Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 2007-38PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, DENYING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-25 AND VARIANCE NO. 2006-01 WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR THE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-STORY SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT NO. 97 OF TRACT 30081, LOCATED AT 1948 FLINT ROCK ROAD, - APN: 8713-032-025 A. RECITALS The Planning Commission considered an application filed by Mr. Pete Volbeda, AIA, on behalf of the property owners Christopher and Heidi Leu, requesting approval of plans to construct a new three-story, 8002 square foot single-family residence with an attached 1,069 square foot garage. In conjunction with the proposed project, the applicant requested multiple Variance applications requesting relief of the following standards: namely, a reduction of the front yard setback from 30 feet to 22 feet and the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 3 feet. Increase the maximum allowable retaining wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet and the maximum allowable size of a second dwelling unit from 1,200 square feet to 1,470 square feet, and exceed the maximum allowable building height from 35 feet to 28 feet. 2. The subject property is zoned R1-(40,000) RR and it contains 4.81 gross acres of land area. The subject property is legally described as Lot 30, Tract 30091 and the Assessor Parcel Number is (APN) 8713-032-025. Public Hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified of the proposed project by mail. Further, a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site, and at three other locations within the project vicinity. 5. On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. 6. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the proposed project for their adoption at the August 14, 2007, hearing. 7. On August 14, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the Development Review No. 2006-25 and Variance No. 2006-01. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 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 proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) in accordance to Sections 15303 and 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. Based upon the information contained in the submitted plans, the associated staff report and testimony given at the public hearing the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW a. The design and layout of the proposed development is not consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable zone district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized areas (e.g., specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments.) The design of the proposed single-family residence is not consistent with the RR zone's Development Standards and the City's Design Guidelines. Insufficient information has not been provided as to why the project as proposed cannot comply with the development standards of the City of Diamond Bar and the standards of the zone within which the subject property is located. b. The design and layout of the proposed development may interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and it may create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The subject property is located within a designed and developed residential estate neighborhood. The existing public and private improvements are available to support the proposed development and the surrounding neighborhood. However, the proposed single- family residence would have been located inappropriately close to the front property line and the rear building pad is insufficient to accommodate exterior recreational areas. 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-38 C. The architectural design of the proposed development is not compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and the proposed project will not maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48 Diamond Bar Development Code, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The design of the proposed single-family residence exceeds the allowable building height and it does not comply with the minimum allowable setbacks for the front and rear yards. in addition, the proposed retaining walls exceed the allowable height. The proposed project is an infill development that should be designed and constructed in compliance with the development standards utilized by the adjoining and surrounding development. d. The design of the proposed development will not 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. The project's exterior design does not include materials generally used to enhance and compliment the aesthetic quality of the surrounding neighborhood. e. The proposed project may 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. The proposed single-family residence is not consistent with the design quality of the surrounding dwellings. The mass of the proposed project cannot be achieved without the reduction of various development standards used by the existing surrounding development; therefore the proposed project would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. VARIANCE a. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property 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 makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards: The subject property is consistent in size shape and topography with the surrounding parcels of land. Insufficient evidence has been 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-38 provided to warrant a deviation from the City's development standards with respect to setback reduction, excessive retaining wall height, maximum size of a second dwelling unit and a building height that exceeds the zone's maximum allowable. b. Granting the variance is not 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 adjacent dwelling units were constructed in compliance with the City's development standards. Insufficient evidence has been provided to warrant a deviation from the City's development standards with respect to setback reduction, excessive retaining wall height, exceed the maximum allowable size of a second dwelling unit and a building height that exceeds the zone's maximum allowable. C. Granting the variance is not consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. The granting of deviations from the required setbacks, retaining wall height, maximum size of a second dwelling unit, minimum allowable building setbacks and allowable building height has not been supported to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. d. The proposed entitlement may be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The public welfare and safety would not be enhanced by the reduction of required building setbacks nor the increase in building height over which is permitted by zoning. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby denies this Application without prejudice. a. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates. b. All deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-38 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 Christopher and Heidi Leu, 22458 Falconburn Way, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and Mr. Pete Volbeda, AIA, 615 N. Benson Avenue, Unit D, Upland, CA 91786. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: Ton rng, Vice Ch an I, Nancy Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Wei, Nolan, VC/Torng NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Lee, Chair/Nelson ABSTAIN: Coxmis iorne s: None ATTEST: Na6cy'Fong, 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-38 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007-38 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, DENYING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2006-25 AND VARIANCE NO. 2006-01 WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR THE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-STORY SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCE ON LOT NO. 97 OF TRACT 30081, LOCATED AT 1948 FLINT ROCK ROAD, - APN: 8713-032-025 A. RECITALS 1. The Planning Commission considered an application filed by Mr. Pete Volbeda, AIA, on behalf of the property owners Christopher and Heidi Leu, requesting approval of plans to construct a new three-story, 8002 square foot single-family residence with an attached 1,069 square foot garage. In conjunction with the proposed project, the applicant requested multiple Variance applications requesting relief of the following standards: namely, a reduction of the front yard setback from 30 feet to 22 feet and the rear yard setback from 25 feet to 3 feet. Increase the maximum allowable retaining wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet and the maximum allowable size of a second dwelling unit from 1,200 square feet to 1,470 square feet, and exceed the maximum allowable building height from 35 feet to 28 feet. 2. The subject property is zoned R1-(40,000) RR and it contains 4.81 gross acres of land area. 3. The subject property is legally described as Lot 30, Tract 30091 and the Assessor Parcel Number is (APN) 8713-032-025. 4. Public Hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified of the proposed project by mail. Further, a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site, and at three other locations within the project vicinity. 5. On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date. 6. At the conclusion of the public hearing the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial for the proposed project for their adoption at the August 14, 2007, hearing. On August 14, 2007, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the Development Review No. 2006-25 and Variance No. 2006-01. 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 proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) in accordance to Sections 15303 and 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. 3. Based upon the information contained in the submitted plans, the associated staff report and testimony given at the public hearing the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW a. The design and layout of the proposed development is not consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable zone district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized areas (e.g., specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments.) The design of the proposed single-family residence is not consistent with the RR zone's Development Standards and the City's Design Guidelines. Insufficient information has not been provided as to why the project as proposed cannot comply with the development standards of the City of Diamond Bar and the standards of the zone within which the subject property is located. b. The design and layout of the proposed development may interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and it may create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The subject property is located within a designed and developed residential estate neighborhood. The existing public and private improvements are available to support the proposed development and the surrounding neighborhood. However, the proposed single- family residence would have been located inappropriately close to the front property line and the rear building pad is insufficient to accommodate exterior recreational areas. 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-38 c. The architectural design of the proposed development is not compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and the proposed project will not maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48 Diamond Bar Development Code, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The design of the proposed single-family residence exceeds the allowable building height and it does not comply with the minimum allowable setbacks for the front and rear yards. In addition, the proposed retaining walls exceed the allowable height. The proposed project is an infill development that should be designed and constructed in compliance with the development standards utilized by the adjoining and surrounding development. d. The design of the proposed development will not 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. The project's exterior design does not include materials generally used to enhance and compliment the aesthetic quality of the surrounding neighborhood. e. The proposed project may 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. The proposed single-family residence is not consistent with the design quality of the surrounding dwellings. The mass of the proposed project cannot be achieved without the reduction of various development standards used by the existing surrounding development; therefore the proposed project would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. VARIANCE a. There are no special circumstances applicable to the property 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 makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards: The subject property is consistent in size shape and topography with the surrounding parcels of land. Insufficient evidence has been 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-38 provided to warrant a deviation from the City's development standards with respect to setback reduction, excessive retaining wall height, maximum size of a second dwelling unit and a building height that exceeds the zone's maximum allowable. b. Granting the variance is not 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 adjacent dwelling units were constructed in compliance with the City's development standards. Insufficient evidence has been provided to warrant a deviation from the City's development standards with respect to setback reduction, excessive retaining wall height, exceed the maximum allowable size of a second dwelling unit and a building height that exceeds the zone's maximum allowable. c. Granting the variance is not consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. The granting of deviations from the required setbacks, retaining wall height, maximum size of a second dwelling unit, minimum allowable building setbacks and allowable building height has not been supported to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. d. The proposed entitlement may be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The public welfare and safety would not be enhanced by the reduction of required building setbacks nor the increase in building height over which is permitted by zoning. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby denies this Application without prejudice. a. Applicant shall pay development fees (including but not limited to Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department and Mitigation Monitoring) at the established rates. b. All deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-38 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 Christopher and Heidi Leu, 22458 Falconburn Way, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and Mr. Pete Volbeda, AIA, 615 N. Benson Avenue, Unit D, Upland, CA 91786. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: I, Nancy Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of August 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Wei, Nolan, VC/Torng NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: Lee, Chair/Nelson ABSTAIN: Copmis isoners: None 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-38