Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 2006-20PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-20 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 2005-31 AND MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2006-03, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH AN ATTACHED SECOND DWELLING UNIT AND 6 - CAR GARAGE TOTALING 9,288 SQUARE FEET, AND A 16 FEET WIDE DRIVEWAY. ASSOCIATED WITH THE ABOVE DESCRIBED APPLICATIONS ARE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SUCH AS A TENNIS COURT, A POOL AND SPA, A DETACHED ENTERTAINMENT/BBQ AND POOL HOUSE AND A VIEWING GAZEBO. A. RECITALS The property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Wasif Siddique, and the Applicant, Bob Larivee, Award Winning Designs, have filed an application for Development Review No. 2005-31 on October 3, 2005, and an application for Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03 on January 27, 2006, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject requests are referred to as "the application." 2. The subject property is located at 2502 Razzak Circle, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, Caiifornla 91765. The site is legally described as Lot 181, Tract 30578, MB 785, Pages 1-25, The Tax Assessor No is 8713-009-066. 3. In November of 2005, staff notified the Applicant via telephone that the application was incomplete and that specified corrections were required to make the application complete. 4. On January 18, 2006, the Applicant was informed that the revised plans must be received by January 27, 2006, to be on the February 14, 2006, Planning Commission public hearing. 5. On January 27, 2006, the Applicant did not submit the revised plans. On January 30, 2006, the Applicant was contacted to inquire about the revised plans. There was; no response from the Applicant. 6. On February 3, 2006, 51 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail and three other locations were posted within the project neighborhood. On February 3, 2006, the project's public hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The 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. This is pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and 15332 of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. Based upon the evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearings on February 14, February 28, March 14, and May 23, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above -referenced Commission meetings, and together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The project applies to a parcel of land located at 2502 Razzak Circle, Diamond Bar, California, within the gated community identified as the Country Estates. The parcel contains 1.62 gross acres. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), maximum 1 Dwelling Unit/lot. The project site is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet (R-1-20,000). (c) The grading plan did not contain information regarding the various easements such as slope and restricted use easements identified in the Title Report. (d) The future street easement (Pathfinder Road) was shown on the grading plan and identified in the Title Report dated November 11, 2003. However, City records reflect that the street easement and associated slope easement were abandoned on August 18, 1980, by Instrument number 80-777705. (e) A "Restricted Use" easement was not accurately shown on the grading plan and the purpose of the Restricted Use easement was not explained. The plans showed that a portion of the proposed dwelling unit, swimming pool and spa, the tennis court and accessory structures are located in the Restricted Use easement. The Restricted Use easement prohibits habitable structures. 3 Planning Commissioner Resolution No. 2006-20 evidence in the record to support a finding of consistency with the general plan. (b) 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. Planning Commission Findings and Supporting Evidence: The proposed project mayimpact the safety of the surrounding properties because there is a lack of geotechnical investigation and study to determine whether the construction of the dwelling unit and its accessory structures will be safe. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support this required finding. (c) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. Planning Commission Findings and Supporting Evidence: The proposed project's architectural design and color palette are compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes within the Country Estates and the immediate neighborhood. (d) 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. Planning Commission Findings and Supporting Evidence: The design of the proposed project would not provide a desirable environment forits occupants or for the visiting public. The reason is that the preliminary information on the grading plan showed multiple retaining walls and the height of some of the retaining walls could be higher than 14 feet, which does not comply with the Hillside Management Section 22 of the Development Code. Anotherreason is that the grove of existing mature trees will be substantially impacted by the construction activity. Without accurate plans that have sufficient details, the Planning Commission cannot adequately analyze the proposed project to determine its aesthetic appeal and it compliance with this finding. (e) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the 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. 5 Planning Commissioner Resolution No. 2006-20 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF MAY 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. 1 j d By: C "�L Jo cManus, Chairman I, Nancy Fo 'g/Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution v duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commissloreld on the 23rd day of May 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Torn-, VC Nelnon, Everett, Lee, Chair McManus NOES: Commissioners: more ABSENT: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners None ATTEST: STATE OF CALIFORNI A COUNTY OF LOS ANGELESSS CITY OF DIA t OIND LAR I 1, TOMMYE A. CRinuiN5, CITY CL32RK OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAJ, DO SIE?x DIY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF P€.:PjI II;Y 'TiN. -c? THE LAW'S OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THF. KjRCOMIG TO BE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL r` -.S SA -ME APPEARS ON FILE IN MY OFFICE. IN WITNESS 70WHIRON, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND AFFIXED TII��FAI OF TITCITY DAY OF DIAMOND BAR, TRIS 0 2QEY ONIM E A. CRIBBINS, a Z BY DEPUTY 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-20 