Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/27/2015 PC AgendaPLANNING October 27, 201 %190 7:00 P.M. City Hall, Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chairperson Ruth Low Commissioner Frank Farago Commissioner Jen "Fred" Mahike Commissioner Bob Nishimura Commissioner Raymond Wolfe Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Community Development Department, located at 21810 Copley Drive, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 839-7030 during regular business hours. Written materials distributed to the Planning Commission within 72 hours of the Planning Commission meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title // of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation (s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 839-7030 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. BAR Please refrain from smoking, eating or / 110 ulty U/ Uldillullu 001 UOU0 I VUYL'1UU drinking in the Windmill Community Room paper and encourages you to do the same City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission ZT4-4��� The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. A request to address the Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the Commission. As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the'Chair. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community Development Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the contact information, below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded and duplicate recordings are available for a nominal charge. ADA REQUIREMENTS A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 839-7030 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday, and 7:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Friday. HELPFUL CONTACT INFORMATION Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, CDs of Meetings (909) 839-7030 Email: info(c-).diamondbarca.gov Website: www.diamondbarca.gov CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, October 27, 2015 rXem Next Resolution No. 2015-23 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Frank Farago, Bob Nishimura, Raymond Wolfe, Vice Chairperson Jen "Fred" Mahlke, Chairperson Ruth Low 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recordinq Secretary (co m letion of this form is voluntary). There i a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning Commission. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar` are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting: 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): October 13, 2015 7.1 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-326 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owner are requesting Development Review approval to construct a two-story addition consisting of 909 square feet of floor area to an existing 1,546 square -foot, two-story single-family residence with an attached 467 square -foot two -car garage on a 0.19 gross acre (8,482 gross square -foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow a two-story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a zero -foot north side setback (where 5 feet is required, and a nonconforming distance to a structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 8 feet, 4.5 inches (where 15 feet is required). The subject OCTOBER 27, 2015 �J 1�9 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. Project Address: 20732 Timberline Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner/ Chunwei Chi Applicant: 20732 Timberline Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 Environmental Determination: The project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Article 19 under Section 15301 (e) (addition to existing structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PI -2015-326, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: STAFF COMMENTS / INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: FALL FUN FESTIVAL AND HAUNTED HOUSE: DAYLIGHT SAVIGS TIME ENDS ELECTION DAY: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: VETERAN'S RECOGNITION Friday, October 30 and 31, 2015 Heritage Park 2900 S. Brea Canyon Road Sunday, November 1, 2015 - Remember to "Fall Back" Tuesday, November 3, 2015 Tuesday, November 3, 2015 — 6:30 p.m. South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Thursday, November 5, 2015 — 9:00 a.m. Diamond Bar Center Grandview Ballroom PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA VETERAN'S DAY HOLIDAY: TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: 11. ADJOURNMENT: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 — 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall, Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Wednesday, November 11, 2015 In observance of the holiday, City Hall Offices will be closed Thursday, November 12, 2015 - 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive Thursday, November 19, 2015 — 7:00 p.m. Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Community Room 21810 Copley Drive MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 2015 r-1-1 iE:3D,7 b7l A77' T Chair/Low called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chair Mahlke led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Frank Farago, Bob Nishimura, Raymond Wolfe, Vice Chairperson Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Chairperson Ruth Low Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Assistant Planner; Josue Espino, Planning Consultant; Mayuko Nakajima, Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. ' MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None KI 4 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 8, 2015. CANolfe moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve the Minutes of the September 8, 2015, Meeting as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: .3 NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/Mahlke, Chair/Low None None 7.1 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-264 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and owner requested Development Review approval to construct a two-story addition consisting of 1,406 square foot, one-story, OCTOBER 13, 2015 W PLANNING COMMISSION single family residence with an attached 666 square foot, two -car garage on a 0.15 gross acre (6,633 gross square foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a second -story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a 17 -foot, 8 -inch rear setback where 20 feet is required. The subject property is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Medium Density Residential PROJECT ADDRESS 216 Cottonwood Cove Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Lewis Lam 6556 Darcena Street Chino, CA 91710 APPLICANT: Richard Su 155 N. Lake Avenue, 8th Floor Pasadena, CA 91101 AP/Espinoza presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-264, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nishimura asked what the deed restriction entails and AP/Espinoza responded that the deed restriction is a covenant and agreement which specifies that the house remain a single family home and that there can be no more than one lease agreement with renters on the property which is also a condition of approval within the resolution. C/Nishimura asked if that meant the owner could have one only rental agreement and not two simultaneous rental/lease agreements where for example, the upstairs and downstairs could be rented to different parties) and AP/Espinoza responded that C/Nishimura's interpretation was correct. C/Nishimura asked if the Cypress trees would be planted along the rear portion of the lot or along the north and south sides of the house. AP/Espinoza responded that the Cypress trees will be planted along the south side of the house where the balcony is located as depicted in the drawing. She further indicated that the rear of the property is heavily landscaped and very steep which prevents view of the neighbor's property. C/Nishimura asked if the second -story windows were aligned such that they did not look into the second story bedroom window of the existing two-story house to the north of the project and AP/Espinoza responded affirmatively. rr-) OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Low asked if construction would impact the homeowner down the slope to the rear of the project. AP/Espinoza reiterated that she visited the site and took pictures that show the tall trees at the rear property line of the project site as well as, on the neighboring property which provides very dense, heavy landscaping so that the addition will most likely not impact the neighbors. Chair/Low asked how the property owners proposed to water the green roof and AP/Espinoza referred Chair/Low to the architect for a response. Chair/Low asked if the deed restriction operated as a matter of law despite the condition and ACA/Eggart responded that the deed restriction is declaratory of what the existing law is and essentially puts property owners on notice that they need to comply with the Municipal Code (provisions on boarding houses). It does not impose any new requirement that does not already exist. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. Lewis Lam, property owner, stated that he and his family will live in the house and that it will not be a rental unit. Once he receives the permits, the tenants will be gone and the parking and noise issues will be gone as well. He graduated from Walnut High School and wants to move back into the City with his parents who work in Diamond Bar. Richard Su, project designer, responded to Chair/Low that the green roofs are designed to provide infiltration for the planters on the roof level before going to the landscaped area because the lot is very small. There are vegetative modules that can be purchased that could be used to provide six months of temporary irrigation and once it becomes self -sustainable it is left as -is because they are drought tolerant species that require little if any irrigation. If the City wants something that needs to be irrigated it can be done just as it would be done for a planter on grade. Chair/Low felt it was a nice concept but if it was not watered it could look dead and bean eyesore. In addition, drought - tolerant means some water and not zero water. Mr. Su said he completely understood Chair/Low's concern. The modules have been used with other projects and have been successful in spite of no irrigation for two years following the initial six-month setup. If the Commission is concerned it is not difficult to run a permanent drip system with a separate timer. The modules provide additional field of rain water before flowing through the downspout into the cisterns at the ground level. Mr. Su stated that since the proposed project is a two-story unit preserving the privacy of the neighbors is a big priority. The home to the north is a two-story house and there is a 6x4 foot window on the second. floor so they deliberately offset the window so that the line of sight does not cross the neighbor's window. When a bedroom window is placed on the side of a house, they are _Tr� Ll n """) 7 ^.I OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION high windows (six feet above the floor) except for the very rear corner which is out of the line -of -sight. The house to the south is a single -story house and is about three feet lower than the finished grade. So along with the six-foot walls for the project site their wall is about nine feet lower which gives them a nine - foot buffer. In addition, the project minimizes any possible intrusion by including tall and narrow windows in the bedroom with most of the windows being oriented toward the back to capture the view. The proposed landscape screening is 15 feet tall and with the three foot lower elevation that neighbor is. getting about 18 feet of visual screening in about 15 years. The Cypress trees are six to eight feet tall and they grow a foot or two each year so in five years they will be about 15 feet tall to provide screening for the neighbor's swimming pool. Although the architecture is more modern than the existing architecture it is compatible to the neighborhood using compatible materials including stucco, stone veneer and regular roofing tiles. He reiterated that this dwelling is meant to be a single family home. With only four bedrooms and the square footage it is not intended to be a multi -family home or rental for boarding house. There is a detached guest house in the back which will be razed to downgrade the density of the residence. He asked the Commission for consideration of removing the deed restriction for this home which has always been a single family residence in a single family zone. VC/Mahlke asked if the Italian Cypress were drought resistant and Mr. Su said he would not consider them to be drought resistant but they do well in this climate. In addition, there is established irrigation which will help them continue to thrive. C/Wolfe asked about the window on the north side that exists in the walk-in closet and how it lines up with the 6x4 window on the neighbor's property and Mr. Su said that the 6x4 window is roughly at the tall window in the center so the tall narrow window in the hallway clears the second story of the house to the north as depicted on the site survey. The windows do not directly face each other. Art Kahn, 219 Cottonwood Cove Drive, said he has had two of his cars hit by people who live at the residence. After their parties, there are beer cans on the sidewalks. This proposal seems ambiguous especially with respect to the deed restriction. Based on the applicant's testimony it will be a single family residence but he believed that a lease would allow six to eight people in the residence as well, should he decide to leave and rent the house out again. