859 Watercourse Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 D. Rodney Tapp , 351 S. Thomas Street Pomona, CA 91766 The property owners, Ming Ching Liu and Yang Cheung, and applicant, Rodney Tapp, have submitted an application for Variance No. 2001-06. The applicant is requesting a variance from the City's fence regulations in order to construct a five-foot high masonry and wrought iron fence within the required front yard setback. The proposed project also includes a proposal for a ten - foot high masonry and wrought iron vehicular entry gate. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project at its meeting of July 24, 2001. Testimony was received from the general public and representatives of the affected homeowners association requested a continuance of the proposed project to afford them an opportunity to review the project with the homeowner association board of directors. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing to its regular meeting of September 11, 2001 to allow the applicant an opportunity to present the proposed project to the affected homeowners association for its review and consideration. The project site is located at 2859 Watercourse Drive. The site is comprised of approximately 65,011 gross square feet of land area. The net area of the site is approximately 56,600 net square feet after deduction of the public street rights-of-way. ConstrUction is currently "in progress for development of a 20,000 square foot two-story single-family residence . with detached multi -car garage, tennis court, gazebo and pool. The site contains approximately 262 linear feet of street frontage. The project site is zoned Single Family Residential — Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet (R-1, 20,000). Its General Plan Land Use Designation is RR (Rural Residential). Generally, the land uses surrounding the subject property include single-family residential (R-1, 20,000/RR) on the north, east, south, and west. ANALYSIS: Review Authority Pursuant to Chapter 22.44.020 of the Development Code, the Planning Commission is designated with review authority for this Variance Application. Development Standards The following is a comparison of the City's development standards as delineated under Chapter 22.20 of the Development Code, and the requested variance from proposed development standards established for the required 30 foot wide front yard setback: City's Required Development Standards Proposed Project Maximum Height of Fences: Proposed Height of Fences: Rear and Interior side yards — 6 feet Rear and Interior side yards — 6 feet Front and Street side yards — 42 inches Front yard — wrought iron fence of 5 feet (5) in height supported by six-foot high pilasters (6), with a transition to a formal entry defined by a solid masonry wall rising from an eight -foot high pilaster to a maximum height of 10 feet. An ornate wrought iron double entry gates of 20 feet in width and a maximum height of 9'/z feet. 2 "At Proposed Project Description The project pite is a residential property currently under development. The proposed project is the construction of approximately 292 linear feet of fencing to be located in the required front yard. The width of the parcel is approximately 262 feet. The proposed fence is to be located approximately, five feet from the front property line. The fence returns 25 feet to the setback line along the north property line and approximately 5 feet along the south property line. The fence is 5 feet high, the pilasters are 6 feet high and the 60 -foot wide masonry and wrought iron formal entry treatment rises from 8 feet to 10 feet in height. Application of the fence height limitations as required under Chapter 22.20 of the Development Code would prevent the construction of the proposed fence. The maximum height of a fence within the 30 -foot wide front yard setback is 42 inches. It is not unusual for residential estates of similar size to have six-foot high security fences surrounding the perimeter of the site. Because the new dwelling unit has been turned on the site the front edge of the structure is located 30 feet from the front property line. The functional use of the circular driveway and porte-cochere would be impacted if a fence were constructed 30 feet from the front property line. The applicant has submitted photographs of neighborhood homes that in his judgement represent the proposed fencing program. Although, the photographs do depict fences in excess of 42 inches in height located in front yards, they are generally located atop retaining walls. Although the scale of the surrounding neighborhood fencing is similar, the topographical circumstances are not similar to those that affect the subject property. The photographs are attached for your review. Staff is suggesting that the wrought iron fence not exceed 5 feet in height. The masonry pilasters should not exceed a height of six feet. The formal entry gate should not exceed a height of eight feet. The vehicular access gates should be set back at least 24 feet from t ' he edge of the public/private roadbed so as to insure that a vehicle can be parked off of the public roadway while the automatic gates are operating. With the proposed modifications the staff is suggesting that the Planning Commission can make the required variance findings of fact. The proposed fencing and associated entry treatment is an improvement that exists at a similar scale on a number of surrounding residential properties of similar size, zoning, and configuration. Approval of the requested variance will not represent a grant of special privilege to the subject property. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives and strategies as set forth in the City's adopted General Plan. The adopted design guidelines do not prohibit the requested fencing program as modified by staff. The proposed project improvements are contained within the confines of the property and are considered minor in nature. As such, the improvements will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. 3 CONCLUSION: The proposed improvements when modified as suggested, are similar to those enjoyed by surrounding residential properties, and would be in scale and compatible with existing improvements on properties of similar zoning, size and configuration within the neighborhood. With respect to this application request; the Pla--h-h-ifing Commission -has the following Options: 1. Adopt a resolution approving or conditionally approving the proposed project; or 2. Continue the project to a date certain for specific reasons; or. 3. Adopt a resolution denying the proposed project. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: This item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on July 6, 2001. Notices were mailed to approximately 42 property owners within a 500 - foot radius of the project site on July 12, 2001. A notice of public hearing on a display board measuring at least 4 foot by 6 foot was posted at the project site on July 13, 2001 and displayed for at least 1.0 days before the public hearing. Also, a notice of public hearing was posted at three public places on July 13, 2001. The Planning Commission at its meeting of July 24, 2001 continued the public hearing to Tuesday, September 11, 2001. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: It is the recommendation of the planning department that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(e), "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Before the Planning Commission can grant a variance from the City's development regulations of the following findings of fact must be made: 1. There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions), so that the strict application of this Development Code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which make it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards; El 2. Granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district and denied to the property owner for which the Variance is sought; 3. Granting the Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 4. The proposed entitlement would not be. detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and 5. The proposed entitlement has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has prepared suggested findings of fact that are set forth in the attached draft resolution. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing, and adopt a resolution approving the propose project as amended and subject to comply with the conditions set forth in the attached draft Resolution. Prepared by: LDIVI Associates ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution 2. Exhibit "A" — site plan, elevations, site photographs; and 3. Applicant's Application. 4. July 11, 2001, Staff Report 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CONDITIONALLY APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 2001-06 AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A WROUGHT IRON AND PILASTER FENCE, ENTRY GATES AND MASONRY WALLS WITHIN THE FRONT SETBACK OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 2859 WATERCOURSE DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. WHEREAS: The applicant, Rodney Tapp, acting as the agent for property owners Ming Ching Liu and Yang Cheung, has filed an application for Variance No. 2001-06 for a property located at 2859 Watercourse Drive, Diamond Bar, California. The applicant has requested relief of the City's development regulations concerning the height of fencing located within the required front yard setback; and WHEREAS: Notice of the public hearing has been posted, published and mailed in a manner prescribed by the Diamond Bar Development Code; and WHEREAS: On July 24, and September 11, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted duly noticed public hearings on the Application. NOW, THEREFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, FIND AND DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION A. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct. SECTION B. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the proposed project is Categorical Exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Section 15303 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines. The exemption documents have been prepared in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and local guidelines. Furthermore, the Categorical Exemption reflects the independent judgement of the City. SECTION C. The Planning Commission declares that the information in the Staff Report and the testimony given at the public hearings are incorporated in this resolution and comprise the basis upon which the findings have been made. SECTION D. The Planning Commission hereby finds the proposed project is generally described as follows: The project site is a 65,011 square foot parcel of land located at 2859 Watercourse Drive. 2. The proposed project includes the construction of approximately 292 linear feet of five-foot high wrought iron fencing with six-foot high masonry pilasters, and a 60 foot wide formal vehicular entry statement consisting of eight to ten foot high masonry walls. A twenty -foot wide, nine and one-half foot high wrought iron vehicular entry gate is shown on the submitted plans. The proposed fencing and entry statement is located within the required 30 -foot wide front yard setback area. 3. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of RR (Rural Residential). 4. The project site is zoned R-1-20,000. SECTION E. The Planning Commission finds: There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions), so that the strict application of this Development Code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which make it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards; The subject property is substantially larger than the surrounding parcels of land. However, existing slopes have reduced the effective building pad area upon which the owner is in the process of construction a two-story 20,000 square foot single- family dwelling unit. The structure has been turned on the building pad and it is not perpendicular to the surrounding property lines. The front of the dwelling contains a Porte-cochere and circular driveway. Install the proposed security, fencing behind the required 30 -foot wide setback would impact the existing driveway and parking areas. 2. Granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial *property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district and denied to the property owner for which the Variance is sought; The proposed project as modified is a site development amenity that exists on a number of surrounding residential properties of similar size, zoning, and configuration. The site topography, configuration and the location of the dwelling unit severely limits the applicant's ability to locate the proposed fencing behind or at the prescribed front yard setback. Without the requested relief, the proposed fence would obstruct the functionality of the approved driveway and parking amenities. 3. Granting the Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives and strategies as set forth in the City's adopted General Plan. 4. The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. The proposed project improvements are contained within the confines of the property and are considered minor in nature. As such, the improvements will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. K 5. The proposed entitlement has been reviewed for compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). SECTION F. Baseclon the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditions: 1 The project shall substantially conform to the submitted plans presented to the Planning Commission, and as such plans are amended herein. 2. The maximum height of the fence and its components shall -conform with the following: the wrought iron fencing shall not exceed a maximum height of five -feet; the proposed masonry pilasters shall not exceed a height of six -feet; the masonry entry element and associated vehicular wrought iron grates shall not exceed a height of eight -feet. All measurements shall be made from the adjacent finished grade. 3. The vehicular access gates shall be set back 24 feet from the edge of the private roadbed in order to insure that a vehicle can be parked between the vehicular access gates and the private roadbed. 4. Construction plans, inclusive of design details and final elevations shall be submitted to the Planning Division, and are subject to approval by the Deputy City Manager prior to acceptance for building department plan check. 5. The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The 'removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, the applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 6. Construction activity shall be limited to the times prescribed by the City's Development Code. 7. Construction Plans shall conform to State and Local Building Codes (i.e. 1998 editions of the Uniform Building Code, Plumbing Code, Mechanical Code and 1998 edition of the National Electrical Code) as well as the State Energy Code. 8. This entitlement is valid for one year and must be exercised (i.e. construction started) within that period or this entitlement shall automatically expire. A six-month extension may be requested in writing and submitted to the City 30 days prior to the expiration date. 9. This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays applicable City processing fees, school fees and other associated fees for the review of submitted reports. 