HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 98-15--
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 98-15
i I
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING A ONE YEAR
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR VARIANCE NO. 95-2 AND
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 96-1. THE PROJECT SITE
IS LOCATED AT 1729 DERRINGER LANE (LOT 6 OF
TRACT NO 24046) DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS.
1. The property owners/applicant, Jeffrey and Eddy Hu have
filed an application for a one year extension of time for
Variance No. 95-2 and Development Review No. 96-1 located
at 1729 Derringer Lane (Lot 6, Tract No. 24046), Los
Angeles County, California, as described above in the
title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
—_, Resolution, the subject Extension of Time shall be
j referred to as the "Application".
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was
established as a duly organized municipal corporation of
the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14
(1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as
the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and
22 of, the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development
Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently
applicable to development applications, including the
subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
3. Action was taken on the subject application as to the
consistency with the General Plan. It has been
determined that the proposed project is consistent with
the General Plan.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on
June 23, 1998 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the Application.
5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has
been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on June 1, 1998. Thirty
property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project
site were notified by mail on May 22, 1998.
1
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. This 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. Pursuant to the guideline of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), Negative Declaration No. 95-5 was
prepared and adopted by the Planning Commission on June
24, 1996, along with the approval of Variance No. 95-1
and Development Review No. 96-1. The extension of time
does not alter the project in any way. Therefore,
pursuant to CEQA, Title 14, Article 11, Section No. 15162
of the California Code of Regulations further
environmental review is not required.
3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and
determines that, having considered the record as a whole
including the findings set forth below, and changes and
alterations which have been incorporated into and
conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the
application, there is no evidence before this Planning
Commission that the project proposed herein will have the
potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or
the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon
substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby
rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in
Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of 1,
Regulations.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein,
this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
(a) The one year extension of time relates to a project
approved by the Planning Commission on June 24,
1996. That approval allowed the construction of
four retaining (crib) walls with interjacent
planters. The maximum height of three wall is eight
feet and the maximum height of one wall is six feet.
The approval also permitted the construct of an
8,334 square foot, two story single family residence
with a four car garage and swimming pool/spa.
(b) The project site has a General Plan Land Use
designation of Rural Residential (RR). It is zoned
Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 40,000
Square Feet (R-1-40,000).
(c) Generally, the following zones surround the project
site: to the north and south is the R-1-40,000 Zone;
and to the east is the Residential Planned
Development -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet -2
Units Per Acre (RPD -20,000-2U) Zone; and to the west
is the R-1-20,000 Zone.
2
(d)TheThe Application is a request for a one year
extension of time (expiring June 23, 1999) in order
to construct the Planning Commission approved
f project as described in above item (a).
- (e) The proposed extension of time and the approved
residential structure with retaining walls and
swimming pool is consistent with the General Plan.
The General Plan land use designation for the
project site is Rural Residential (RR -max. 1
du/acre). The project site is 1.23 acres with one
dwelling unit. Therefore, it is consistent with the
General Plan. Additionally, the extension of time
does not alter the approved project in any way.
(f) The proposed extension of time and approved
residential development is consistent with the
project site's zoning.
The project site is zoned R-1-40,000 which permits
the construction of residential development as
- described in above item (a). Additionally, this
project was approved by the Planning Commission on
June 24, 1996. The extension of time request does
not alter the project approved development standards
in any way. Therefore, the extension of time is
f�- consistent with the project site's zoning.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
(g) The design and layout of the proposed development is
consistent with the applicable elements of the
City's general plan, design guidelines of the
appropriate district, and any adopted architectural
criteria for specialized area, such as designated
historic districts, theme areas, specific plans,
community plans, boulevards, or planned
developments.
The extension of time does not physically alter the
previously approved project which is consistent with
the adopted General Plan, the project site's zoning
and Development Review ordinance No. 5 (1990). This
issue was addressed within the Planning Commission
June 24, 1996. Therefore, the design and layout of
the proposed development is consistent with the
applicable elements of the City's general plan,
design guidelines of the appropriate district, and
any adopted architectural criteria for specialized
area, such as designated historic districts, theme
areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards,
or planned developments.