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. ACA/Eggart explained that the deed restriction would not prohibit the property owner from renting out the property. That is not something the City has the authority to prohibit property owners from doing — they have the right to rent J OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION out their property. However, the Municipal Code does not allow people to use their property as a "boardinghouse" in a residential zone. A boardinghouse means the property is being rented under multiple rental agreements. The speaker is right that any property owner could rent under one rental agreement to a renter who may have as many people in their family unit as can fit in the house which is not something the City can regulate through conditions of approval. The limit of a City's regulation is what is permitted occupancy under the Building Code which is remarkably high. C/Nishimura asked if the deed restriction was in place or written into the resolution. ACA/Eggart explained that the deed restriction is a proposed condition of approval that says the property owner would record a deed restriction that essentially says the property could not operate as a "boardinghouse" or other use prohibited by Municipal Code. It is in the resolution at the end of the main body of the resolution prior to the standard conditions. VC/Mahlke asked if a property owner would be able to petition to have that deed restriction removed at some point and ACA/Eggart responded that it is something that could be written into the deed restriction document which is, essentially a contract with the City should the Commission so direct. VC/Mahlke asked for confirmation that the deed restriction reinforces what is currently in place for every property owner in Diamond Bar. ACA/Eggart said yes, and essentially says the owner could not operate the property as a "boardinghouse" or other illegal use except to the extent permitted by the Municipal Code. It is merely a "notice" document so that the property owner cannot come back and argue they did not know they were supposed to comply with this law. Chair/Low asked if this has been done before and ACA/Eggart says he has seen this condition before. CDD/Gubman said it became a standard condition prior to when he began working in Diamond Bar. This is a boilerplate condition that has been imposed on numerous projects and it is nothing unique or specific to this project. If there is a history associated with a particular property, this is a measure the City uses to ensure that the property owner is placed on notice. By placing that on the deed, future purchasers of the property receive that disclosure that the property cannot be subdivided as a "boardinghouse" and when there are floorplans proposed that may appear to present an opportunity to partition off sections or add new exterior entrances and so forth. When these opportunities present themselves staff does whatever possible to thwart the pursuit of that opportunity that might be seen by a future purchaser. Chair/Low asked if there was a history regarding this particular property that caused this deed restriction to be placed on it and CDD/Gubman said that to the extent that staff has heard the complaints that this residence apparently FOIRIORAAN��V PLANNING COMMISSION has a reputation that has caused some disruption in the peace and harmony of the neighborhood. Staff feels that based on these complaints, it is appropriate to place the covenant on the property even though it has been stated that as is set in the statutes in the City's Municipal Code that this is a single family, residence. For some reason that may not be apparent at this time, this house has been used as a rental before and the renters that have been attracted to this property apparently have a need to be put under a watchful eye. Chair/Low asked if there was a sunset provision on these restrictions and CDD/Gubman responded no, the restrictions run with the land in perpetuity and cannot be quit claimed without consent by the City. Chair/Low asked if the property owner could petition the City to remove the restriction and CDD/Gubman said "yes." C/Nishimura asked that under the current Code the owner moves in and rents a room out that is not a boarding house and it is legal to which CDD/Gubman responded that the homeowner can rent a maximum of one bedroom to a boarder. C/Wolfe moved, VC/Mahlke seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-264, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution and corrected by staff. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/Mahlke, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-242 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant/owner requested Development Review approval to construct a two-story addition consisting of 2,382 square feet of floor area to an existing 1,904 square foot, one-story single family residence with an attached 696 square foot, three -car garage on a 0.27 gross acre (11,730 gross square foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a second story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a 16 foot 11 inch rear setback where 20 feet is required, and a nonconforming distance to a structure on the adjacent lot to the west of 11 feet, 1 inch where 15 feet is required. The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1606 Ano Nuevo Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 OCTOBER 13, 2015 PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Beatriz Flores 1606 Ano Nuevo Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PC/Espino presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PI -2015-242, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Wolfe said that the view from bedroom #4 on the second floor to the southeast neighbor appears to be potentially infringing on their privacy in the back yard and asked if staff had considered that in its review. PC/Espino responded that staff looked at the neighborhood sensitivity with respect to the adjoining properties. In this particular case the distance that was maintained on that side of the property was felt by staff to be adequate on the southeast side which is 15 feet from the adjacent property. There is no pool or balcony extending out on that side whereas, the northwest side has a pool and staff has conditioned that side of the property to maintain existing tall shrubs and conditioned the rear of.the property to maintain shrubs. If that is a concern, it is within the Commission's purview to extend the condition to include the southeast side of the property. C/Wolfe said he found it odd that one side and not the other was conditioned when it is clear that the project has the view shed into the neighbor's backyard. There may not be a pool in that neighbor's back yard today but it does not mean that one might be put in someday. C/Nishimura asked if the second story bedroom window toward the front on the north side looked into the two upstairs bedrooms of the house to the north (left). Staff requested the applicant to modify the size of the windows to provide privacy from the residence as well as, to the neighbors. One window in particular staff felt was adequate to provide lighting for the bedroom and did not feel there would be direct line -of -sight because there is shrubbery on that side of the property line. The distance is about 30 feet because the balcony area on the adjacent neighbor's balcony to the northwest is directly above the garage with the habitable floor area recessed a significant area from the garage. In performing a visual test on the site plan, there is a distance of about 22 feet from corner to corner and in reality, the adjacent home is recessed far beyond the front fagade of the home. Chair/Low asked if the right -of -privacy extended to the deck area and PC/Espino responded technically, no. The imposing view might be from the existing balcony onto the subject property. This is an issue that was discussed with the applicant and it was felt that the privacy would be maintained. OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nishimura asked if the required setback was 15 feet on that side of the project property and PC/Espino said that it is 10 feet from the property line and 15 feet to structures on adjoining properties. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. Katie Flores, MK Studio, project designer/architect, said that bedroom #4 window mentioned by C/Wolfe, the separation between the two houses is significant and the project lot is slightly higher than the neighboring lot. So these factors along with the landscape materials should provide sufficient privacy. For the office window as discussed by C/Nishimura, due to the pie shape of the lots it worked to the applicant's advantage that the neighboring structure walls are not parallel to each other so they are splayed and from that window one would be looking more toward the front door of the house and not into the front windows facing the street. She reiterated that the prayer room was not intended to be a house of worship. The owner wants a quiet sifting room/den at the front of the house where one could sit, meditate and pray in privacy, a room that was not part of a bedroom and hustle and bustle of the main living spaces. In addition, one of the bedrooms on the second floor is intended to be an office and another is a bonus room for teenage boys to have their own space away from the adult living space downstairs. Tony Maze said that Ms. Flores has been a good neighbor and there are six cohesive neighbors on the street. One issue for him is that prior to Ms. Flores owning the property, a doctor owned the property and was involved in illegal activities and not knowing what circumstances might change, would there be a deed restriction placed on this property. The house is very large for the neighborhood and while he is not concerned about his current neighbor, he is concerned about future ownership and use. Chair/Low asked how many years Mr. Maze had been a neighbor to Mrs. Flores and he responded since 1997. Ron Escodon, 1627 Ano Nuevo Drive, said he had an issue with doubling the size of the house where other houses 'in the neighborhood are much smaller in a small cul-de-sac area where parking is at a premium. Robert Van, 1620 Acacia Hill, said his concern is that the house will be a church because he has seen church activities taking place at the property and he believes that will continue. A 4,000 square foot home will accommodate several hundred people and vehicles will be parking on that street and spill over onto other streets and as a result, in an emergency the street will become inaccessible to emergency equipment. He is certain the house will be a business and he is concerned about traffic when a business is in the middle of a neighborhood. M T%M L- U.S1 Vt &14 6�— d OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Beatriz Flores said she has lived on Ano Nuevo Drive since 1997. She is the eldest of 17 children. She took care of her mother and father. Now that she is 70 her daughter is concerned about her staying in her house and asked her to sell the house so she could live with her daughter. Understanding that her parents were very sad to leave their home and her aunt was really sad to leave her home, her daughter decided to build instead of moving out of the neighborhood. There will be no business and there will not be a church. She said "we do come together in prayer" as do other neighbors and for family gatherings. Her daughter wanted to build a dream home because she wanted to create space which she understood was important to her mother. Her family is a professional family and they understand laws and abide by those laws. People have gathered at her residence for doctoral celebrations that merit people coming into their home. She said she could guarantee there would not be a business in her home and that it would not be a church. Her family grew up in prayer and whether in the kitchen, bedroom or living room the family came together. Her family felt this was an opportunity for them to create a space because the family has been limited in space. The residence will not be turned into a boardinghouse. She felt it was her privilege to be able to turn her small house into a 4,000 square foot home to accommodate her family. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. C/Nishimura noted that Finding of Fact "C" 1 in the resolution states that this should be approved and that it is consistent with several things including the design guidelines. His copy of the Residential Guidelines, Page 32, talks about tract homes and how as they age, they will be remodeled. Further, it states that one of the most important issues is to ensure that new or remodeled residential development is compatible and complementary to the existing neighborhood. Page 33 talks about compatibility and three states that dwellings and other improvements should be appropriate in mass and scale to the site on which they are placed. The site in relationship to other structures, etc. should be complementary and depicts a "yes" and "no." In looking at this proposal, the size of the addition is quite large and the architecture is to him not compatible. He asked staff to explain how they came to the conclusion that this architecture and mass to the front was compatible to the neighborhood when the development guideline photo clearly shows that it is not. PC/Espino said that as stated, the design guidelines address issues of compatibility and mass and scale. Staff looks at these projects in the form of context in the neighborhood as well as how the massing scale relates to the building, its neighbors and the neighborhood. In this case, there is mass and scale that is recessed from the front, a majority of which is above the existing floor area. As far as the floor area itself, there is no floor area ratio standard that staff can use to equate or evaluate to other homes. He could say that the OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION average floor area in the neighborhood was about 2100 to 2200 square feet in a mix of single story homes and two-story homes. Yes, this is a substantial addition; however, it complies with the City's Development Standards in setbacks, proximity to adjacent structures and is also under the lot coverage ratio. Potentially, all of the lots in the neighborhood could increase substantially more. In addressing the guidelines in the design aspect, staff looks to make sure that the character of the home is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. There are Mediterranean design styles that have been transformed from tract homes to what is seen today. Staff also looks at whether this is a predominately one-story or two-story home neighborhood. In this case, it is a mix. The neighbor to the southeast is a single story, the neighbor to the northwest is a two-story. Going back to the context issue, if this home were in the middle of the block it might be a challenge to say this fits into the neighborhood. This project being toward the cul-de-sac (tucked into the corner) and the proposed floor area addition being above the current floor area (a little over 300 feet), staff felt it was compatible to the design standards and those goals and objectives described in the City's General Plan. Chair/Low said that as one proceeds up Ano Nuevo