The URL can be used to link to this page

Regular Meeting, June 13, 2017 - No. 1 minutes.pdf - Page 002UNADOPTED MINUTES AGENDA DATE: July 11, 2017 ITEM NO.: 1 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF WEST COVINA Tuesday, June 13, 2017 The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the West Covina Council Chambers. Chairman Castellanos led the Pledge of Allegiance and the Commission observed a moment of silence. ROLL CALL Present: Castellanos, Heng, Holtz, Jimenez and Redholtz Absent: None City Staff Present: Anderson, Garcia, V. Hernandez, A. Hernandez, Delostrinos and de Zara APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 1. Regular meeting, May 9, 2017 — The minutes of May 9, 2017 were approved as submitted, ELECTION OF OFFICERS Motion by Castellanos, seconded by Redholtz, to elect Commissioner floltz as Chairman. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Holtz thanked former Commissioner Castellanos for his service as Chairman. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Castellanos, to elect Commissioner Jimenez as Vice Chairman. Motion carried 5-0. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None 11Storagellplandata\PLANCOM \MINUTES 2017 MINUTES16.13.17 minutes.doe Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 — July 11,2017 PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS. 16-16 THROUGH 16-24 AND 17-08 VARIANCE NOS. 16-11 THROUGH 16-18 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NOS. 16-61 THROUGH 16-27 SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DESIGN REVIEW NOS. 16-78 THROUGH 16-7-89 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS APPLICANT: South Hills Homes Partnership LOCATION: Lots on Sunrise Road, Skyview Lane, Rolling Hills Road and Mountain Ridge Road REQUEST: Request to construct 12 single-family homes on 12 existing lots in the South Hills area. Conditional Use Permits are required for the sizes of the houses; Variances are required for building height, minimum setbacks, retaining walls exceeding 8 feet in height; Administrative Use Permits are required for the sizes of the houses, two-story houses, retaining walls, balconies over 200 square feet; and Subcommittee for Design Reviews are required for the architecture of the homes. Assistant Planner Veronica Hernandez presented the staff report. During her presentation she reviewed the proposed homes and told the Commission the lots had been subdivided in the 1990s. She spoke about the style of architecture proposed, the exterior finishes and floor plans of the homes. Ms. Hernandez also told the Commission that variances were being requested for setbacks. In addition, she told the Commission that staff had conducted a survey of homes in the surrounding area and recommended that the homes be reduced in height, since some of the homes required variances due to the height of the roofs. Commissioner Redholtz asked if there was anything unusual about the subject lots that would support a variance. Commissioner Jimenez asked if the applicant had ever worked with staff to reduce the height of the homes. Chairman Holtz also asked why some of the retaining walls were proposed to be so tall. Chairman Holtz opened the public hearing. PROPONENTS: Jeff Tuck, applicant, spoke to the Commission in favor of the application. He explained the history of the lots to the Commission and told them that the proposed heights of the roofs were necessary because of the style of roofs. He said the variances were requested to preserve the character and style of the homes. Mr. Tuck also answered questions from the Commission regarding the pitch of the roofs and told the Commission that the lots had already been graded and infrastructure installed. OPPONENTS: No one spoke in opposition to the proposal. AStoragellplandatalPLANCOM\MINUTES12017 MINUTESI6.13.17 ininutes.doo Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 — July 11,2017 Chairman Holtz closed the public hearing. There was a short discussion by the Commission. During their discussion they considered the number of variances being requested and suggested that the applicant work with staff to try and bring the proposed homes into conformance with the Zoning Code. Commissioner Heng said she liked the proposed homes and expressed her opinion that the Commission could work with the developer and come to a consensus so that the proposed development could be approved. She also recommended that the applicant try and conform to the Zoning Code as much as possible and reduce the height of the homes so that variances would not be necessary. Commissioner Heng made a motion to approve the project. The motion died for lack of a second. There was farther discussion regarding the height of the roofs and the requested variances. It was the consensus of the Commission to direct the applicant to work with staff to reduce the height and size of the homes to make them more compliant with the Zoning Code. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Castellanos, to continue the consideration of this matter to a date uncertain. Motion carried 5-0. 3. