HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 2001-14PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR DENYING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2000-22, A
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 10,530 SQUARE FEET INCLUDING
THE GARAGE, DECKS AND COVERED PORCH/PATIO. THE
'PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 1200 CHISHOLM TRAIL (LOTS 14
AND 15, TRACT NO. 37873), DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS.
1. The property owner, Adriana Amaral and applicant, Federal Fire Reconstruction,
have filed an application for Development Review No. 2000-22 for a property
located at 1200 Chisholm Trail, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review shall be referred
to as the "Application."
2. On January 31, 2001, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided
in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers, and
public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 249 property owners of record
within a 500 -foot radius of the project. In addition the public hearing notice was
posted in three public places within the City of Diamond Bar. Furthermore on
February 2, 2001, the project site was posted with the required display board.
3. On February' 13, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. At that time, the public
hearing was' opened, public comments were received and pursuant to the,
applicant's request, the public hearing was continued to March 27, 2001. The
purpose of the continuance was to allow the applicant time to submit a redesigned
project compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and provide a soils report
confirming the viability of the proposed project for the City's review and approval.
4. On March 27 2001, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to
April 10, 2001. On April 10, 2001, the Planning Commission continued the public
hearing to May 22, 2001. All continuances were in accordance with the applicant's
request in order that the applicant might reduce the size of the project in response
to concerns raised by the Planning Commission.
5. On May 22, 2001, the Planning Commission concluded the public hearing.
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. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in this
Resolution is categorically exempt pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 and guidelines promulgated
thereunder, according to Section 15303(a),
3. An application has been filed pursuant to Development Code Section 22.48.030
for Development Review No. 2000-22. Notwithstanding a request by staff, the
applicant has not provided the following materials, rendering it impossible to
evaluate the scaled down application:
1. Verification of the project site's geological conditions;
2. Site plan delineating square footage reduction;
3. Rear elevation;
4. Roof plan delineating square footage reduction;
5. Floor plan with adjacent decks;
6. Landscape plan delineates oak trees to be planted; however, the applicant I'
will not be planting oak trees; and
7. Scale utilized on the floor plan. ILIJA
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
(a) The proposed project relates to a site comprised of two separate lots
identified as Lots 14 and 15 of Tract 37873. According to the applicant's
Title Report and the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor Map, Lot 14
contains about 13,330 square feet and Lot 15 cDntains about 31,986
square feet of gross square feet. The combined are,7.of both lots is 45,316
gross square feet. The combined lots create a kite shaped parcel with a
back yard that slopes downhill. Also, according to thy:: Los Angeles County
Tax Assessor Map, the project site contains an easement dedicated to
Southern California Edison for utility purposes.
(b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density
Residential (RL).
(c) The project site is within the Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size
8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000) Zone.
2
Iyl:
(d) Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north is the
R -3-8,000-30U Zone, to the south and east is the R-1-8,000 Zone and to
the west is the R -4-40U Zone.
(e) The Application request is to construct a two-story single-family residence
of approximately 10,630 square feet (lower level -3453 square feet, main
level -3,200 square feet, garage -1,866 square feet, decks -1,732 square feet
and covered porch/patio-368 square feet.)
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
(f) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the
applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, and
development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and
architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans,
community plans, boulevards or planned developments).
The proposed project is not,wnsistent with General Plan Objective 2.2 and
Strategies 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, which encourage a pattern of land use that
minimizes conflicts between adjacent land uses by requiring that new
development be compatible with surrounding land uses. The proposed
residential structure is not compatible with surrounding neighborhood
because of the proposed size. The proposed single-family residential
structure will have approximately 6,600 square feet of livable area.
Whereas, the surrounding neighborhood homes range in size from 1,500
square feet to 2,345 square feet of livable area. Additionally, there is a
rough transition between the proposed project and adjacent residences,
particularly when viewing the proposed single-family residence's rear
elevation from Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive. Furthermore, the
rear elevation is massive when compared to the surrounding neighborhood
homes.
Pursuant to the City Design Guidelines, the proposed project does not
make a smooth transition .o adjacent homes because it does not achieve
compatibility with the size dnd mass of existing -homes. The proposed
residential structure dominates the landform vie -wed from lower elevations
and from a distance.