toward the property, there are two other houses that were quite large on the opposite side of the street and PC/Espino reiterated that there are many existing two-story homes in the immediate neighborhood which averaged about 2200 square feet. Chair/Low said that the house next to the subject property is a two-story home as well. C/Farago asked how many feet the house facing the property is and PC/Espino said it is a two-story home upwards of 2000 square feet. C/Farago said that the largest two-story homes in the neighborhood average 2300 square feet and this project proposes to be over 4000 square feet. Chair/Low asked to see the renderings again stating she thought the second story was recessed and Katie Flores said that the proposal sets the second floor back over the garage with a good amount of roof between the face of the garage and the second floor which was broken up with little elements of towers to give it the Mediterranean articulation and tower over the front door. Chair/Low asked if the prayer room was being brought forward to line up with the garage. Katie Flores said yes and that it remains set back from the front setback a good distance at that point. Due to the shape of the lot, the front right corner of the proposed addition is actually at the back corner of the front element of the neighbor's house which means the project is 30 to 40 feet back at that point. Although it appears flat on the plans when viewed from the street, the front of the house where the prayer room is located is quite far back from the sidewalk. IrE DRAFT OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION PC/Espino stated that staff included a condition to provide a covenant and agreement as part of the resolution with respect to maintaining the home as a single family home as its intended use and restricts the rental of rooms to no more than one. Chair/Low said that there was no evidence provided to the Commission that there has been any interruption or unintended use of this property. She asked ACA/Eggart for clarification that there are no restrictions on how big a person can make their house. ACA/Eggart said there are development standards for heights and lot coverage ratio. CDD/Gubman said there are restrictions as to lot coverage, building separation requirements and setback requirements as well as, building height. Chair/Low asked if in this case the Commission was within the parameters of permissible size and CDD/Gubman said definitely. There is no question of whether or not this proposal meets the development standards. He believes the question goes to the findings of compatibility and conformance with the design guidelines which is where the role of the Commission comes to the forefront where the more qualitative or subjective review of the appropriateness of this project needs to be deliberated upon. Yes, the project meets the development standards. Staff has reviewed this project in the context of the neighborhood, the orientation of the building, the particular characteristics of the streetscape and staffs recommendation is to approve it based on it fitting into that neighborhood streetscape. The guidelines are intended to be used as a guidepost to evaluate the project and to consider the subjective views of the neighborhood at large, whether this is an appropriate project as proposed. C/Farago asked what would be the largest home that could be put on the lot. PC/Espino said that this could be a flat roofed three-story home with a 35 foot height limit with no floor area ratio requirement the development standards would limit the volume of this home. Conceivably, one could have a home twice the size of the home being proposed. C/Farago said that in looking at the elevation it seems to be massive. If the ridgeline is actually further back, the cross view on the plans is deceiving because it makes it appear larger than what it actually is if it is set back. He asked where the ridgeline is in relationship to the property line at the sidewalk at the driveway entrance and PC/Espino said it is set back quite a distance because there is a transition from the design going from tract home to Mediterranean style which will incorporate a hip roof. Currently, there is a gable roof which is more imposing on the front. A hip roof has rooflines that NEMAROMM 1111111111111111112111 611TC-11ROPMR141611i, are set back. He guessed that it was about 20 feet from the face to the back of the garage so it is probably 40 feet from the ridgeline to the front property line. C/Farago asked where the current ridgeline lies and PC/Espino said it is a gable roof directly above the garage. C/Wolfe commented that this is a very beautiful design but he agrees with C/Nishimura that the design of the house is probably a bit imposing to the neighborhood. He thinks there are some redeeming qualities to contemplate such as the orientation of the house, the fact that the front of the house to the right of the proposed project is behind the house on the southeast corner but this is a very large house and he thinks the Commission needs to be careful about allowing mansions in neighborhoods that do not support them. He is not saying he has made a decision but he is concerned about the mass of the house. He understands that the architect attempted to address that issue by including different planes at the front of the house for which he complemented the architect on th6 features proposed. He believed the orientation ultimately helps the proposal significantly. C/Nishimura said that based on CA/Volfe's concern about the ridgeline that if one looks at the photo the existing roofline is 17 feet 6 inches tall and when this project is built the new roofline will be just over 23 feet across the top. VC/Mahlke said she appreciated neighbors speaking before the Commission and how kindly they spoke about the applicant. She understands their concerns and trusts the systems that are currently in place that will help counter any of those concerns in terms of parking and business. She acknowledged the potential overbuild for this project as also indicated by her colleagues. At 1900 square feet up without any other changes this home would be at 3800 square feet. Because of that she said she would move to accept the proposed plan. VC/Mahlke moved, Chair/Low seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PI -2015-242, Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion failed 2-3 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Mahlke, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C/Nishimura moved to deny the project. ACA/Eggart said that denial of a Development Review application requires written Findings and Facts to support those Findings. C/Nishimura is making a motion and articulating Findings that staff could put into a resolution but a BRAW07 T OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION resolution would be required and in order to do so, this item would need to be continued to a future meeting to bring back a written resolution of denial for consideration by the Commission. In addition, CDD/Gubman asked him to advise the Commission that it could be continued to allow the applicant an opportunity redesign which is within the purview of the Commission. C/Nishimura moved to direct staff to rewrite the resolution to deny the applicant based on the Findings that it does not meet the City's Design Guidelines and give the applicant a chance to come ' back. ACA/Eggart advised the Commission that those would be alternative options. The option to give the applicant an opportunity to come back to the Commission, with a revised plan for consideration would not be a denial, it would be a continuance. Chair/Low said that Findings have not yet been made. ACA/Eggart restated C/Nishimura's motion to continue the public hearing to a future date certain and to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial on the basis that Findings 1 and 3 required for approval of Development Review could not be made on the basis that the design is inconsistent with the City Design Guidelines, specifically provisions on pages 32 and 33 as well as, that under Finding 3 that due to the square footage and size of the addition in comparison with the size of other existing homes in the neighborhood, this project is out of character with the other homes in the neighborhood. ACA/Eggart asked if his reiteration of C/Nishimura's motion was consistent with his wishes. ACA/Eggart said that for a future date he is not certain whether everyone will be present for that meeting and the Commission may wish to select a different meeting date. C/Farago said his main concern is the mass toward the front and the size if it was in the back away from the sightline of the street it could pretty much be anything as long as it did not affect the look and feel of the neighborhood. If the Commission made a separate or inclusive motion to allow time for the applicant to redesign and bring that back to the Commission, is that an option at this point. ACA/Eggart responded that it would be a separate motion and it would be articulated as continue the item to a date certain to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign pursuant to direction provided by the Commission. If that is the motion he would suggest that the public hearing be reopened to ask the applicant if that is something they are willing to do. C/Wolfe said he would like to second the continuance motion. He obviously cast the third and deciding vote this evening but he believes that the orientation of the property allows the opportunity for some changes to the proposed project so that the mass scale at the front of the house is not so imposing. He MD OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION believes there is an opportunity to make adjustments to the design that would allow this size of a house or something close to it to fit into the neighborhood and its character without being such a dramatic imposition although, as he has repeatedly stated, it is a beautiful design. Chair/Low reopened the public hearing. Chair/Low asked Beatriz Flores if she was willing to take additional time to redesign the project to better conform to the City's Design Guidelines and Mrs. Flores responded "definitely, yes." Chair/Low asked how long it would take to complete the redesign and Katie Flores said it would depend on staff as well because it would take a bit of back and forth to make sure that they reached a favorable conclusion. She is sorry that PC/Espino would not be available to work on the project and asked if their project would be assigned to a new planner. CDD/Gubman directed his comments to Chair/Low that in response to questions about continuance dates, PC/Espino is under contract with the City. Although he has resigned as a City employee, he is on retainer as a consultant to the City and he will continue to be the project manager for this project. PC/Espino will also continue to work with the City as it moves forward to help with the General Plan update and other important tasks. With the continuity and momentum that staff has set for this project he would suggest it be continued approximately one month to the November 10 agenda. If the item is continued to a specific date it does not require that the project be re -noticed. Should November 10 pass without all of the issues being resolved it can be continued to a future date. Chair/Low asked if November 10, 2015, was a suitable date for Ms. Flores she responded "yes." CDD/Gubman advised the applicant that state law requires that a decision to approve or deny a project be made within 180 days of an application being deemed complete. ACA/Eggart said that continuing the project to November 10 was sufficient and that he would address the matter with staff after that. Chair/Low again closed the public hearing. Chair/Low asked for a second on C/Nishimura's motion. C/Nishimura's motion died for lack of a second. OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 15 rc� PLANNING COMMISSION C/Farago moved, C/Wolfe seconded to reopen the public hearing and continue Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-242 to November 10, 2015, to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project pursuant to direction provided by the Commission. C/Nishimura made a substitution motion to include notices be sent to the property owners within 1000 feet of the project to advise them of the continuation. C/Farago seconded the motion. PC/Espino stated that should the Commission wish to continue the matter, the best way to handle it may be to continue the matter to a date uncertain in which case staff would automatically re -notify the project and it would not place a burden on the applicant and staff to conclude the project on November 10. In addition, those who have attended tonight's meeting would not be under the impression that the matter might be concluded on November 10. ACA/Eggart explained that there cannot be two motions on the floor; however, the maker of the motion could, with the consent of the second motion maker, amend his motion if so inclined. C/Nishimura agreed to substitute his motion to continue Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-242 to a date uncertain to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project pursuant to direction provided by the Commission. C/Farago seconded C/Nishimura's substitute motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/Mahlke, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nishimura commended CDD/Gubman and his staff. He noticed a couple of weeks ago that the little street signs on north Diamond Bar Boulevard were getting out of hand. He drove out one day and noticed 'that the Code Enforcement Officer had cleaned up the street after which it looked 100 percent better. He became aware of another situation where CDD/Gubman went way beyond the call of duty and were doing specialized things. There is an abandoned house in North Diamond Bar and they went to the extraordinary length of declaring it a public nuisance, getting an inspection warrant and they will abate the property and lien it for abatement costs as well as attorney fees. These procedures are technical and involved and he thanked CDD/Gubman and his staff for doing such a great job. OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Low thanked CDD/Gubman and his staff for a great job as usual. She asked CDD/Gubman to introduce his new staff member. CDD/Gubman introduced Associate Planner Mayuko (May) Nakajima whose first day was Wednesday, September 30. May comes to Diamond Bar from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. She began her career as a student aid while attending CalPoly Pomona. Upon graduation she was promoted to Assistant Planner. May brings to Diamond Bar some really valuable experience that the City will capitalize on as it moves forward on the General Plan Update as well as, saving the City from certain doom because Josue had to leave his post as a full time employee. As mentioned at the City Council meeting last week there were over 150 applicants and through two screen processes, the number was reduced from 153 to 59 and after he personally reviewed each of the applications he selected 8 to move forward through the panel interview process. During the panel review, May was rated first among each of the three panelists. He is very happy and excited to bring May on board as a member of the Diamond Bar team. