Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 2002-34A. 1 i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2002-34 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMON 3 BAR APPROVING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME OF THE OCI OBER 24, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL FOR DEVELO DMENT REVIEW NO.2000-16(1)IMINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-15(1)/MINOR VARIANCE NO. 2000-17(1) THAT ALLOWS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, OF APPROXIMATELY 12,340 SQUARE FOOT WITH TWO GARAGES FOR FIVE -CARS, POOUSPA, GAZEBO, AND TENNIS COURT. A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO PROCESS THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY. THE MINOR VARIANCE IS A REQUEST TO DECREASE THE REAR YARD SETBAC BY 20 PERCENT. THE PROJECT SITE IS 2521 BRAIDED MANE. RECITALS. 1. The Property Owner, Ton -Dei Chiu, and Applicant, Tein Wang, have filed an extension of time application Development Review No. 00-16(1)/Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-15(1)/Minor Variance No. 2000-17(1) approved by the Planning Commission on October 24, 2000, for a property located at 2521 Braided Mane, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject extension of time for the Dev lopment Review/Minor Conditional Use Permit/Minor Variance shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On September 24, 2002, 34 property owners within a 500 -feet radius of the project s'te were notified by mail. On September 27, 2002, this item was advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valle Daii Bulletin r ewspapers. Further, on this date, a notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other public places were posted within the vicinity ol the application. 3. On Octo conduit B. RESOLUTION. NOW, THEREI ' Commission of r 8, 2002, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 1E, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning 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. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. This is pursuant to Section 15303(a) of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 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 Regulations. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a time extension of the October 24, 2000, Planning Commission approval by Resolution No. 2000-21. The Planning Commission approval allows the construction of a two-story, single-family residence, of approximately 12,340 square foot with two garages for five -cars, pool/spa, gazebo, and tennis court. . A Minor Conditional Use Permit is required to process the circular driveway. The Minor Variance is a request to decrease the rear yard setback by 20 percent. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), 1 du/acre. (c) The project site is zoned R-1-40,000, single-family residence. (d) Generally, the R-1 40,000 zone surrounds the subject site to the north, south, east and west. Extension of Time Findings (e) The permittee has established, with substantial evidence beyond the control of the permittee (e.g., demonstration of financial hardship, P: legal problems with the closure of the sale of the parcel, poor weather conditions in which to complete construction activities, etc.), why the !permit should be extended; The Applicant submitted a request in writing for a one-year extension of time. The extension of time is needed because the Applicant's traveling schedule and grading and retaining wall plan review and approvals were not finalized in order to meet the first deadline. Therefore, the extension of time is needed. The extension of time request does not modify the project's original approval in any way. (f) he proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the rovisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). e environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is tegoricaliy Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California vironmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15303(a). The y has determined that the extension of time does not substantially Inge the project and no further review is required. 5. Based n the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditio s: (a) he project shall substantially conform to the site plan, floor plans, e evations, grading ' plan, landscape plan, site photos, and aterials/colors board, collectively labeled as Exhibit "A", as submitted and as approved by the Planning Commission on October 24, 2000. (b) Panning Commission Resolution No. 2000-21 approved on April 11, 2000, shall remain in full force and effect except as amended herein. (c) This extension of time grant is valid for one year and shall be e ercised (i.e., construction started) within that period or this grant shall expire on October 24, 2003. (d) 1 fil( Di is grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee d owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have d, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of imnd Bar Community and Development Services Department, -ir affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the editions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until permittee pays remaining City processing fees, school fees and s for the review of submitted reports. (e) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 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: Ton -Dei Chiu, 2822 Bentley Way, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and Applicant, Tein Wang, 801 S. Garfield Avenue, Alhambra, CA 91801. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2002, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: '4Joe Ruzicka hairman t 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 8th day of October 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Nelson, Nolan, Chair Ruzicka NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 1' ATTEST: mes DeSt fano, Secretary 4 Tanaka; V/C Tye; PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2002-34 A RESO UTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY DIAMOt OF 1 BAR APPROVING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF THE OC' TIME OF )BER 24, 2000, PLANNING COMMISSION DEVEL APPROVAL FORWENT REVIEW NO. 2000-16(1)/MINOR C CONDITIONAL USE 40. 