3 R A T 10. All requirements of the Development Code and the underlying zone. district shall be complied with unless modified by this entitlement. SECTION G. The Planning Commission shall: 1 Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and 2. Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to the applicant. pplicant. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11U' OF SEPTEMBER 2001; BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. L--yA Chairman 1, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 11th Day of September 2001, by the following vote: ATTEST: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James DeStefano, Secretary !H 09/06/2001 14:45 09/04/20rdi 16:07 P--� 9094766086 989s2209l7 LDm MDG ASSOCIATES PAGE 02 ' PA5E- 02 5.,, _ crrY � ' DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - _ 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 F ^ (909)396-5676 Fax (909)861-3117 .011111I�_VARIANGE APPLICATION Record Owner Name L i p We - (Laic nante first) Applicant Liu Miz . (last name first) Address City tfM\&—PW iE?&Pl zip nt & 15 Gases _ P. _ _ FPL go)/ ,5' CO- �7' Deposit $ � Receipt# By Date Recd _--1 Applicant's Agent Phone( ) - Phone( ) Phone" (Z-!= /¢"7 -Z— NOTE: NOTE: It is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Community Development Director in writing of any change of the principals involved during the processing of this case. (Attach separate sheet, if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) Consent: I certify that I am the owner of the herein described property and permit the applicant to iik this request. Signed 'v%- �-i ✓� Date (All record owners) Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Print Name t2- �!vo 0Agent) ' Signed Date lap I gent) IV -- Location - (Street address or tract and lot number) - between and (Street) (Street) Zoning HNM— Project Size (gross acres) Previous Cases Present Use of Site Project Density Domestic water Source Oo y/District Method of Sewage Disposal Sanitation District , Grading of Lots by Applicant? YES NO Amount (Show necessary grading design on site plan or teat. map) LEGAL DESCRIPTION (All Ownership comprising the proposed lots/project). If petitioning for zone change, attach legal description of exterior boundaries of arm subject to the change.) Project Site: Gross Area No. of Lots Area devoted to : Structures Open Space Residential project: and Grow Area No. of Rom Proposed Density Units/Acres Number and types of Unita Residential Parking: Type Required Provided Total Required Total Provided VARIANCE CASE -BURDEN OF PROOF In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission, the following facts: A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not: 1. Advawly affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare or persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or 2. Be materially detriments] to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or 3. Jeopardize, endanger or other wise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. The position of the design elements allows for adequate sight distance for vehicle intersection p and in all ways is a positive:-de;.sign element for project and neighborhood. B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Ordinance, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. The 20,000 sq. foot house with extended portico will be complimented with a more signifecant entry statement. 30" cols, 8" high decore gates are. �ypicai Tor tne nelgnl5ornooZI anZ1 compItIREME. LIM Site elements. C. That the proposed site is adequately saved: 1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to cam the kind and quantity of traffic. such use would generate, and 2. By other public or private service facilities as are required. The site is adequately served by such facilities Improvements are proposed to compliment adjacent development. D. That them are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which are not generally applicable to other properties in the same'vicinity and under identical zoning classification. The combination of t.-.2, lots for purposes of building a 20,000 sq.foot residence with access to the local street is *best- served, Visually and physically with the increased scale to the gated entry. E. That such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of the applicant such as that possessed by ownera of other property is the vicinity and zone. Setbacks vary within the neighborl.n'gdproperties. ;he upscale home 2 story of 20,008 sq. ft. meets : the 30' setback requirements. There is need to increase the scale for vehicle entry & give elegance with F. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrizzwntal to the public welfare or be injurious g at i n g . to other property or improvements in the sam vicinity and zone. As.noted with the attached photographs, the purpose is 't'o compliment the neighborhood in character. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: CASEXILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROJECT LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNERS: M'PLICANT: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 8.1 July 11, 2001 July 24, 2001 Variance No. 2001-06 A variance to construct within the front setback: a wrought iron fence of five -feet (5') in height supported by six foot (6') pilasters, and entry gates and connecting masonry entry walls and pilasters to a maximum height of ten feet (10'). 2859 Watercourse Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Ming Ching Liu and Yang Cheung 2859 Watercourse Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 D. Rodney Tapp 351 S. Thomas Street Pomona, CA 91766 The property owners, Ming Ching Liu and Yang Cheung, and applicant, Rodney Tapp have submitted an application for Variance No. 2001-06. The applicant is requesting a variance for the height of the front entry gates and related masonry walls and pilasters, and height of the wrought iron perimeter fence to be located within the front yard setback. The project site is located at 2859 Watercourse Drive and is comprised of approximately 65,011 gross square feet of land, or approximately 56,600 net square feet after deduction of the public street rights-of-way. Construction is currently in progress for development of an approximate 20,000 square foot two-story single-family residence with detached multi -car garage, tennis court, gazebo and pool. The site contains approximately 262 linear feet of street frontage. The project site is zoned Single Family Residential — Minimum Lot Size 20,000, square feet (R -_l, 20,000). Its General Plan Land Use Designation is Rural Residential (RR). Generally, the land uses surrounding the subject property include single-family residential (R-1, 20,000/RR) on the north, east, south, and west. ANALYSIS: Review Authority Pursuant to Chapter 22.44.020 of the Development Code, the Planning Commission is designated with review authority for this Variance Application request. Development Standards The following is a comparison of the City's development standards as delineated under Chapter 22.20 of the Development Code, and the requested variance from proposed development standards established for the required 30 foot wide front yard setback: City's Required Development Standards Proposed Project Maximum Height of Fences: Proposed Height of Fences: Rear and Interior side yards — 6 feet Rear and Interior side yards — 6 feet Front and Street side yards — 42 inches Front yard — wrought iron fence of 5 feet (5') in height supported by six-foot high pilasters (6'), with a transition to I a formal entry defined by a solid masonry wall rising from an eight -foot high pilaster to a maximum height of 10 feet. An ornate wrought iron double entry gates of 20 feet in width and a maximum height of 9'/z feet. 2 Proposed Proiect Description The project site is a residential property currently under development. The proposed project is the construction of approximately 322 linear feet of front yard fencing. The width of the parcel is approximately 262 feet. The proposed fence is to be located approximately five feet from the front property line. The fence returns 25 feet to the setback line along the north property line and approximately 5 feet along the south property line. The total length of fence under consideration is approximately 292 linear feet. The fence is 5 feet high, the pilasters are 6 feet high and the 60 -foot long masonry and wrought iron formal entry treatment rises from 8 feet to 10 feet in height. Application of the fence height limitations required under Chapter 22.20 of the Development Code could create an incongruity of scale between the site improvements and the accessory fencing. Application of the 42 -inch fence height limitation within the front setback could further impose limitations on development of the site relative to containing the amenities afforded and enjoyed by,surrounding property owners. The applicant has submitted photographs of similar fencing amenities that he believes exist within the surrounding neighborhood. The photographs are attached for your review. Staff is suggesting that the wrought iron fence not exceed 5 feet in height. The masonry pilasters should not exceed a height of six feet. The formal entry gate should not exceed a height of eight feet. The vehicular access gates should be set back at least 24 feet from the edge of the public/private roadbed. With the proposed modifications the staff is suggesting that the following findings of fact can be made: The proposed fencing and associated entry treatment is an improvement that exists at a . similar scale on a number of residential properties of similar size, zoning, and configuration surrounding the site. Granting of the Variance will provide for an equitable application of this property right. Additionally, the proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives and strategies as set forth in the City's adopted General Plan. The proposed project improvements are contained within the confines of the property and are considered minor in nature. As such, the improvements will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. CONCLUSION: The proposed improvements when modified as suggested, are similar to those enjoyed by surrounding residential properties, and would be in scale and compatible with existing improvements on properties of similar zoning, size and configuration within the neighborhood. With respect to this application request, the Planning Commission has the option to do the following: 1. Approve a resolution of approval with or without conditions. 