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that on October 27 the agenda will consist of an addition to a single family residence on Timberline Road south of Pathfinder Road. Chair/Low asked the current status of Haggen's market. CDD/Gubman reported that Haggen's has filed for bankruptcy and are pulling out of the southwest. They are liquidating all of their acquisitions in those markets from the Von's/Albertson's required sale. At present he does not know what will happen at the Haggen's store. The City has major retail grocery chains that are interested in locating in Diamond Bar and staff hopes that the down time is at a minimum. The unfortunate discouraging news is that the City had a viable supermarket before the mandated transfer to Haggen's. Haggen's obviously underestimated the task of growing from a chain of about 17 stores to 160 stores. It is unfortunate for employees at that store who thought they would keep their jobs. He hopes it plays out well that a new supermarket reoccupies the location and that the regulators that placed a prohibition on Von's/Albertsons's from hiring former Haggen's employees is lifted to help with the situation. As soon as he learns what is likely to happen and he is at liberty to share the information with the Commission he will certainly do so. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business usiness before the Planning Commission, Chair/Low adjourned the regular meeting at 9:10 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 27th day of October, 2015. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Ruth Low, Chairperson CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21810 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.1 MEETING DATE: October 27, 2015 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-326 PROJECT LOCATION: 20732 Timberline Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91789 (APN 8765-009-048) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Low Density Residential (RL) ZONING DISTRICT: Low Density Residential (RL) PROPERTY OWNER Chunwei Chi APPLICANT: 20732 Timberline Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91789 The applicant is requesting Development Review approval to construct a two-story addition consisting of 909 square feet of floor area to an existing 1,546 square -foot, two-story single-family residence with * an attached 467 square -foot, two -car garage on a 0.19 gross acre (8,482 gross square -foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow a two-story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a zero -foot north side setback (where 5 feet is required), and a nonconforming distance to a structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 8 feet, 4.5 inches (where 15 feet is required). Adopt the attached Resolution (Attachment 1) approving Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-326, based on the findings of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.48 and 22.56, subject to conditions. The project site is located on the west side of Timberline Lane, a local residential street, south of the intersection with E. Canyon Ridge Lane. The property was developed in 1989 under Los Angeles County standards with a 1,546 square -foot, two-story single-family residence and a 467 square -foot, two -car garage on a 0.19 gross acre (8,482 square -foot) lot. There are no protected trees on site. The existing house is situated toward the front (east) and north side of the lot, approximately 27 feet, 6.5 inches from the front property line. The property is legally described as Lot 43 of Tract No. 45268, and the Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 8765-009-048. Iffcm The following table describes the surrounding land uses located adjacent to the subject property: South 4 Project Site North Panoramic Street View of Project Site Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-326 Page 2 of 8 1=01VM19 The proposed two-story addition consists of the following components: The existing two-story home consists of common areas (living room, dining room, and kitchen) and a powder room (half -bathroom) on the first floor, and private areas consisting of three bedrooms and two bathrooms on the second floor. The new two-story addition will be added to the rear of the home. The first floor area will be modified to allow for the relocation and enlargement of the dining area, a kitchen expansion, and an addition of a family room and fourth bedroom with its own bathroom. An existing 81 square -foot front porch will remain; however, the 362 square -foot rear patio area will be removed and replaced with a 139 square - foot covered patio area. The second floor addition consists of a new retreat/office area, with access from the existing master bedroom. A minor modification to the existing master bedroom area is proposed to allow for a larger master bathroom to accommodate a shower and reorientation of the existing bathtub. The second floor addition will be recessed from the new first floor and porch area at the rear of the house, and recessed from the new first floor area on the north and south sides of the house. Also, an existing 302 square -foot balcony area—currently located directly above the first floor patio area—will be removed and replaced with an off -set 85 square -foot balcony area with direct access from the proposed retreat/office -room. The height of the existing house is approximately 22' and the height of the proposed addition will remain at the same approximate height, measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the ro6fline. The existing residence has a nonconforming (north) side setback of zero feet (where 5 feet is required) and a nonconforming distance to a nonconforming distance to a structure on the Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-326 Page 3 of 8 Existing Proposed Total First Level Living Area 737 s.f. 661 s.f. 1,398 s.f. Garage Area 467 s.f. 0 s.f. 467 s.f. Porch/Patio Area 443 s.f. -223 s.f. 220 s.f. Total First Level Area 1,946 s.f. Second Level Living Area 809 s.f. 248 s.f. 1,057 s.f. Balcony Area 302 s.f. -217 s.f. 85 s.f. Total Second Level Area 1,1x42 s.f. Total Living Area 1,546 s.f. 909 s.f. 2,455 s.f. Total Garage Area 467 s.f. 0 s.f. 467 s.f. Total Porch/Patio/Balcony Area 745 s.f. -440 s.f. 305 s.f. TOTAL FLOOR AREA 3,227 s.f The existing two-story home consists of common areas (living room, dining room, and kitchen) and a powder room (half -bathroom) on the first floor, and private areas consisting of three bedrooms and two bathrooms on the second floor. The new two-story addition will be added to the rear of the home. The first floor area will be modified to allow for the relocation and enlargement of the dining area, a kitchen expansion, and an addition of a family room and fourth bedroom with its own bathroom. An existing 81 square -foot front porch will remain; however, the 362 square -foot rear patio area will be removed and replaced with a 139 square - foot covered patio area. The second floor addition consists of a new retreat/office area, with access from the existing master bedroom. A minor modification to the existing master bedroom area is proposed to allow for a larger master bathroom to accommodate a shower and reorientation of the existing bathtub. The second floor addition will be recessed from the new first floor and porch area at the rear of the house, and recessed from the new first floor area on the north and south sides of the house. Also, an existing 302 square -foot balcony area—currently located directly above the first floor patio area—will be removed and replaced with an off -set 85 square -foot balcony area with direct access from the proposed retreat/office -room. The height of the existing house is approximately 22' and the height of the proposed addition will remain at the same approximate height, measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the ro6fline. The existing residence has a nonconforming (north) side setback of zero feet (where 5 feet is required) and a nonconforming distance to a nonconforming distance to a structure on the Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-326 Page 3 of 8 adjacent lot to the north of 8 feet, 4.5 inches (where 15 feet is required). By definition, the residence is considered a "nonconforming structure" (DBMC Section 22.68.030). Approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit is required to allow an expansion of a nonconforming structure if the expansion is not limited to the ground floor. The architecture of the existing residence is a late 1980s tract home. The applicant is proposing to maintain the same architectural style of the existing home. East (Front) Elevation ANALYSIS The proposed project requires two separate, but interrelated, land use approvals: Development Review (DR) and a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP). The analysis that follows provides the basis for staffs recommendation to approve the DR and MCUP applications. Additions to structures which are equal to or greater than 50 percent of the existing habitable floor area of all existing structures on site require Planning Commission approval of a DR application. Development Review approval is required to ensure compliance with the City's General Plan policies, development standards, and design guidelines, and to minimize adverse effects of the proposed project upon the surrounding properties and the City in general. As stated in Section 22.48.010 of the Development Code, the Development Review process was established to ensure that new development and additions to existing development are consistent with the General Plan "through the promotion of high functional and aesthetic standards to complement and add to the economic, physical, and social character" of Diamond Bar. Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-326 Page 4 of 8 Development Standards: The following table compares the proposed project with the City's development standards for residential development in the RL zone: Minor Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow the continuation OT a nonconforming structure because ine allUILIUII is not limited to the ground floor. See MCUP discussion on page 5 & 6. Site and Grading Configuration: The property is an irregular shaped lot. The existing house is situated on a level pad at the front of the property with a zero -foot setback along the north side property line. The rear portion of the property contains a descending slope. The two-story addition will be added at the rear of the existing home with the new second floor addition recessed from the new first floor addition area. As such, minimal grading is required to accommodate footings and foundation of the new addition. Architectural Features, Colors, and Materials: The architecture of the existing residence is a late 1980s tract design with textured stucco on exterior walls, and a hip and gable roof with flat concrete tiles. The proposed design will maintain architectural integrity by incorporating similar fenestration patterns, and matching exterior colors and building materials. The roof of the proposed addition will match the existing 4:12 hipped and gabled roof pitch. The mass and scale of the addition at the north and west (rear) sides of the home are proportionate to the existing house. Landscaping: Landscape plans are not required because the site is already developed, and because the project is exempt from the City's Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance. The ordinance would only apply if 5,000 square feet or more of the existing landscaped area was being altered. However, landscaping that is damaged during construction will need to be restored upon project completion. This requirement is included as a condition of approval. Minor Conditional Use Permit (DBMC Chapter 22.56) An MCUP is required if a change or expansion of a nonconforming structure is greater than 50 percent of the existing square footage of all structures on site, or if the addition is not limited to the ground floor. Current development standards require a minimum setback of 5 feet from the (north) side property line, and a minimum distance of 15 feet between structures on adjacent lots. The existing residence has a nonconforming (north) side setback of zero feet Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-326 Page 5 of 8 n. - 7n, n L.: _&ffl', 6-0" on one side and '—no h side 0 rt I Sri a,� M 1 -0" on the other side 0' 17'— south side — nSide orth side • .5" 17'— south side FITWWORMC_`,� grAi"MIN. "a Maximum of 40% ...