(h) The design and layout of the proposed development
will not unreasonably interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future
development and will not create traffic or
pedestrian hazards.
The extension of time does not physically alter the
Previously approved project. The project site is a
vacant lot of.a previously approved subdivision. At
that time is was anticipated that a single family
residence would be constructed on the project site.
Additionally, it was determined with the Planning
Commission's June 24, 1996 approval that the design
and layout of''the proposed development will not
unreasonably'interfere with the use and enjoyment of
neighboring existing or future development and will
not create traffic or pedestrian hazards.
(i) The architectural design of the proposed development
is compatible with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood and will maintain -the harmonious,
orderly and attractive development contemplated by
Chapter 22.72 of Development Review Ordinance No. 5
(1990) and the City's general plan.,
The June 24, 1998 Planning Commission approval found
the project to be consistent with Chapter 22.72 of
Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990). Since
the extension of time does not -physically alter the
approved project, the project is still compatible
with the character''of the surrounding neighborhood
and in compliance with Chapter 22.72 of Development
Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990).
(j) 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 and will
retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance.
The Planning Commission approved architectural
design, materials and colors'will not be altered by
the extension of time approval. Additionally, the
architectural design, colors'and materials are
compatible with'the existing'homes with in the area.
Materials utilized are long lasting and easy to
maintain. Therefore, the proposed design of the
propose project 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 willxemain aesthetically
appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate
level of maintenance.
(k) The proposed development will not be detrimental to
public health, safety or welfare or materially
injurious to the properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
Before, the issuance ofrany City permits, the
proposed project is required to comply with all
conditions within the approved Planning Commission
Resolution No. 96-8, conditions set forth within
this Resolution and the Building and Safety, Public
Works and Engineering Divisions', and Fire
Department requirements. Through plan check
procedures, the issuance of building permits and
inspections, the proposed project will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare
or materially injurious to the properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
VARIANCE
(j) There 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 extension of time does not physically alter the
approved project in any way. This issue was
addressed and determined with the June 24, 1996
Planning Commission approval. However, because of
the project site's steep sloping toward the rear
with slope ratios varying from 2:1 and 1.5:1.
Therefore due to the topography of the site,
retaining walls are required to create the
development pad.
(k) The variance is necessary for the preservation of a
substantial property right of the applicant such as
that possessed by owners of other property in the
same vicinity and zone.
The extension of time does not physically alter the
approved project in any way. This issue was
addressed and determined in the Planning Commission
June 24, 1996 approval. However, the variance is
necessary because of the site's topography as
discussed in above item (j). Therefore, the
variance is necessary for the preservation of a
substantial property right of the applicant such as
that possessed by owners of other property in the
same vicinity and zone.
(1) The granting of the variance will not be materially
detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to
other property or improvements in the same vicinity
and zone.
This issued was addressed and determined in the
Planning Commission June 24, 1996 approval.
However, before the issuance of any City permits,
5
soils and geotechnical reports are required for
review and approval by the City along with plan
checks and inspections throughout the project's
development stages. Therefore, ,the granting of the
variance will not be materially detrimental to the
public welfare or be injurious to other property or
improvements in the same vicinity and zone.
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above,
the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application
subject to the following conditions:
(a) The project shall substantially conform to site
plan, floor plan, elevations, sections, roof plan,
landscape/irrigation plan and colors/material board
collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" dated June 23,
1998, as submitted and approved by,the Planning
Commission,
(b) The site shall be maintained in a condition which is
free of debris both during and after the con-
struction, 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, 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 shah 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.
(c) All conditions of approval listed within Resolution
No. 96-8 shall remain in full force and effect
unless amended as a part of this action.
(d) This grant is valid for one year from June 23, 1998
to June 23, 1999 and shall be exercised (i.e.
construction started) within that period or the
grant shall expire.
(q) 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,
within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant,
at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development
Department, 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 remaining City
processing fees.
6
111
(r) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that
Fish and Game Code Seddon 711.4 applies to the
approval of this project, then the applicant shall
remit to the City, within five days of this grant's
approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a
documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and
Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this
project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed
because the project has more than a deminimis impact
on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay
to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and
any fine which the Department determines to be owed.