3 2. Continue this project to a future public hearing date in order to allow the applicant time to submit a re -designed project pursuant to direction received from -the Planning Commission. 3. Direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. On July 6., 2001, this item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. On July 12, 2001, notices were mailed to approximately 42 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site. On July 13, 2001, a notice of public hearing on a display board measuring at least four foot by six foot was posted at the project site and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing, and a notice of public hearing was posted at three public places. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(e), "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures — Accessory Structures," the City has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 2001-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. REQUIRED VARIANCE FINDINGS: There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions), so that the strict application of this Development Code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable regulation'which make it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards; ?. Granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning district and denied to the property owner for which the Variance is sought; 3. Granting the Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; 4. The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City; and L, 5. The proposed entitlement has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prepared by: LDM Associates ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Resolution of Approval; 2. Exhibit "A" — site plan, elevations, site photographs; and 3. Applications. R 07/03/2001 11:39 9096220917 LAND DESIGN T PAGE 02 IL q NV PROJECT. ITE -1 V It I N ITY MAP �PROPOSED RESIDENCE FOR: M r#ll I CHI NG LIU & YAN CHEUN.G CRYSTAL RIDGESTATES PHASE II .2859 WATER COURSE DRIVE DI.AMOND.BAR, CA... PARCEL Fj6TRAC..T 47850, C0 -.,0F LGS ANGELE5 V% s a ti c� Z OV W UQ WM W`0 _D �_d J ND O s if, 11 Pill NOI.LVA313.LSV3 I I . . -:ltiejl iuj d--J.Lv/" b5klc, 33N30lSMj nrl , stl.L"vlww . .......... N" m ,( W Z cr w tu C3-0 w 0 JNO Y ��•k Lam`• .• 4=..'.'ji3.''--.''r :.}fin _ _ ': _ -.: yr':'. t � i t .•� � r. — t x t ti � �w•''p�y1 d i a �. r � t :< •i.r �.r� 0 t v e f rel r4-0ry.: • is x :rJ I +' 4 1 _+xst •K. r ansa•-J„�t• i r k -•'� �• 4 7x711 . C v .��s.. �4 `S+1 L �C �r vid't9,�lb''cT'ry1c .�--y^'••a.. t� tL'^. c i i Y 7•i; �• >' t t �r. �.. Y "'3-c .yam• ...�� .g'•c,yi, - St��.dJ;�. • r Y.. �!.'. 7 t. 1 Y i t ' Ayr 5 •I ��•k Lam`• .• 4=..'.'ji3.''--.''r :.}fin _ _ ': _ -.: yr':'. t � i t .•� � r. — t x t ti � �w•''p�y1 d i a �. r � t :< •i.r �.r� 0 t v e f rel r4-0ry.: • is x :rJ I +' 4 1 _+xst •K. r ansa•-J„�t• i r k -•'� �• 4 7x711 . C v .��s.. �4 `S+1 L �C �r vid't9,�lb''cT'ry1c .�--y^'••a.. t� tL'^. c i i Y 7•i; �• >' t t �r. �.. Y "'3-c .yam• ...�� .g'•c,yi, - St��.dJ;�. • r Y.. �!.'. 7 t. 1 Y i t ' 0 X', LO ,V4;t ,„ I It LO I It LO 3 NOTE: The young woman pictured is exactly 5'-0" tall. All wroperties fall within a 700,foot radius of 2859 Watercourse Dr. o -Ago .000�11 ft - �--'_-� 2888 Vista Court 2858 Crystal R,,i,dge | ~~' ` _ .Awl �L= 2896 Vista -Court � 2858 C!)Lstal Ridge u rl 2 u z aN 2 U z I -u 1, 1 2 U 0 u u C% rl- U Ro 00 �o C4 F-) Ou oaz 00 W U oz U U 00 9L C En z uj 04 0 UJ 0 z C0 z Z z z z z z cn cn V) Co w u > U Z < o U Z Lo Ln u UJ uU O j < < U, 0 0 0 Q4 uj -j CL O o Uu U. to 00 z 0 cA z rF) c? 0 \0 (U C 0 0 C4 c, 00 ) C) C) U C14 CL. < cq N �D u < U u U > 00 in to tn 00 U 0 Com, z Z u z C) :Z) It to C% V) V) z C�) OU CD 0 0 C> 0 0c/) U >, U C14 U cz N C) z U u u s u U � 0 04 C4 w tic 1:� z 0 0 to z z ;�, 0 < cl z aj z u u 2 u z 2 U z I -u 1, 1 2 U 0 u u C% rl- 00 CN 00 �o C4 oaz 00 W U oz C4 C En z z a! 04 0 C0 z 0 z oaz oz O¢ Z z z z z cn cn V) Co V) En < o U Z Lo Ln u u uU 0 0 0 Q4 04 z 0 cA z CIO uuaa 0 z w 0 0 u 0 .0 tn 00 in to tn 00 It to C% C\ CD 0 CD 0 0 C> 0 ON Cd u C14 r4 N > U u u u u 0 0 cn z z 0 u cn z cn z u U) o z B Cl) �5 0 U 0 "d U ) UO C) C)ti -0 cn cc,)) 0 s CIO En co u z 0-4 En Ga z z 5 z � U > 0 0 U UV UV z 0 z C) I O U :i O 0- 0 oz b LL m 0 z 1:4 C) U Z aH °� 30 C,: u 00 C14 C14 cq u z u cd W bowgiv, 9 f , vue tiEa Ai%,V) --th:D l4d fXAlaul0-*b \>.y.yp\ �� >...�� w A«mawA --� ������� r� ��`��© � � »«% »4 4�«,**n.��¥�.. �°�: �. \ / * a x =�, \� tw��±cG +y/�\