—u - -W - . XSE b l 61 g" LimitM NINE -11,170' ,,,Vru _11 91fiffigJIM 2 -car g Minor Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow the continuation OT a nonconforming structure because ine allUILIUII is not limited to the ground floor. See MCUP discussion on page 5 & 6. Site and Grading Configuration: The property is an irregular shaped lot. The existing house is situated on a level pad at the front of the property with a zero -foot setback along the north side property line. The rear portion of the property contains a descending slope. The two-story addition will be added at the rear of the existing home with the new second floor addition recessed from the new first floor addition area. As such, minimal grading is required to accommodate footings and foundation of the new addition. Architectural Features, Colors, and Materials: The architecture of the existing residence is a late 1980s tract design with textured stucco on exterior walls, and a hip and gable roof with flat concrete tiles. The proposed design will maintain architectural integrity by incorporating similar fenestration patterns, and matching exterior colors and building materials. The roof of the proposed addition will match the existing 4:12 hipped and gabled roof pitch. The mass and scale of the addition at the north and west (rear) sides of the home are proportionate to the existing house. Landscaping: Landscape plans are not required because the site is already developed, and because the project is exempt from the City's Water Conservation Landscaping Ordinance. The ordinance would only apply if 5,000 square feet or more of the existing landscaped area was being altered. However, landscaping that is damaged during construction will need to be restored upon project completion. This requirement is included as a condition of approval. Minor Conditional Use Permit (DBMC Chapter 22.56) An MCUP is required if a change or expansion of a nonconforming structure is greater than 50 percent of the existing square footage of all structures on site, or if the addition is not limited to the ground floor. Current development standards require a minimum setback of 5 feet from the (north) side property line, and a minimum distance of 15 feet between structures on adjacent lots. The existing residence has a nonconforming (north) side setback of zero feet Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-326 Page 5 of 8 (where 5 feet is required), and a nonconforming distance to a structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 8 feet, 4.5 inches (where 15 feet is required). The City recognizes that homeowners should be allowed to make appropriate improvements to their properties, even if the existing improvements do not fully conform to current development standards. Therefore, the City has established the IVICUP process for such additions, subject to the findings set forth in the Development Code. IVICUPs are normally subject to approval of the City's Hearing Officer (typically the Community Development Director). However, because this IVICUP is being reviewed as part of a DR application, both land use entitlements are subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission. Staff believes that approving the IVICUP as described above is appropriate and compatible with other residences in the neighborhood, based on the following facts and observations: The existing dwelling was built in the late 1980s, prior to the incorporation of the City of Diamond Bar; The proposed addition will be set back to comply with current development standards and not further encroach into the existing nonconforming side setback of zero feet to the (north) side property line or nonconforming distance to a structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 8 feet, 4.5 inches; and Neighboring properties have nonconforming setbacks, so the proposed project will remain consistent with other homes within the neighborhood. The proposed project complies with the goals and objectives as set forth in the adopted General Plan in terms of land use and density. The project is designed to be compatible with and enhance the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood. The massing of the building is softened by creating articulation of the rear and side fagades by recessing the second -story addition from all three sides of the first floor area at the rear of the home. The addition -to the rear of the home will maintain the same architectural style of the existing house. In sum, the addition will be visually integrated into the existing home and not negatively impact the look and character of the neighborhood. The proposed 85 square -foot balcony area at the rear of the home is a reduction of an existing .302 square -foot balcony area. - Also, an existing and proposed species of Podocarpus macrophyllus (Sweet Yew Plum Pine) trees capable of a mature height between 30 to 40 feet, with a mature spread of 20 to 25 feet are located along both side property lines and are capable of growing to a maintainable height to minimize the views to/from the adjacent properties to the north and south. A condition of approval is included in the attached resolution requiring maintenance of these trees, and the planting of additional trees of the same species along a portion of the side property lines to act as a hedge and maintain privacy among adjacent properties. Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-326 Page 6 of 8 Sweet Yew Plum Pine Tree at Mature Height Based on these observations, staff does not find privacy loss to be a project impact to the neighboring properties. The project incorporates the principles of the City's Residential Design Guidelines as follows: A gradual transition between the project and adjacent uses is achieved through appropriate setbacks, building height, landscaping, and window and door placement; a Elevations are treated with detailed architectural elements; Roof lines are representative of the design and scale of the structure through vertical and horizontal articulations; Placement and relationship of windows, doors, and other window openings are carefully integrated with the building's overall design; Proper screening for ground and roof -mounted equipment is architecturally compatible ble with the dwelling in terms of materials, color, shape, and size and blends in with the proposed building design; The addition is visually integrated with the primary structure, by utilizing similar colors and materials throughout the proposed addition; and Large wall expanses without windows or doors are avoided, with the exception of the second floor of the north elevation to maintain existing privacy to the abutting neighbor. Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-326 Page 7 of 8 Additional Review The Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project, and their comments are included in the attached resolution as conditions of approval. On October 12, 2015, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site. On October 16, 2015, the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. No comments have been received as of the publication date of this report. This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 Section 15301(e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Josue Espino Planning Consultant Attachments: V A G enior P'lanner 1. Draft Resolution No. 2015 -XX and Standard Conditions of Approval 2. Site Plan, Floor Plans, and Elevations Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2015-326 Page 8 of 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2015 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PL2015-326 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY ADDITION CONSISTING OF 909 SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA TO AN EXISTING 1,546 SQUARE -FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH AN ATTACHED 467 SQUARE -FOOT, TWO -CAR GARAGE ON ' A 0.19 GROSS ACRE (8,482 SQUARE -FOOT) LOT; A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (MCUP) IS REQUESTED TO ALLOW A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE WITH A NORTH SIDE SETBACK OF ZERO FEET (WHERE 5 FEET IS REQUIRED), AND A NONCONFORMING DISTANCE TO A STRUCTURE ON THE ADJACENT LOT TO THE NORTH OF 8 FEET, 4.6 INCHES (WHERE 15 FEET IS REQUIRED) AT 20732 TIMBERLINE LANE, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91789 (APN 8765-009-048). A. RECITALS 1. The property owner and applicant, Chumwei Chi, has filed an application for Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-326 to construct a two-story addition consisting of 909 square feet of floor area to an existing 1,546 square -foot, two-story single-family residence with an attached 467 square -foot, two -car garage located at 20732 Timberline Lane, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California. 2. The following approvals are requested from the Planning Commission: (a) Development Review to construct a two-story addition consisting of 909 square feet of floor area. (b) Minor Conditional Use Permit to allow a two-story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a north side setback of zero feet (where 5 feet is required), and a nonconforming distance to a structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 8 feet, 4.5 inches (where 15 feet is required). Hereinafter in this Resolution,, -the subject Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit shall be referred to as the "Proposed Project." 3. The subject property is made up of one parcel totaling 8,482 gross square feet (0.19 gross acres). It is located in the Low Density Residential (RL) zone with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. 4. The legal description of the subject property is Lot 43 of Tract 45268. The Assessor's Parcel Number is 8765-009-048. 5. On October 12, 2015, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project site. On October 16, 2015, notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. In addition to the published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a public hearing notice on a display board, and the notice was posted at the City's three designated locations. 6. On October 27, 2015, 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. 13'. 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; and 2. The Planning Commission hereby determines the Project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the provisions of Article 19, Section 15301 (e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, no further environmental review is required. C. FINDINGS OF FACT Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein and as prescribed under Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Sections 22.48, 22.56, and 22.68, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: Development Review Findings (DBMC Section 22.48.040) 1. 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 design and layout of the proposed two-story addition consisting of 909 square feet of floor area to the existing two-story single-family residence is consistent with the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines and development standards with the exception to an existing nonconforming (north) side setback of zero feet (where 5 feet is required), and a nonconforming distance to a structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 8 feet, 4.5 inches (where 15 feet is required). The two-story addition will be added at the rear of the existing home with the new second floor addition recessed from the new first floor addition area. The proposed design will maintain architectural integrity by incorporating similar 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX fenestration patterns, and matching exterior colors and building materials. * The roof of the proposed addition will match the existing 4:12 hipped and gabled roof pitch. The mass and scale of the addition at the north and west (rear) sides of the home are proportionate to the existing house. The project site is not part of any theme area, specific plan, community plan, boulevard or planned development. 2. - The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The proposed addition will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments because the use of the project site is designed for a single-family home and the surrounding uses are also single- family homes. In addition, no protected trees exist on site. The proposed 85 square -foot balcony area at the rear of the home is a reduction of an existing 302 square -foot balcony area. Also, an existing and proposed species of Podocarpus (Yew Plum pine) trees capable of a mature height between 30 to 40 feet, with a mature spread of 20 to 25 feet are located along both side property lines and are capable of growing to a maintainable height to minimize the views to/from the adjacent properties to the north and south. A condition of approval is included in the attached resolution requiring maintenance of these trees, and the planting of additional trees of the same species along a portion of the side property lines to act as a hedge and maintain privacy among adjacent properties. The proposed addition will not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian movements, such as access or other functional requirements of a single-family home because it complies with the requirements for driveway widths and is a continuation of an existing use. 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmon*ious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48: Development Review Standards, the City's Design Guidelines, the City's General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. The architecture of the existing residence is a late 1980s tract design with textured stucco on exterior walls, and a hip and gable roof with flat concrete tiles. The proposed design will maintain architectural integrity by incorporating similar fenestration patterns, and matching exterior colors and building materials. The roof of the proposed addition will match the existing 4:12 hipped and gabled roof pitch. The mass and scale of the addition at the north and west (rear) sides of the home are proportionate to the existing house. As mentioned, the proposed 85 square -foot balcony area at the rear of the home is a reduction of an existing 302 square -foot balcony area. Existing and proposed 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX species of Podocarpus (Yew Plum pine) trees capable of a mature height between 30 to 40 feet, with a mature spread of 20 to 25 feet are located along both side property lines and are capable of growing to a maintainable height to minimize the views to/from the adjacent properties to the north and south. The project, as conditioned herein, will maintain privacy views looking to/from adjacent properties. Therefore, the addition will be visually integrated into the existing home and not negatively impact the look and character of the neighborhood. 4. 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, color, and will remain aesthetically appealing. The architecture of the existing residence is a late 1980s tract design with textured stucco on exterior walls, and a hip and gable roof with flat concrete tiles. The proposed design will maintain architectural integrity by incorporating similar fenestration patterns, and matching exterior colors and building materials. The roof of the proposed addition will match the existing 4:12 hipped and gabled roof pitch. The mass and scale of the addition at the north and west (rear) sides of the home are proportionate to the existing house. 