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: Jeffrey and Eddy
Hu, 2945 Rio Lempa Drive, Hacienda Heights, CA
91745.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 1998, BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY: �
Joe McManus, Chairman
I, Jame�/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 23rd day of June, 1998,
by the following vote:
AYES: ' McManus, Tye, Kuo, Nelson Ruzicka
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
j ATTEST:
Jaimes D�eStefano, Secretary
7
J.--- - --1 — I -
PLANNING
--+-^-
PLANNING COMMISSION
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR APPROVING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME POR
VARIANCE NO. 95-2 AND D33VELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 96-1. THE
PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 1729 DERRINGER LANE (LOT 6 OF
TRACT NO 24046) DIA14OND BARr CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS.
1. The property owners/applicant, Jeffrey and Eddy Hu have filed an application for a one year
extension of time for Variance No. 95-2 and Development Review No. 96-1 located at 1729
Derringer Lane (Lot 6, Tract No. 24046), Los Angeles County, California, as described above
in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Extension of Time
shall be referred to as the "Application".
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal
corporation of the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
adopted its Ordinance No. 14
(1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond
Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development Code of the
County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the
subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
3. Action was taken on the subject application as to the
consistency with the General Plan. It has been determined that the proposed project is
consistent with the General Plan.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on June 23, 1998 conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on the Application.
5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune
and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on June 1, 1998. Thirty property owners within a
300 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on May 22, 1998.
1
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is,found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the
City of Diamond Bar as follows:
This 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. Pursuant to the guideline of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)i Negative Declaration No. 95-5 was prepared and adopted by the
Planning Commission on June 24, 1996, along with the approval of Variance No. 95-1 and
Development Review No. 96-1. The extension of time does not alter the project in any way.
Therefore, pursuant to CEQA, Title 14, Article 11, Section No. 15162 of the California Code
of Regulations further environmental review is not required.
The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and
determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth
below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and
conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence
before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of
an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based
upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of
adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby
finds as follows:
(a) The one year extension of time relates to a project approved by the Planning
Commission on June 24, 1996. That approval allowed the construction of four
retaining (crib) walls with interjacent planters. The maximum height of three wall is
eight feet and the maximum height of one wall is six feet. The approval also
permitted the construct of an 8,334 square foot, two story single family residence
with a four -car garage and swimming pool/spa.
(b) The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential (RR). It
is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 40,000 Square Feet (R-1-
40,000).
(c) Generally, the following zones surround the project
site: to the north and south is the R-1-40,000 Zone; and to the east is the Residential Planned
Development -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet -2 Units Per Acre (RPD -20,000-2U)
Zone; and to the west is the R-1-20,000 Zone.
(d) The Application is a request -for a one year extension of time (expiring June 23,
1999) in order to construct the Planning commission approved project as
described in above item (a).
(e) The proposed extension of time and the approved residential structure with
retaining walls and swimming pool is consistent with the General Plan.
The General Plan land use designation for the project site is Rural
Residential (RR -max. I du/acre). The project site is 1.23 acres with one
dwelling unit. Therefore, it is consistent with the General Plan. Additionally,
the extension of time does not alter the approved project in any way.
(f) The proposed extension of time and approved residential development is
consistent with the project site's zoning.
The project site is zoned R-1-40,000 which permits the construction of
residential development as described in above item (a). Additionally, this project was
approved by the Planning Commission on June 24, 1996. The extension of time request
does not alter the project approved development standards in any way. Therefore, the
extension of time is consistent with the project site's zoning. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
(g) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the
applicable elements of the City's general plan, design guidelines of the
appropriate district, and any adopted architectural criteria for specialized
area, such as designated historic districts, theme areas, specific plans,
community plans, boulevards, or planned developments.
The extension of time does not physically alter the previously approved
project which is consistent with the adopted General Plan, the project site's
zoning and Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990). This issue was
addressed within the Planning Commission June 24, 1996. Therefore, the
design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the
applicable elements of the City"s general plan, design guidelines of the
appropriate district, and any adopted architectural criteria for specialized
area, such as designated historic districts, theme areas, specific plans,
community plans, boulevards, or planned developments.