Pursuant to the Development Code and its Development Review process,
the proposed project is also not consistent with General Plan Objective 3.2
which ensures, that new development yields a pleasant living environment
and attracts interest of residence and visitors as a result of consistent
exemplary design. The proposed project challenges the purposed and
intent of the Development Code/Development Review process by its
incompatibility with surrounding neighborhood homes as discussed above.
3
(g) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with
the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and
will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. !°Iii
"I'
The design and layout proposed project will interfere with the use and
enjoyment of the neighboring existing or future development due to its
incompatibility as discussed in Item (f) above.
(h) 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 22.48.20. Development Review Standards, City Design
Guidelines, the City's General Plan, or any applicable specific plan.
The architectural design of the proposed project is not compatible with the
character of the surrounding neighborhood in that the livable area of the
proposed single-family residence is more than double the livable area of
existing neighborhood residences. Additionally, there is a rough transition
between the proposed project and adjacent residences, particularly when
viewing the proposed single-family residence's rear elevation. The rear
elevation is massive when compared to the surrounding neighborhood
homes. Furthermore as discussed in Item (f), the proposed project is not
consistent with the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines and
Development Code/Development Review process.
(i) 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 proposed single-family residence manages to provide good aesthetic
use of materials, texture and color that are aesthetically pleasing and will
retain a reasonable adequate level of maintenance. However, the
proposed single-family residence is not compatible with existing
surrounding residences due to its size, massiveness and view factor as
seen from the rear by lower elevations and from Grand Avenue and Golden
Springs Drive.
Q) The proposed development will not be detrimental to public health, safety
or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or
resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
The proposed project will be detrimental to the public health safety or
welfare or materially dangerous to the properties or improvements in the
vicinity because of issues discussed in Items (f), (g), (h) and (i). I„,'.
,h„
�... ,.. �n...
. d"p'I- i'10T,l Ai, Y'� ad-ri'tl�ry p�o-u�Y:a»m�'n3k�T� a�,.�Y,f
'-
, v
Additionally, engineering issues related to the soils and slope stability have
not been completely addressed. Therefore, the project feasibility is still in
question.
(k) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is
categorically exempted pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 and guidelines promulgated
thereunder, according to Section 15303(a).
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission
hereby denies the Application.
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: Adriana Amaral, 14326 Rio Lobos Road, Diamond Bar, CA
91765 and Federal Fire Reconstruction, and 727 Brea Canyon
Road, #14, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND OF MAY 2001, BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY:.._;_ -f `ice\i
Bob Zirbes, Chairman
I, 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 22nd
day of May 2001, by 'he following vote:
AYES: Zirbes, Auzicka, Kuo, Nelson, Tye
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
_Y es 'DeS fano, Secretary
5
91we1►10111►L
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
NO. 2000-22, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OF APPROXIMATELY 10,630
SQUARE FEET INCLUDING THE GARAGE, DECKS AND
COVERED -PORCH/PATIO. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED
A. RECITALS.
The property owner, Adriana Amaral and applicant, Federal Fire
Reconstruction, have filed an application for Development Review No.
2000-22 for a property located at 1200 Chisholm Trail, Diamond Bar, Los
Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
2. On January 31, 2001, notification of the public hearing for this project was
in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
newspapers, and public hearing notices were mailed to approximately
249 property owners of record within a 500 -foot radius of the project. In
addition the public hearing notice was posted in three public places within
3. On February — 13, 2001, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond
Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. At that
time, the public hearing was opened, public comments were received and
pursuant to the applicant's request, the public hearing was continued to
March 27, 2001. The purpose of the continuance was to allow the
applicant time to submit a redesigned project compatible with the
4. On March 27 2001, the Planning Commission continued the public hearing to
April 10, 2001. On April 10, 2001, the Planning Commission continued the
public hearing to May 22, 2001. All continuances were in accordance with
the applicant's request in order that the applicant might reduce the size of
5. On May 22, 2001, the Planning Commission concluded the public
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determ 'ined 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
1
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the project identified above in this
Resolution is categorically exempt pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA—) of 1970 and guidelines promulgated
for Development Review No. 2000-22. Notwithstanding a request by staff, th
3. An application has been filed pursuant to Development Code Section 22.48.030
applicant has not provided the following materials, rendering it impossible t
evaluate the scaled down application
1 . Verification of the project site's geological conditions;
2. Site plan delineating square footage reduction;
3. Rear elevation;
4. Roof plan delineating square footage reduction;
5. Floor plan with adjacent decks;
6. Landscape plan delineates oak trees to beplanted-, however, the applican
will not be planting oak trees; an
7. Scale utilized on the floor plan.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission
hereby finds as follows:
a The proposed project relates to a site comprised of two separate lot
identified as Lots 14 and 15 of Tract 37873. According to theapplicant's
Title Report and the Los Angeles County Tax Assessor Map, Lot 1
contains about 13,330 square feet and Lot 15 contains about 31,98
square feet of gross square feet. The combined area,of both lots is 45,31
gross square feet. The combined lots create a kite shaped parcel with
back yard that slopes downhill. Also, according to th--, Los Angeles Coun
Tax Assessor Map, the project site contains an easement dedicated t
Southern California Edison for utility purposes.