5. The proposed development will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution, and the Building and Safety Division and Public Works Departments requirements. Through the permit and inspection process, the referenced agencies will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19 Section 15301(e) (additions to existing structures) of the CEQA guidelines. Minor Conditional Use Permit Findings (DBMC Section 22.56.040) 1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX The existing single-family dwelling is a permitted use in the RL zone. A Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) is requested to allow a two-story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a (north) side setback of zero feet (where 5 feet is required), and a distance to a structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 8 feet, 4.5 inches (where 15 feet is required). The substandard distance from the structure to the north side property line and to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north renders the project nonconforming. The addition of a nonconforming structure requires approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit because the addition is not limited to the ground floor. The proposed two-story addition consisting of 909 square feet of floor area to an existing two-story home complies with all other development standards of the RL zone. 2. The proposed use is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed addition to a single-family dwelling unit is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. The site is not subject to the provisions of any specific plan. 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. The existing single-family dwelling and the proposed two-story addition consisting of 909 square feet of floor area will be set back to comply with current development standards and not further encroach into the existing nonconforming side setback of zero feet to the north side property line or nonconforming distance to a structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 8 feet, 4.5 inches. The design of the existing single-family dwelling and the proposed addition are compatible with the character of the existing homes in the neighborhood because neighboring properties have nonconforming setbacks. 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. The subject site is physically suitable for the existing single-family residential dwelling and the proposed addition. The existing and proposed use of land is consistent with the surrounding land uses. As previously mentioned herein, the .proposed 85 square -foot balcony area at the rear of the home is a reduction of an existing 302 square -foot balcony area. Existing and proposed species of Podocarpus (Yew Plum pine) trees capable of a mature height between 30 to 40 feet, with a mature spread of 20 to 25 feet are located along both side property lines and are capable of growing to a maintainable height to minimize the views to/from the adjacent properties to the north and south. The project, as conditioned herein, will maintain privacy views looking to/from adjacent properties. The proposed addition of floor area is consistent with the 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015-)(X development standards for the RL zone and will not encroach into the existing nonconforming side setback or distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north. 5. Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. The granting of the Minor Conditional Use Permit will allow the addition of the existing single-family dwelling unit in a manner similar with existing dwelling units located in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed expansion of the dwelling unit will not negatively impact the public interest, health, safety convenience or welfare. 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as set forth under Article 19 Section 15301(e) (additions to existing structure) of the CEQA Guidelines. Non -Conforming Structures Findings (DBMC Section 22.68.030) The addition, enlargement, extension, reconstruction, relocation or structural alteration of the nonconforming structure would not result in the structure becoming: Incompatible with other structures in the neighborhood. The proposed two-story addition of floor area is consistent with the development standards for the RL zone. The existing single-family dwelling and the proposed two-story addition consisting of 909 square feet of floor area will be set back to comply with current development standards and not further encroach into the existing nonconforming side setback of zero feet to the north side property line or nonconforming distance to a structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 8 feet, 4.5 inches. The proposed project is located at the rear of the existing home. The existing and proposed use of land is consistent with the surrounding land uses and structures in the neighborhood. Neighboring properties also have nonconforming setbacks, so the proposed project will remain consistent with other homes within the neighborhood. 2. Inconsistent with the general plan or any applicable specific plan. The proposed addition to a single-family dwelling unit is consistent with the City's adopted General Plan. The site is not subject to the provisions of any specific plan. 3. A restriction to the eventual/future compliance with the applicable regulations of 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX this Development Code. The existing and proposed use of land is consistent with the surrounding land uses with similar side setbacks and distances to structures on adjacent lots. The proposed addition 'of floor area is consistent with the development standards for the RL zone and will not encroach into the existing nonconforming north side setback or distance to the structure on the adjacent lot to the north. 4. Detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of persons residing in the neighborhood. Before the issuance of any City permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution, and the Building and Safety Division and Public Works/Engineering Departments requirements. Through the permit and inspection process, the referenced agencies will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. Detrimental and/or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. The addition to the existing single-family dwelling unit will be constructed in a manner similar with existing dwelling units located in the surrounding community and will not be detrimental and/or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application, subject to the following conditions: Development shall substantially comply with the plans and documents presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing. 2. Existing Podocarpus macrophyllus (Sweet Yew Plum Pine) trees, or similar species, shall be maintained along a portion of the north and south property lines, and additional trees of the same species shall be planted along said property lines to act as a hedge and maintain privacy among adjacent properties. 4. Standard Conditions., The applicant shall comply with the standard development conditions attached hereto. 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 the property owner and applicant, Chumwei Chi, 20732 Timberline Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91789. 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27th DAY OF OCTOBER 2015, BY THE PLANNINC CO M Ruth Low, Chairperson 1, Greg Gubman, 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 27th day of October, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: ATTEST: 8 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX II DI�IOfiD Bl� � COMMUNITY — — DEPARTMENT M4 n l� USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES -ODevelopment Review - No. PL 2015-326 SUBJECT: To construct a two-story addition consisting of 909 square feet of floor area to an existing 1,546 square -foot, two-story single-family residence with an attached 467 square -foot, two -car garage; and a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) to allow a two-story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a zero -foot north side setback (where 5 feet is required), and a nonconforming distance to a structure on the adjacent lot to the north of 8 feet, 4.5 inches (where 15 feet is required). PROPERTY Chumwei Chi OWNER / 20732 Timberline Lane APPLICANT: Diamond Bar, CA 91789 LOCATION: 20732 Timberline Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91789 �. • �,.--167A• • - - APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839_-7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim, action, or proceeding to attack, set-aside, void or annul, the approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-326 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499.37. In the event the city and/or its officers, agents and employees are made a party of any such action: (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's 9 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX option reimburse the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. (b) Applicant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City defendants. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action of proceeding, and shall cooperate fully in the defense thereof. 2. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the applicant and owner of the property involved have filed, within twenty-one (21) days of approval of this Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-326, 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 approval. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the applicants pay remaining City processing fees, school fees and fees for the review of submitted reports. 3. All des ' igners, architects, engineers, and contractors associated with this project shall obtain a Diamond, Bar Business License; and a zoning approval for those businesses located in Diamond Bar. 4. Signed copies of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX, Standard Conditions, and all environmental mitigations shall be included on the plans (full size). The sheet(s) are for information only to all parties involved in the construction/grading activities and are not required to be wet sealed/stamped by a licensed Engineer/Architect. 5. Prior to the plan check, revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval. 6. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all conditions of approval shall be completed. 7. The project site shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of approval and all laws, or other applicable regulations. 8. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and any applicable Specific Plan in effect at the time of building permit issuance. 9. All site, grading, landscape/irrigation, and roof plans, and elevation plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of City permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.,) or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. 10. The property owner/applicant shall remove the public hearing notice board within three days of this project's approval. 10 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX 11. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of City Planning, Building and Safety Divisions, Public Works Department, and the Fire Department. B. FEES/DEPOSITS 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, prior to issuance of building or grading permit (whichever comes first), as required by the City. School fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS The approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-326 expires within two years from the ' date of approval if the use has not been exercised as defined pursuant to Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.66.050(b)(1). In accordance with DBMC Section 22.60.050(c), the applicant may request, in writing, a one-year time extension for Planning Commission consideration. Such a request must be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the expiration date and be accompanied by the review fee in accordance with the Fee Schedule in effect at the time of submittal. This approval is to construct a 909 square -foot, two-story addition to an existing two-story home located at 20732 Timberline Lane, as described in the staff report and depicted on the approved plans on file with the Planning Division, subject to the conditions listed herein. 2. The construction documents submitted for plan check shall be in substantial compliance with the architectural plans approved by the Planning Commission, as modified pursuant to the conditions below. If the plan check submittal is not in substantial compliance with the approved Development Review submittal, the plans may require further staff review and re -notification of the surrounding property owners, which may delay the project and entail additional fees. 3. To ensure compliance with the provisions of the Planning Commission approval, a final inspection is required from the Planning Division when work for any phase of the project has been completed. The applicant shall inform the Planning 11 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX Division and schedule an appointment for such an inspection. 4. The above conditions shall run with the land and shall be binding upon all future owners, operators, or successors thereto of the property. Non-compliance with any condition of approval or mitigation measure imposed as a condition of the approval shall constitute a violation of the City's Development Code. Violations may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of the Development Code. 5. Failure to comply with any of the conditions set forth above or as subsequently amended in writing by the City, may result in failure to obtain a building final and/or a certificate of occupancy until full compliance is reached. The City's requirement for full compliance may require minor corrections and/or complete demolition of a non-compliant improvement, regardless of costs incurred where the project does not comply with design requirements and approvals that the applicant agreed to when permits were pulled to construct the project. 6. The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively attached referenced as site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, and landscape plans on file with the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 7. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 8. All roof -mounted equipment shall be screened from public view. 9. All structures, including walls, trash enclosures, canopies, etc., shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours by the property owners/occupant. 