2000-15(1)/MINOR VARIANCE PERMIT NO. 2000-17(1) THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO - ALLOW! STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY CE, OF APPROXIMATELY RESIDEI 12,340 SQUARE FOOT WITH RAGES FOR FIVE -CARS, TWO G, POOL/SPA, GAZEBO, AND COURT. A MINOR TENNIS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS D TO PROCESS THE REQUIR CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY. THE MINOR 0 -IS A REQUEST TO VARIAN DECREASE THE REAR YARD BY 20 PERCENT. THE I A. RECITALS. 1. The Pr, Drty Owner, Ton -Dei Chiu, and Applicant, Tein Wang, have filed extensi Conditi an of time application Development Review No. 00-16(1)/Minor al Use Permit No. 2000-15(1)/Minor Variance No. 2000-17(1) by the Planning Commission on October 24, 2000, for a property located at 2521 Braided Mane, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject extension of time for the Development Review/Minor Conditional Use Permit/Minor Variance shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On Sept mber 24, 2002, 34 property owners within a 500 -feet radius of the project s'te were notified by mail. On September 27, 2002, this item was advertis d in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin ewspapers. Further, on this date, a notice of public hearing on a display oard was posted at the site and displayed for at least 10 days before th public hearing. Three other public places were posted within the vicinity o the application. 3. On October 8 2002, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducte and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. RESOLUTION. s 1OW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of t -e ty 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 determines that the project identified above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. This is pursuant to Section 15303(a) of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 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 Regulations. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a time extension of the October 24, 2000, Planning Commission approval by Resolution No. 2000-21. The Planning Commission approval allows the construction of a two- story, single-family residence, of approximately 12,340 square foot with two garages for five -cars, pool/spa, gazebo, and tennis court. . A Minor Conditional Use Permit is required to process the circular driveway. The Minor Variance is a request to decrease the rear yard setback by 20 percent. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), 1 du/acre. (c) The project site is zoned R-1-40,000, single-family residence. (d) Generally, the R-1 40,000 zone surrounds the subject site to the north, south, east and west. Extension of Time Findings (e) The permittee has established, with substantial evidence beyond the control of the permittee (e.g., demonstration of financial hardship, 2 legal problems with the closure of the sale of the parcel, poor weather conditions in which to complete construction activities, etc.), why the permit should be extended; The Applicant submitted a request in writing for a one-year extension of time. The extension of time is needed because the Applicant's traveling schedule and grading and retaining wall plan review and approvals were not finalized in order to meet the first deadline. Therefore, the extension of time is needed. The extension of time request does not modify the project's original approval in any way. (f) he proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the rovisions of the California environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is gorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California ronmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15303(a). The has determined that the extension of time does not substantially ige the project and no further review is required. 5. Based n the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditio s: (a) he project shall substantially conform to the site plan, floor plans, e evations, grading plan, landscape plan, site photos, and aterials/colors board, collectively labeled as Exhibit "A", as ed and as approved by the Planning Commission on ctober 24, 2000. (b) P anning Commission Resolution No. 2000-21 approved on April 11, 2000, shall remain in full force and effect except as amended herein. (c) This extension of time grant is valid for one year and shall be e ercised (i.e., construction started) within that period or this grant stall expire on October 24, 2003. (d s grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee i owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have i, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of mond Bar Community and Development Services Department, -r affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the ditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until permittee pays remaining City processing fees, school fees and s for the review of submitted reports. C] (e) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 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 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: Ton -Dei Chiu, 2822 Bentley Way, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and Applicant, Tein Wang, 801 S. Garfield Avenue, Alhambra, CA 91801. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2002, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: ' Joe Ruzicka hairman 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 8th day of October 2002, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners Nelson, Nolan, Tanaka; V/C Tye; Chair Ruzicka NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: A9