b The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Densit
Residential (RL).
c The project site is within the Single Family Residential-Minimum Lot Size
8,000 Square Feet R-1-8,000 Zone.
V"
(d) Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north is the R-
3 -8,000-30U Zone, to the south and east is the R- 1 -8, 000 Zone and to
the west is the R -4-40U Zone.
(e) The Application request is to construct a two-story single-family residence of
approximately 10,630 square feet (lower level -3453 square feet, main
level -3,200 square feet, garage -1,866 square feet, decks -1,732 square
feet and covered porch/patio-368 square feet.)
DEVELOPMENT
(f) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the
applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines,
and development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines,
and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific
plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments).
The proposed project is not.wnsistent with General Plan Objective
2.2 and Strategies 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, which encourage a pattem of land
use that minimizes conflicts between adjacent land uses by
requiring that new development be compatible with surrounding
land uses. The proposed residential structure is not compatible with
surrounding, neighborhood because of the proposed size. The
proposed single-family residential structure will have approximately
6,600 square feet of livable area. Whereas, the surrounding
neighborhood homes range in size from 1,500 square feet to 2,345
square feet of livable area. Additionally, there is a rough transition
between the proposed project and adjacent residences, particularly
when viewing the proposed single-family residence's rear elevation
from Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive. Furthermore, the rear
Pursuant to the City Design Guidelines, the proposed project does
not make a smooth transition, o adjacent homes because it does not
achieve compatibility with the siz& 4nd mass of-exisfing--hemes-.
The proposed residential structure dominites the landform viewed
Pursuant to the Development Code and its Development Review
process, the proposed project is also not consistent with General
Plan Objective 3.2 which ensures, that new development yields a
pleasant living environment and attracts interest of residence and
visitors as a result of consistent exemplary design. The proposed
project challenges the purposed and intent of the Development
(g) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere
with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future
development and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards.
The design and layout proposed project will interfere with the
use and enjoyment of the neighboring existing or future
(h) 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 22.48.20. Development - Review
The architectural design of the proposed project is not
compatible with the character of the surrounding
neighborhood in that the livable area of the proposed single-
family residence is more than double the livable area of
existing neighborhood residences. Additionally, there is a
rough transition between the proposed project and adjacent
residences, particularly when viewing the proposed single-
family residence's rear elevation. The rear elevation is massive
when compared to the surrounding neighborhood homes.
(i) 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
The proposed single-family residence manages to provide
good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color that are
aesthetically pleasing and will retain a reasonable adequate
level of maintenance. However, the proposed single-family
residence is not compatible with existing surrounding
residences due to its size, massiveness and view factor as
The proposed development will not be detrimental to public health,
safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on
The proposed project will be detrimental to the public health
safety or welfare or materiall dangerous to the properties or
Additionally, engineering issues related to the soils and slope stability
have not been completely addressed. Therefore, the project feasibility is
still in question.
(k) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is
categorically exempted pursuant to the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 and guidelines promulgated
thereunder, according to Section 15303(a).
5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission
The Planning Commission shall:
(a) C,-,rtify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail,
to: Adriana Amaral, 14326 Rio Lobos Road, Diamond Bar, CA
91765 and Federal Fire Reconstruction, and 727 Brea Canyon
Road, #14, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 22ND 'OF MAY 2001, BY THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY: Bob Zirbes, 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
22nd day of May 2001, by„he following vote:
AYES:
Zirbes, Auzicka, Kuo, Nelson, Tye
NOES:
None
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
None None jas 'DeS fano,
ATTEST: as DeS fano, Secretary