10. All landscaping, structures, architectural features and public improvements damaged during construction shall be repaired or replaced upon project completion. 1 The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement approved 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 12 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX I applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor used has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 2. Mandatory solid waste disposal services shall be provided by the City franchised waste hauler to all parcels/lots or uses affected by approval of this project. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, (909) 839-7040, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Prior to Building Permit issuance, an Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted concurrently with the drainage plan clearly detailing erosion control measures for review and approval. These measures shall be implemented during construction. The erosion control plan shall conform to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) as specified in the Storm Water BMP Certification. 2. Grading and construction activities and the transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. Additionally, all construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. Detailed drainage system information of the lot shall be submitted. All drainage/runoff from the development shall be conveyed from the site to the natural drainage course. No on-site drainage shall be conveyed to adjacent parcels, unless that is the natural drainage course. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 839-7020, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: a 0 1:4 Z-11-1 RUP191 ki 111111111111*] z &I 1 At the time of plan check submittal, plans and construction shall conform to current State and Local Building Code (i.e. 2013 California Building Code series will apply) requirements and all other applicable construction codes, ordinances and regulations in effect. 2. Provisions for CALGreen shall be implemented onto plans and certification shall 13 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX be provided by a third party as required by the Building Division. Specific water, waste, low VOC, and related conservation measures shall be shown on plans. Construction shall conform to the current CALGreen Code. 3. The minimum design load for wind in this area is 110 M.P.H. exposures "C" and the site is within seismic zone D or E. The applicant shall submit drawings and calculations prepared by a California State licensed Arch itect/Engineer with wet stamp and signature. 4. This- project shall comply with the energy conservation require * ments of the State of California Energy Commission. All lighting shall be high efficacy or equivalent per the current California Energy Code 119 and 150(k). 5. Indoor air quality shall be provided consistent with ASHRAE 62.2 as required per California Energy Code 150(0). 6. A detailed drainage plan shall be submitted which includes design for preventing cross -lot drainage across the zero lot line conditions. Drainage shall be maintained to flow to an approved location away from any structures and property lines. 7. All balconies shall be designed for 60lb/ft live load. 8. A soils report is required per CBC 1803 and all recommendations of the soils report shall be adhered to. 9. Light and ventilation shall comply with CBC 1203 and 1205. The kitchen and master bedroom shall provide adequate light and ventilation openings directly from the outside. 1:24 10. Solid waste management of construction material shall incorporate recycling material collection per Diamond Bar Municipal Code 8.16 of Title 8. The contractor shall complete all required forms and pay y applicable deposits prior to permit. 11. Prior to building permit issuance, all school district fees shall be paid. Please obtain a form from the Building and Safety Division to take directly to the school district. 12. Submit grading plans clearly showing all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a pad certification. 14 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX 13. SCAQMD notification is required at least 10 days prior to any demolition. Proof of notification is required at permit issuance. 14. All workers on the job shall be covered by workman's compensation insurance under a licensed general contractor. Any changes to the contractor shall be updated on the building permit. CONSTRUCTION — CONDITIONS REQUIRED DURING CONSTRUCTION: 15. Every permit issued by the building official under the provisions of this Code shall expire and become null and void unless the work authorized by such permit is commenced within one -hundred -eighty (180) days after permit issuance, and if a successful inspection has not been obtained from the building official within one -hundred -eighty (180) days from the date of permit issuance or the last successful inspection. A successful inspection shall mean a documented passed inspection by the city building inspector as outlined in Section 110.6. 16. The project shall be protected by a construction fence to the satisfaction of the Building Official. All fencing shall be view obstructing with opaque surfaces. 17. All structures and property shall be maintained in a safe and clean manner during construction. The property shall be free of debris, trash, and weeds. 18. All equipment staging areas shall be maintained in an orderly manner and screened behind a minimum 6' high fence. 19. The project shall be protected by a construction fence and shall comply with the NPDES & BMP requirements (sand bags, etc.) 20. The location of property lines and building pad may require a survey to be determined by the building inspection during foundation and/or frame inspection. 21. The applicant shall contact Dig Alert and have underground utility locations marked by the utility companies prior to any excavation. Contact Dig Alert by dialing 811 or their website at www.digalert.org. 22. Any changes or deviation from approved plans during the course of construction shall be approved by the City prior to proceeding with any work. 23. All glazing in hazardous locations shall be labeled as safety glass. The labeling shall be visible for inspection. 24. Carbon monoxide detectors are required in halls leading to sleeping rooms per CRC R315. 15 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX 25. Drainage patterns shall match the approved grading/drainage plan from the Public Works/Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from the building at a 2% minimum slope. The final as -built conditions shall match the grading/drainage plan or otherwise approved as -built grading/drainage plan. 26. Decks, roofs, and other flat surfaces shall slope at least 1/4"/ft with approved and listed water proofing material. Guardrails shall be provided for these surfaces at least 42" minimum in height, 4" maximum spacing between rails, and capable of resisting at least 20 pounds per lineal foot of lateral load. 27. Special inspections and structural observation will be required in conformance to CBC 1704 to 1709. 28. All plumbing fixtures including existing areas shall have low flow type fixtures installed consistent with California Civil Code Section 1101.1 to 1101.8. FOOI] 16 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2015 -XX F-, CHUNWEI CHI RESIDENCE 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA. 91789 Code Summary Area Calculations Project Data RONT YARD SET BACK: 1, EXISTING SITE AREA 8.482 SO. FT. (GROSS). PROJECT: FIRST FLOOR EXTENSION AND REMODEL (BEDROOM WITH BATHROOM, REQUIRED 20'-0' MIN (12.21A 17A) 2. EXISTING BUILDING 1.546 SO. FT. FAMILY ROOM, AND DINING ROOM) PROPOSED EXISTING 3. PROPOSED ADDITION 909 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (RETREAT) REAR YARD SETBACK: 4. FIRST FLOOR (EXIST) 737 SQ. FT. (PROPOSSED) FT. OWNER: CHUNMEI CHI 20732 TIMBERLINE LN.. REQUIRED 20'-0' MIN (12.08 C 3) _8fi1.SO. 1,398 SQ. FT. DIAMOND BAR, CA. 91789 PROPOSED EXISTING FRONT PORCH) 81 SQ, FT. ZONING: RL (LOW DENSITY RESIDENT) SIDE YARD SETBACK: REAR PATIO TO BE REMOVED) 382 SQ. FT. CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V -B RIGHT SIDE REQUIRED 5'-0' MIN (12.21 A 17B) (REAR PATIO) 139 SO, FT. LEFT SIDE REQUIRED 10'-0- MIN (12.21 A 17B) SECOND FLOOR (EXIST) 809 SQ. FT. CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE BUILDING CODE / COUNTY AMENTMENTS W W/ PROPOSED EXISTING (PROPOSED) -24@. SQ. FT. �T' 43 BUILDING HEIGHT: 35-0' MAX (12.21 A 17C) 1,057 SQ. FT. (REAR BALCONY TO BE REMOVED) 302 SR. FT. TRACK; 45268 CITY.; DIAMOND BAR REQUIRED (REAR NEW BALCONY) 85 SQ. FT. PROPOSED EXISTING COUNTY: LOS ANGELES GRAND TOTAL (S.F.) 2.455 SQ. FT. ASSESSOR'S ID NO.: 8765-009-048 S. GARAGE (E) 467 SQ. FT. 6. PATIO COVERAGE (E) 362 SQ. FT. Vacinity Map 7. LOT COVERAGE (E) (FIRST FLOOR BUILDING) 737 SQ. FT. �. (GARAGE) 467 SQ. FT. )i amLtn Il (FRONT PORCH) 81 SO. FT. _ (REAR PATIO TO BE DEMO) 362 SQ. FT. -1 8.482 SQ. FT .19FT.] 4 8. LOT COVERAGE (P)� (((FIRST FLOOR BUILDING) 1,398 SQ, FT. N ' (FRONTEPORCH) 81 SQ. FT. (REAR PATIO) 139 S0, FT. 2,O�Z Q. FT./ 8.482 SQ. FT. 9. LANDSCAPE AREA (P) s2,542 SQ. FT. ,-, --- - `N) 530 SO' FT' PROJECT SITE: 530 SQ, FT./ 8,482 SO. FT. 20732 Timberlinelm" .05% Diamond Dar, Ca. 91789 Statement of Special Inspection 2013 CRC I BLOCK MAP Special .Inspections per sections i iu4 ono 1 im Description of seismic-force-resleting system and designated seismic systems subject to special Inspections PLOT PLAN as per Section 1705.3: EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN AND EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN PROJECT SITE: Description of main wind -force -resisting system and designated wind resisting components subject to A-4 20732 TimberlineIm special Inspections In accordance with Section 1705,4.2: PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN Diamond Bar, Ca. 91 12.- inspection of epoxy anchors and epoxy reinforcin• the special Inspector retained by the owner sholl provide continuous Inspection of all epoxyy anchoring steel. Inspection shall be to veNI that the product A-6 for bolts and or reinforcing provided Is being Installed in accordance with the manufacturer's directions and requirements. 1 i 11 1111, CONSTRUCTION TO COMPLY W/ LOCAL CODES & ORDINANCES & THE FOLLOWING: APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES: ALL PLANS TO COMPLY WITH T-24 AND THE FOLLOWING: i 2013 CBC, 2013 CRO, 2013 CMC, 2013 CPC. 2013 CEC, 2013 CFC, 20DS CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, 2013 AND LOCAL BUILDING CODE 1. SECTION 4.106.2 - STORM WATER DRAINAGE AND RETENTION DURING CONSTRUCTION. 2. SECTION 4.106.3 - SURFACE DRAINAGE. THE SITE SHALL BE PLANNED AND DEVELOPED TO KEEP SURFACE WATER FROM ENTERING BUILDINGS. PLANS SHALL INDICATE HOW THE SITE GRADING OR DRAINAGE SYSTEM WILL MANAGE WATER FLOWS. 3. SECTION 4.303 - INDOOR WATER USE SECTION 4.303.1 - TWENTY PERCENT SAVINGS FOR PLUMBING FIXTURES 1. ACCORDING TO TABLE 4.303.2 OR 2. 20% REDUCTION FROM BASELINE IN TABLE 4.303.1 SECTION 4.303.2 - MULTIPLE SHOWERHEADS SERVING ONE SHOWER, SECTION 4.303.3 - PLUMBING FIXTURES AND FITTINGS SHALL COMPLY WITH TABLE 4.303.3. 4. SECTION 4.304 - OUTDOOR WATER USE SECTION 4.304.1 - IRRIGATION CONTROLLERS SHALL BE: 1. WEATHER OR SOIL MOISTURE BASED CONTROLLERS 2. WEATHER BASED CONTROLLERS SHALL HAVE A RAIN SENSOR 5. SECTION 4.406.1 - SEAL BUILDING ENVELOPE JOINTS AND OPENINGS ACCORDING TO CEC. 6. SECTION 4.406 - CONSTRUCTTION WASTE REDUCTION, DISPOSAL, AND RECYCLING. SECTION 4.4G6.1 - 50% WASTE REDUCTION SECTION 4.408.2 - CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Green Building Notes 7. SECTION 4.410 - BUILDING OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUAL S. SECTION 4.503 - FIREPLACES 9. SECTION 4.504 - POLLUTANT CONTROL SECTION 4.504.1 - COVER DUCT OPENINGS AND PROTECTION HVAC EQUIPMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION. SECTION 4.504.2 - FINISH MATERIAL POLLUTANT CONTROL 10. SECTION 4,505 - INTERIOR MOISTURE CONTROL SECTION 4.505.2 - CONCRETE SLAB FOUNDATION. SECTION 4.505.3 - BUILDING MATERIAL MOISTURE CONTENT. 11. SECTION 4.506 - INDOOR AIR QUALITY SECTION 4.506.1 - BATHROOM EXHAUST FANS: 1. ENERGY STAR & DUCTED TO THE OUTSIDE 2. H1U,AIIDISTAT CONTROLLED, UNLESS PART OF WHOLE HOUSE VENT 12. SECTION 4.507 - ENVIRONMENTAL COMFORT SECTION 4.507.1 - COVERS FOR WHOLE HOUSE FANS WITH R-4.2 INSULATIVE VALUE. SECTION S AND.ASHRHEATING & A/C SYSTEM DESIGN (ACOA At W um irt,�ed' ary eh9n0 ro� i �9 •� tOmw.. ae...wr en era OPENABLE AREA f/ 5.7 SQUARE FEET (MINIMUM) Emergency Escape and R. 5cue T-- Wmdows of Doors for Resldental Dwelhnog Floor SITE PLAN, A-1 PLOT PLAN A-2 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN AND EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN A-3 ROOF PLAN A-4 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN AND PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN A-5 EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION, EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION PROPOSED GATE FENCE, AND WEST (REAR) ELEVATION. A-6 SOUTH (RIGHT SIDE) ELEVATION AND NORTH (LEFT SIDE) EM EWCNCY ESCAPE AND RESCUE WINDDN5 • THE MIIIIMUM HILT ENE OP[NABLGMPA- 11E110 LMSTHM 5.7^AIMEr . THE MuxMUM - CLEM ORIUBLE-H DIMGNSIOR SHNt B[ 200 -GS • TMC MMIMUM xCr CLCAROr[xABLC HCIGM 9nALL eC 24 WOfCS 4 THc r111i5H[D SILL HOWT W WIIIDOWS 5MM OG IID MM THN144'IDOVETHerH- wwoowvnTH rnERmuIaD MIxI51uM Wlmn zmAlm TME Hoerr z4Don nrn PRONOC TH[ RtOVIPEO OPOlN)L[ ARG Q` 6.19ri1MG2[r ♦ THC [MGRGOIeY WINDON OR DOOR 9HPLL BC OP[GBLG iRa4 THG 111310E TO PPONOCA NLL, CUlR OP[IIIx4 WRHOut mous[ d' 9LPMABIET00L9 . THE OMMBLE WoHoJ YWIN 1OR DOORS SHALL-11111RtmLY IWO APUBLICSMt, PUBLICAL=.y OREIGT- • IT IS THE IMmT W THE CWETHATTHEWIxDOW9uSO roRWIXG[NLYGSGPC C0.P Ue 5Gu se LOGTCD ox THc exrwoR a me Buunwe x rnxr RESae wl eeorcmm rneM me aTcwaL CHUNWEI CHI RESIDENCE COPYRIGHT - ALL RIGHT RESERVED OCT?,02015 CITY OF DIAMOND BAIL REV I REVISIDN I DATE revisions project 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA. 91789 client CHUNWEI CHI RESIDENCE (909)921-8818 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA., 91789 content drawn by; OWNER checked by; date; OCT. 2015 drawing no. in PLOT• \-.