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-20 ARESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 2005-31 AND MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION NO. 2006-03, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW THREE-STORY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE WITH AN ATTACHED SECOND DWELLING UNIT AND 6 - CAR GARAGE TOTALING 9,288 SQUARE FEET, AND A 16 FEET WIDE DRIVEWAY. ASSOCIATED WITH THE ABOVE DESCRIBED APPLICATIONS ARE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SUCH AS A TENNIS COURT, A POOL AND SPA, A DETACHED ENTERTAINMENT/BBQ AND POOL HOUSE AND A VIEWING GAZEBO. A. RECITALS The property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Wasif Siddique, and the Applicant, Bob Larivee, Award Winning Designs, have filed an application for Development Review No. 2005-31 on October 3, 2005, and an application for Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-03 on January 27, 2006, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject requests are referred to as "the application." 2. The subject property is located at 2502 Razzak Circle, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California 91765. The site is legally described as Lot 181, Tract 30578, MB 785, Pages 1-25. The Tax Assessor No is 8713-009-066. 3. In November of :2005, staff notified the Applicant via telephone that the application was incomplete and that specified corrections were required to make the application complete. 4. On January 18, 2006, the Applicant was informed that the revised plans must be received by January 27, 2006, to be on the February 14, 2006, Planning Commission public hearing. 5. On January 27, 2006, the Applicant did not submit the revised plans. On January 30, 2006, the Applicant was contacted to inquire about the revised plans. There was no response from the Applicant. 6. On February 3, 2006, 51 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail and three other locations were posted within the project neighborhood. On February 3, 2006, the project's public hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The 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. This is pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and 15332 of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. Based upon the evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearings on February 14, February 28, March 14, and May 23, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above -referenced Commission meetings, and together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The project applies to a parcel of land located at 2502 Razzak Circle, Diamond Bar, California, within the gated community identified as the Country Estates. The parcel contains 1.62 gross acres. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is Rural Residential (RR), maximum 1 Dwelling Unit/lot. The project site is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet (R-1-20,000). (c) The grading plan did not contain information regarding the various easements such as slope and restricted use easements identified in the Title Report. (d) The future street easement (Pathfinder Road) was shown on the grading plan and identified in the Title Report dated November 11, 2003. However, City records reflect that the street easement and associated slope easement were abandoned on August 18, 1980, by Instrument number 80-777705. (e) A "Restricted Use" easement was not accurately shown on the grading plan and the purpose of the Restricted Use easement was not explained. The plans showed that a portion of the proposed dwelling unit, swimming pool and spa, the tennis court and accessory structures are located in the Restricted Use easement. The Restricted Use easement prohibits habitable structures. 3 Planning Commissioner Resolution No. 2006-20 evidence in the record to support a finding of consistency with the general plan. (b) 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. Planning Commission Findings and Supporting Evidence: The proposed project may impact the safety of the surrounding properties because there is a lack of geotechnical investigation and study to determine whether the construction of the dwelling unit and its accessory structures will be safe. Accordingly, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support this required finding. (c) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. Planning Commission Findings and Supporting Evidence: The proposed project's architectural design and color palette are compatible with the eclectic architectural style of other homes within the Country Estates and the immediate neighborhood. (d) 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. Planning Commission Findings and Supporting Evidence: The design of the proposed project would not provide a desirable environment for its occupants or for the visiting public. The reason is that the preliminary information on the grading plan showed multiple retaining walls and the height of some of the retaining walls could be higher than 14 feet, which does not comply with the Hillside Management Section 22 of the Development Code. Another reason is that the grove ofexisting mature trees will be substantially impacted by the construction activity. Without accurate plans that have sufficient details, the Planning Commission cannot adequately analyze the proposed project to determine its aesthetic appeal and it compliance with this finding. (e) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the 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. 5 Planning Commissioner Resolution No. 2006-20 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23rd DAY OF MAY 2006, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: 111 71 C %2—i cManus, Chairman I, Nancy Fo'g/Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution v— duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission/held on the 23rd day of May 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Torng, VC/Nelson, Everett, Lee, Chair McManus NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ATTEST: Nancy Fong; STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS CITY OF DIAMOND FAR 333 I, TOMMYE A. CRI 3I3INS. CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, DO HEREBY CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TFIIi. FORGOING TO BE A FULL, TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL AS SAME APPEARS ON FILE IN MY OFFICE. IN WITNESS WHEREON, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET MY HAND AND AFFIXED TH S THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, THIS C (WA DAY Of-!YYI ct4 2M TOMMXE A. CRIBBINS, CITY CL BY 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-20