(h) The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably
interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future
development and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards.
The extension of time does not physically alter the previously approved project.
The project site is a vacant lot of,a previously approved subdivision. At that
time is was anticipated that a single family residence would be constructed on
the project site. Additionally, it was determined -with the Planning
Commission's June 24, 1996 approval that the design and layout of the
proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the use and
enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and will not create
traffic or pedestrian hazards.
The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain --
the' harmonious,
orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.72 of
Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990) and the City's general
The June 24, 1998 Planning Commission approval found the project to be
consistent with Chapter 22.72 of Development Revi ew Ordinance No. 5
(1990). Since the extension of time does not physically alter the approved
project, the project is still compatible with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood and in compliance with Chapter 22.72 of Development Review
Ordinance No. 5 (1990).
(j) 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 and will retain a reasonably
adequate level of maintenance.
The Planning commission approved architectural design, materials and
colors will not be altered by the extension of time approval.
Additionally, the architectural design, colors and materials are
compatible with the existing homes with in the area. Materials utilized
are long lasting and easy to maintain. Therefore, the proposed design
of the propose project will provide 4 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 and will retain a reasonably adequate level of
maintenance.
(k) The proposed development will not be detrimental to public health, safety or
welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
Before, the issuance ofAuany City permits, the proposed project is required
to comply with all conditions within the approved Planning Commission
Resolution No. 96-8, conditions set forth within this Resolution and the
Building and Safety, Public Works and Engineering Divisions', and Fire
Department requirements. Through plan check procedures, the issuance of
building permits and inspections, the proposed project will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to
the properties or improvements in the vicinity.
VARIANCE
There 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 extension of time does not physically alter the approved project in any
way. This issue was addressed and determined with the June 24, 1996
Planning Commission approval. However, because of the project site's
steep sloping toward the rear with slope ratios varying from 2:1 and 1.5:1.
Therefore due to the topography of the site, retaining walls are required to
create the development pad.
(k) The variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of
the applicant such as that possessed by owners of other property in the
same vicinity and zone.
The extension of time does not physically alter the approved project in any
way. This issue was addressed and determined in the Planning Commission
June 24, 1996 approval. However, the variance is necessary because of the
site's topography as discussed in above item Q). Therefore, the variance is
necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of the applicant
such as that possessed by owners of other property in the same vicinity and
zone.
(1) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the same vicinity
and zone.
This issued was addressed and determined in the Planning Commission June 24,
1996 approval. However, before the issuance of any City permits,
soils and geotechnical reports are required for review and approval by the
City along with plan checks and inspections throughout the projectfs
development stages. Therefore, the granting of the
variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or be
injurious to other property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone.
5 Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission
hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditions:
(a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, floor plan,— elevations,
sections, roof plan, landscape/irrigation plan and colors/material board
collectively labeled as Exhibit "All dated June 23, 1998, as submitted
and,approved by the Planning commission;
(b) The site shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris both during
and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the
entitle ment—granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris"and'refuse,
whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the
property owner, 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.
(c) All conditions of approval listed within Resolution No. 96-8 shall remain in full
force and effect unless amended as a part of this action.
(d) This grant is valid for one year from June 23, 1998 to June 23, 1999 and shall
be exercised (i.e. construction started) within that period or the grant shall
expire.
(q) 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, within fifteen
(15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community
Development Department, 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 remaining city processing fees.
(r) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Sed
ion 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit
to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashierfs check of
$25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game
Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee
imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and
wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any
such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed.
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:
Jeffrey and Eddy Hu, 2945 Rio Lempa Drive, Hacienda Heights, CA 91745.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF J11 NE, 1998, BY THE
BY: J —oe
I, JameWDeStefano, 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 23rd day of June, 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: McManus, Tye, Kuo, Nelson Ruzicka
ID[e7x.01159 La
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: WJa:mes DeSt
ames DeStefano, Secretary 7