\ y�) V -0'\-L FI!!E (N) IF NEEDED 2-P 0 ARPUS NATURE HDGHT: 30 TO MATURE SPREAD: 20 TO FACE CURB D/W APPROACH n REV I RMSMN I --- I revisions project 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA. 91789 client CHUNWEI CHI RESIDENCE (909)921-8818 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA., 91789 content drawn by; OWNER checked by; date; OCT. 2015 drawing no. Im (E) PATIO TO BE DEMO — _JIt�aE.WNLA891� — — — F I (E) DINING ROOM eek (E) LIVING ROOM HIGH CLG I I I PORCH j I I (E) KITCHEN W -a ao (E) ENTRY 81-0, .a 2- CAR(E) I� z z2222rrrcz= zzrl7Yr'r-C=»7 EXISTING FIRST FLOOR PLAN (E) BALCONY TO 8E DEMO I I I I ( I i I I I (E) BEDROOM #3 I a^ o'ao I I I i I I I I I I I L---- — (E) MASTER BEDROOM HIGH CLD (E) M. BATHROOM — HIGH CLO BEDROOM #3 I ( BEDR� 0)OM #2 8' (E) ac a -o• Txc -----------�1 I I I I I I I I L------------------� EXISTING SECOND FLOOR PLAN sma ile • 1'-D' (E) HALLWAY W -o• ao MEILING LIU RESIDENCE INN�� All RICHT RESERVED REV I REVISWH i DATE i revisions project 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA. 91789 client CHUNWEI CHI RESIDENCE (909)921-8818 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA., 91789 content drawn by; OWNER checked by; date; OCT. 2015 drawing no. 4: �7 JIM4 W, D -D D L 19 4:12 RIDGE r DON iE IN 41-2 401-2 Halt m 1. RoOr MATERIAL AND LE 7 —2 COLOR TO MATCH (E) V NOTE: O FIRST FLOOR PROPOSED L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — SECOND FLOOR PROPOSED PROPOSED ROOF PLAN scue 1/4 - I,-#' CHUNWEI CFH RESIDENCE . — — —I IF— ALL MGHT RE MOD REV I KVISMN DATE I revisions project 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA. 91789 client CHUNWEI CHI RESIDENCE (909)921-8818 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA., 91789 content drawn by; OWNER checked by; date; OCT. 2015 drawing no. FAW UMLIKM N M PORCH N SQUARE FOOTAGE: w� FIRST FLOOR 1 ,�. (EXISTING) 737 SQ. FT. (PROPOSED) 661 S0. FT. 1,398 SQ. FT. (FRONT PORCH) 81 SQ. FT. (REAR PORCH) 107 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR 1 11 102• �,-g• 2'-g• q,-42 (EXISTING) 809 SQ. FT. (PROPOSED) 248 S0. FT, 1,057 SQ. FT. (BALCONY) 86 SQ. FT. GRAND TOTAL AIR RETURN CEILING BUILDING: 2,455 SQ. FT. GARAGE: 467 SQ. FT. BEDROOM #4 W-0• CLO WOOD (N) BATHROOM #3 g--oao 3•-e• _ e-4" di FY AIeROOM WOOD —T— (N) DINING ROOM 8 WOO G I I 311 (E) >b I g� LIVING ROOM I h HIW94 OODMp I !L I I / I I ===4 (E) — —— J ENTRY (E) I g WOOD PORCH I i I - rrr'11107 : (E) 2- CAR GARAGE SME' 1/4' . 1'-0• 2 n LO 7 BALCONY/ / / av WALL aaaw __\ \ PANTRY w I I I I I I N I ( m I I LLMW WII OW I -----_.---- 151 6l W1 I I I I I I I I I I I I (E) MASTER BEDROOM HIGH CLO (E) M. BATHROOM — HIGH CLC --z-- BEDROOM 43 I I BEDROOM #2 81-01 0 0 g_�O p -----------� i ( I I ( I I I I I I L------------------ PROPOSED -----------------PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCAM' 1/4' a 1'-0• to w HALLWAY 9'-0' cLG w� 1 ,�. �- EXISTING WALL MIN X" TYPE X GYP BOARD PER 9'-g• ( 0 t q 1 11 102• �,-g• 2'-g• q,-42 in FROM FOUNDATION AND EXTEND ABOVE GRADE CPC 2010 SECTION i ® SUPPLY REGISTER I AIR RETURN CEILING I I I RETREAT/ OFFICE tv n iv h 91-0' CLO WOOD I ( b I I I I , PANTRY w I I I I I I N I ( m I I LLMW WII OW I -----_.---- 151 6l W1 I I I I I I I I I I I I (E) MASTER BEDROOM HIGH CLO (E) M. BATHROOM — HIGH CLC --z-- BEDROOM 43 I I BEDROOM #2 81-01 0 0 g_�O p -----------� i ( I I ( I I I I I I L------------------ PROPOSED -----------------PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN SCAM' 1/4' a 1'-0• to w HALLWAY 9'-0' cLG REV I RMSDIN ( DATE revisions project 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA. 91789 client CHUNWEI CHI RESIDENCE (909)921-8818 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA., 91789 content drown by; OWNER checked by; date; JUNE. 2015 drawing no, 7 LEGEND PROPOSED WALL TO BE DEMOLISHED EXISTING WALL MIN X" TYPE X GYP BOARD PER CBC 406.1.4 0 3.5 INCH CLEAN OUT, BASED ON 4 INCH SOIL PIPE 18 INCHES FROM FOUNDATION AND EXTEND ABOVE GRADE CPC 2010 SECTION 707.10 AND 719.3 ® SUPPLY REGISTER AIR RETURN CEILING REV I RMSDIN ( DATE revisions project 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA. 91789 client CHUNWEI CHI RESIDENCE (909)921-8818 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA., 91789 content drown by; OWNER checked by; date; JUNE. 2015 drawing no, 7 C T.O.P. HDR. m ,o T.O.P. F.F. LO,P. HDR. Wm� L � F.F. EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION (EXISTING) SCALE 1/4 - 1'-0• K (E) 20'-1' PER �►mnr ®I � ISI I�il wnnnunnuuuununuuunu. NewriRsTrUDORADDITION L STUCCO TO MATCH 00STING 14EW FIRST FLOOR ADDIT14 WEST (REAR) ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4 . f-0' _ MOTES _ I. STUCCO SMALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 25 OF THE CBC. 2. WHEN STUCCO IS APPLIED OVER WOOD 5A52 CHEATING TWO LAYERS Of GRADE D PAPER SHALL BE APPLIED S. A MINIMUM No. 2G GAGE CORRCGZNI- P1515TAIIT WEEP SCP.EED SHALL BE PROVIDE AT OR BELOW THE FOUNDATION PLATE UNE ON ALL EXTERIOR STUD WALLS 4.THE SCREED SHALL BE PLACID A MINIMUM OP 4 INCHES ABOVE THE EARTH OR 2 INCHES ABOVI PAVED ARIAS. E. PERTHE MUNICIPAL CODE AN ACCESORY STRUCTURE SHALL INCORPORATE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ELEMENTS OP THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE. G. STUCCO AND WINDOW INSTALLATION SHALL MATCH EXISTING, 7. ROOF MATERIAL, rLAT TILE BEL AIR OR EQUAL, W14:12 SLOPE 18' OVERHANG U.N.O., EAGLE ROOFING, ICC-ESRN 1900, WEIGHT OP TILE G.0 P5F. UN790, MODEL, 287, 8. COLOR PROF05SED STUCCO WALLS, BAJA WHITE SIDING. HICKORY TRIM: WHISPER ROOF, BROWN GREY RANGE 9, ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: TRADITIONAL EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION (EXISTING) - PROPOSED GATE FENCE SCALE: 1/4 . 1'-0' CHUNWEI CHI RESIDENCE 9 0 ALL RIG14T5 RESERVEO REV I mmsmN _DATE revisions project 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA. 91789 client CHUNWEI CHI RESIDENCE (909)921-8818 20732 TIMBERLINE LN., DIAMOND BAR, CA., 91789 content drawn by; OWNER checked by; date; OCT. 2015 drawing no. Emdom SOUTH (LEFT SIDE) ELEVATION [ I RMSMN DATE project 2O782TIMBERLINE UN.. DIAMOND BAR, CA. 91789 client CHUNVVE|CHI RESIDENCE (909)921-8818 2U732TIMBERLINE LN.. DIAMOND BAR, CA..3178S vvnmn, drawn by; OWNER checked by; date; OCT, 2015 drawing no. A-6 F - Z W F- uj Q m� r) Z Z W � d Q0 W 0 u Uz C L N v L) U) c 0) c � c J E a) = C LO U `- U CY) LO Ui = CL N d 0 CL CL U Q •N c L U W O N co (D. O J d m c m c m c m c c c F c m c O O o a) -0 O 0 *k O O O o uc-i m O m m m m m m m o m O Z �} 0 0 0 m 0 o m a O o 0 0 0) a) C > m m Z in m W W m J — M to a) E C Fn " c E -I 42 m c`o m m m fn C 0p 00{{ G C ,ca a) 0 a) c o c O c o ca c 0 U co U w >_ U U U U U a Q aa a Q a C ac a a c oc Q m a � CL Q m Q m p (1) (1) cao pp a) a) a)N m mR) ma) O $? 2 2 m m a) m a) -p— a) a) a) m m.2 U �-0 c � O 02 d z E E E E E o E O EE 10 -C U) �a C U O U U U U C C U C V C z c c C c O O O U) o 3: C O Lo 'O O O O O i a) a) 0 ate) 0 a) a) a) m aa)) N Q I- Z `- ¢ 0 0 N m N �( r co Z N CL 0. 0 cc 0 cc o CC m 00 Cc a) CC 0 cc 0 cc 0 c N N M O O C G C O C ,O m mm 2E ca m �E mm �E_ 0) m m �€ ` m m �E m m �E m m �E m uE ' Q O Q O O .m Q O v Q o 4- ao a 4- ao a4- ao a 4- Q 0- C a m � c s m U Y >o a) U a O a) x O o = -0 c a) a 3 U m O c U a) c m ate) a m n •- c s N m p) } Z LLJ Z Z w Z Z Z Z Z •- rr ti d' 0) W to co M M ti O'T i r LO r � IIn r LO r O r O V r O O O O O J C14 -i C 0.. ILCL CL 0- Q.. d 0.. ry IL Of 0 U 0 0 U U ZW 0� (DryU)w z U) w Z Q Z � > J =g0Q� ==1 Cf z OW Z U) 0 =(DZ m� m U) �zcng0— (L 0 ¢ EL II Z11 IL II II II II ILXQCLQU 0 Z W CD w 3: Wa) ca� a) o c6 00 a a) -0 r 0 *k > w uc-i m O (n a) m 0 �# m v v) m *k o a O Z �} m 0 m a -p c w� ` — aci p — a > m > m > m Q Z in 0— 0 m W W J — M to a) E m 0 a) Fn " c E -I 42 m c`o m m m fn C .� — G C ,ca a) .1G .- '— a) m 'O N O J E w >_ °' o �c �E m •— U� cc m mE C ac O c c oc c OS c OU) U Q p (1) (1) a)O pp `a) pp E m mR) ma) F- w C9 .O p E F- J_ H 3y O O -p— - p CO .0 „_, mcr,— N p.2 C m.2 U �-0 c � O 02 d z c o (Jr Z C m e m 'U) -C U) �a C U O C U n � U U) c`a U) U) ?r Z M' z C a. w " Z N m :z r 'S U) o 3: N 'a co 3: Lo 'O C O (D d' U to S i J O Q 0 0. 0 W LOC O Q o Z O Z N Q I- Z `- ¢ 0 0 N m N �( r co Z N CL 0. N Q IL Z d tC) N N r N N M r ZW 0� (DryU)w z U) w Z Q Z � > J =g0Q� ==1 Cf z OW Z U) 0 =(DZ m� m U) �zcng0— (L 0 ¢ EL II Z11 IL II II II II ILXQCLQU 0 Z W CD w -a 75 -6 . 0 .2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "0 _0"0 a "0 -o -a -o cu cu m cu cu ca cu cu m m co co cu ca �o 1.0- 0 �o �o 10 0 0 1.0- 10 1.0- 10- 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) cu m cc ca (U ca m m (U ca m cu m m C 0 C: 0 c 0 c 0 c .0 c 0 c .0 c .0 C .0 C: .0 c .0 c .0 0 .0 is P ca cu CO U) CL CL a CL CL 0. CL 0. 0- a a CL a 0. 0. CL CL CL CL 0- C- CL 0- 0. CL 0. CU cu cu cu (U cu cu (U cu cu cu cu cu cu a) 2 2 .2 a) .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 a) .2 a) (D .2 a) . a) .2 (D (D 'a a) "a a) 'a a) 'a a) -a a) -a E "a E "a E a E 'a E 'a E "a E E a E E E E E E 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 u 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C: c •c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4- 0 4- 0 0 '6 ' o 'o a) -a CD '0 a) -a a) "a a) 'a a) 'a (D 'a a) -0 a) -0 a) -a Q) "a 0) "a a) _0 a) LP LP q_- 0 C C: 0 0 c C: 0 .(D > 0 c a 0 0 a c 0 O a a 0 0 a c - 0 0 c a 0 0 c c 0 0 a C: - 0 0 a c - 0 0 c c 0 0 c a 0 *= 0 c a 0 0 a a 0 -= m m --r- m w 0 *.r- m ca *= (U m �;= m cu C' C13 m - m ca - cu cri C: = m m C: 1= m w = w m m m = w m = m m "d L) E UE a) E E E -2 E .9 E E .0- E UE -a E E E E LL LL 0 0 CL 5 EL Zo EL " " -a -0 0 a�- CL C C, 10 0.4- < - c CL 4- CL . C: CL 10 r- CL 10 r- .,o < 'L 'o < "'o < CL 'o < < c- �o < CL �o < U), a) Ln 0. Co 2 (n m a) U) a) '0 0) a) 0 N r_ m 0) (U 0 a) 0 c tm co 0 ca r_ CL• W =3 cu o m 2 0 C 0 C CL 0 > a) 0 0 (n < a) co -0 cu 0 2 2 a) tr_- cu a 0 '0 -j L) C C N L) N m tt-- - 3! a) CL :3 LIZ cu 0 cu E ca 3: 0 0 co CU -j a) CL 15 0 U) < w w w w w w w ui w w w w w Z z z z z z z z z LO 1- 0) 00C14 C� L? LO LO C14 (D ,t m cy.) LO L? It U') LO It 4 c? cli i M LO L6 -j - 0 - 0 - LO O cli 0 cli 0 cli -1 C\l 0 C\l -i CL cli C\l -j �j cli -i C\l N -J -i CL CL -i CL m a - -j CL IL ci a- a- rK ry a_ a- ry IL:D 0- a) co C) U 0 > co -0 a) c 0 > a) cu _0 C c ICU a) r_ a) (D a) (D a) 0 " 3r 3: cu U) a) 0 0 - 0 - Co > a) > .m- a) a) > > _0 Z EL U) L) c (1) a) C: - (1) - cr, . ?� r .- E 0,0 0 ICU 0 75 .2�1 E (1) E (n E c U) c: U) 0 0 c: c: > < Ln a) C: cu o -u U) E cu 0 Q) - -0 S; 0 -J u lu cn (n (1) -0 0 = _) co LU 0 'm CY) a) 'm 0 a) L) - 0 0 0 o a) 0 -0 W C: CU a) > o , cn T c (D CO - a) I- -'0 z -0,6 0 coE - cn 2 = cu (L) a) 0 U) ca a) cr w a IL -S LL 76 a) ch LL -0 (D 2 In 0 0 -a uj cu r 0 0 ca a cu m CU § IL r ry Fn CLQ) r t-- ?: 2 m LO u > 00 cr) 0 C:) 0 Lr) 0 0 CY) co LO 0 a) 't > -.2 of/) ob "t Lo CL co - I. 0 - C14 3r Z W 0 a) z b a) -'T z 0 0 C) E rt m - CN z to C� (D a) 0) I- LO a) N Z �t M CY) 00 a) cr) Z C:) t c) a) LO a. 0- 42 cj - "0 0 U) Cco m C: W a c c w W . 2 .2 0 0 0 0 0 'a '0 "a 'a -0 '0 "a '0 "a 'a ca m cc ca cu 10 10 0- 0 0 10 10 cu cu m (a cu ca m 0 0 0 .0 .0 cn m U mcu U .00 — — .0 cu .0 U) CL CL 0. CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL CL cu m lu m m cu m CD a) $? a) .2 z — a) .2 (D .2 0) a) z a) E 'a E "a E E CL E CL E a E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 u 0 L) 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 a) _0 a) ' a)0 -0 (D "a a) "0 w -0 (D 0 C 0 r_ C 0 c r_ 0 c r_ C r_ CD 0 c 0 cu (con 0 C: - 0 c 4-- - 0 c 0 0 > 0 0 CD m .9 E mm . 2 E mm E mio E mm L E (D 0 -a - 0 I 0 0 CL CL CL 0 -4 - M 1.0- 0-40- C CL 4- CL r - co C:C m'a cu co O 0 cy) (D Q I -W ca O 0 > UU .2 co -r E < cc ry, cu a) n CL LU Lli ui I --I-- w w z ui F - w -j z z z z 0') 0) m m LO 0) m LO 0 LO C) C� cli C) 6 C? 19 "T LO L6 L O Lo LO It L6 O C\j C) C\l C) C\j 0 N 0 cli a 0 CN 0 N C) C14 L DL CL CL 0- n IL CL ry < C: a) C: a) O Z 0 —a) 0 (D 0 a) a)c a) C: 0) r_ a) > C: 0) C a) :2 2 L:) 0C 0= E .C -U U) a) U) a) co a) - E '� 422 0 a) w a) En " 0)a) a) a) a) => > = C: a) (n Z M - M (n - Co cu a) 42 0) fn•ICU .9; E -j E 7a Cr UO UO 42 W 0 �o w 0 a) 0) ICU CD CD (D 420 U- 0) cu U) g 4CU� (D 0 (D -1 >1 lt-, ry - E C: E cr, c ry - E cr, E . C co Cf) C: Z_ .9 'r cn 00 En LO V) 0 LO - cl) , U) (n cu Qco CL m 3�. C—f) 0 3: CNI -0 co (n 0 m q) Cq Z ch -0 (Y) < t 0 ce) Z t- (D CY) Z 0) C\j � rl- -0 - C14 :!� a) r- Z C\l ��l (D Ndui Z C14 —1 cu 5� CL 11 C14 — (N — C\l — I N — 1 CN CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1, Stella Marquez, declare as follows: On October 27, 2015, the Diamond Bar Planning Commission will hold a Regular Meeting at 7:00 p.m. at City, Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. I am employed by the City of Diamond Bar. On October 22, 2015, a copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at the following locations: South Coast Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar Library 21800 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Heritage Park 2900 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on October 22, 2015, at Diamond Bar, California. Stella MarqOez CDAzstel I a\affl d av itposting. doe 11,111111 11;;1 iiiiiiiii:ri;l Neighbor Awareness Form This is not a consent form. AffectL-neighbors merely sign that they have seen the architectural request and have had an opportunity to review the proposed plans and make comment to the Association. Neighbors with any concerns should note them in the comment section below. A neighbor who desires to attend the next Board meeting to address concerns, should immediately contact management, CMC Community Management Company, Julie Virgen at (714) 634-0611, for the date of the next Board meeting. Facing Neighbor (home across the street) Name: . �ZZ-'Address: o�D���GG�ignature: No Comment- I have a comment as follows: L4N Adiacent Neighbor Name: 0141(1 f ��V-e4 Address: 207-39,%�Signatures.,?. �C No CommentI have a comment as follows: Adiacent Neighbor 'Name: /,..UA-�.J' e,4&�Address:ignature: No Comment ❑ I have a comment as follows: Impacted Neighbor (oth r home affected by the proposed improvement; ie, bV Lrperly) Name: f Address: ..20 S&Ltur No Comment F-1 I have a comment as follows: Instructions and Homeowner's Declaration The, undersigned hereby declares that the neighbors above who have signed this form have seen the architectural request and been given the opportunity to review the proposed home improvement plans. If a neighbor listed above, has :refused to sign this form or.after reasonable attempts I have not been able to personally communicate with the neighbor, I have sent a copy of the complete request and full plans to the neighbor, by certified and regular mail at least 10 business days before the submission of the same to the Architectural Committee, and attached hereto proof of such mailing. I understand that any neighbor objections do not in themselves, cause denial of the application by the Architectural Committee. NameC IMNAq,[ C)AL Address:DO82T`/fi,b�r�i dLQ 4/V Dater moo/