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 73142 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 16-16 ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT NO. 16-54 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-05 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-06 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Wenjian Hao LOCATIION: 524 Barranca Street REQUEST: Request for approval of a tentative parcel map to subdivide a 36,942 square foot lot into two parcels; Parcel 1 (18,471 square feet) and Parcel 2 (18,471square feet), to allow for the construction of two single-family homes on the northeast corner of BaiTanca Street and Cortez Street. Assistant Planner Christine Delostrinos presented the staff report. During her presentation Ms. Delostrinos told the Commission that the property would be subdivided into two equal-sized lots. She also told the Commission that a public hearing notice had been mailed to residents and two schools that are within the 300- foot radius, and one person stated an objection to the development of the vacant lot and another recommended a traffic study be conducted. In addition, Ms. Delostrinos spoke to the Commission about the significant trees that would be removed from the property during construction of the new homes. Commissioner Redholtz asked if there were any variances associated with the application. Chairman Holtz opened the public hearing. \\Storagellplandata\PLANCOMIMINUTES12017 MINUTES16.13.17 minutes.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 — July 11, 2017 PROPONENT: Christopher Loh, architect representing the applicant, answered questions by the Commission regarding the tentative parcel map. Commissioner Jimenez asked him if the applicant had filed the tentative parcel map with Los Angeles County. OPPONENTS: No one spoke in opposition to the request. Chairman Holtz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Redholtz asked if the Planning Commission could request a traffic study in conjunction with this application. There was a discussion regarding whether or not the subject property was in conformance with the Zoning Code. There was also a discussion regarding whether or not a building on the adjacent property was encroaching on the subject parcel. Commissioner Castellanos said he liked the design of the two homes and expressed his support of the project. Commissioner Redholtz and Chairman Holtz concurred with Commissioner Castellanos. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Castellanos, to waive further reading of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 17-5866 approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 73142. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Castellanos, to waive further reading of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 17-5867 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 17-05. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Castellanos, to waive further reading of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 17-5868 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 17-06. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Castellanos, to waive further reading of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 17-5869 approving Administrative Use Permit No. 16-54. Motion carried 5-0. Motion by Redholtz, seconded by Castellanos, to waive further reading of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 17-5870 approving Administrative Use Permit No. 16-16. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Holtz said these actions are final unless appealed to the City Council within ten (10) days. 4. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 16-07 \\Storagellplandata\PLANCOM\MINUTES12017 MINUTESI6.13.17 minutes.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 5—July 11,2017 APPLICANT: City of West Covina LOCATION: Citywide REQUEST: The proposed code amendment consists of an amendment to the Zoning section of the West Covina Municipal Code to modify standards for off-sale alcohol sales. Planning Director Jeff Anderson presented the staff report. He reminded the Commission that sales of alcoholic beverages is a permitted use for retail stores such as Walmart and Walgreen's. In addition, he spoke about the criteria of "undue concentration" and the process used in West Covina to review this type of use. There was a short discussion by the Commission regarding the proposed code amendment. Commissioner Redholtz asked if State law required people selling alcoholic beverages to be over the age of 21. Chairman Holtz opened the public hearing. PROPONENTS: Fred Sykes, Forrest Wilkins and Robert Torres spoke in favor of the code amendment. Mr. Sykes expressed his hope that the code amendment would help reduce the use of alcohol in paseos and public areas. Mr. Wilkins also stated he was in favor of the code amendment. Mr. Torres recommended that the code amendment be as restrictive as possible. He stated his opinion that the entire city is oversaturated, and recommended that a conditional use permit be required instead of an administrative use permit. In addition, Mr. Torres recommended safety measures such as requiring a state- licensed security guard be present at sites selling alcoholic beverages. In addition, he recommended sales of alcohol be separated from sensitive uses. OPPONENTS: No one spoke in opposition. Chairman Holtz closed the public hearing. Commissioner Redholtz asked staff it the Commission could consider stricter standards. There was a short discussion of the recommendations made by staff. Motion by Castellanos, seconded by Redholtz, to waive further reading of the resolution and adopt Resolution No. 17-5871 recommending to the City Council, adoption of Code Amendment No. 17-01. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Holtz said final action on this matter will be taken at a public hearing before the City Council on a date to be determined. \\Storagellplandata\PLANCOM11141NUTES12017 MINUTESI6.13.17 minutes.doc Planning Commission Minutes Page 6— July 11,2017 NON HEARING ITEMS - None CONTINUATION OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None COMMISSION REPORTS/COMMENTS AND MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS Commissioner Redholtz reminded everyone about the City's Fourth of July festivities. Chairman Holtz asked about the Lotus dealership. 5. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: a. FORTHCOMING — July 9, 2017 Planning Director Jeff Anderson said there were no items scheduled for the June 27, 2017 meeting. He also thanked Commissioner Castellanos for his service as Chairman. b. PROJECT STATUS REPORT — June, 2017 6. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: June 20, 2017 — The appeal hearing for Tentative Parcel Map No. 72097, Variance No. 13-05, Subcommittee for Design Review No. 17-09 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration will he heard by the City Council. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Holtz adjourned the meeting at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted: Lydia de Zara Senior Administrative Assistant Storagel \plandata\PLANCOMIMINUTES12017 MINUTES16.13.17 minutes.doc AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 DATE: July 1L2017 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 14-15 SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. 17-44 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Mark Booth LOCATION: 1455 Queen Summit Drive I. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) for a large home to legalize the remodel of an existing 4,451-square foot two-story house to include a 1,266-square foot three car garage addition and a 901-square foot single-story addition. The house with the proposed additions totals 6,243 square feet, including the 1,266-square foot garage. The lot size is 21,246 square feet in area and located in the "Single-Family Residential" (R-1) Zone, Area District HA. Staff is recommending approval of the conditional use permit. Z:1Case Files\CUP12014114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large Home \PCIStalT Report Draltdoc Conditional Use Permit No. 14-15 1455 Queens Summit Drive July 11, 2017- Page 2 IL BACKGROUND ITEM DESCRIPTION ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN Zoning: "Single Family Residential" (R-1), Area District IIA Residential Low (1.1-8.0 d.u./acre) SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING North: "Single Family Residential" (R-1); single-family residences East: "Single Family Residential" (R-1); single-family residences South: "Multi-Family Residential" (MF-15); multi-family residences West: "Single Family Residential" (R-1); single-family residences CURRENT DEVELOPMENT Single-family residence LEGAL NOTICE Notices of Public Hearing have been mailed to 176 owners and occupants of properties located within 300 feet of the subject site. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND ANALYSIS The applicant is requesting a CUP to legalize the remodel of an existing 4,451-square foot home. The subject property is 21,246 square feet. The house with the proposed addition is 6,243 square feet, including a 1,266-square foot three-car garage. The subject property is located in the "Single Family Residential" (R-1), Area District IIA. The house requires a Conditional Use Permit for a Large Home to legalize a three car garage addition and single- story addition. The subject property is located on the southwest corner of Queen Summit Dr. and South Hills Dr. The neighborhood is comprised primarily of two-story homes in an area of varied topography. The applicant is the son of the owner of the house at 1455 Queen Summit Drive. In July of 2014, the applicant submitted a conditional use permit application for the proposed addition. The applicant had initially received building permits for a garage addition that included a side entry garage located on the easterly side of the structure. As stated in July of 2014 the applicant submitted a conditional use permit application and plans to modify the garage to a front entry garage and proposed room addition. Since the submittal of plans in 2014, staff has been working with the applicant to revise plans to comply with development standards. In December of 2016 a 2,167-square foot addition was illegally constructed without the benefit of building permits. Upon being notified by Community Enhancement, the applicant contacted the Planning Department to resume the processing of the conditional use permit to legalize the proposed addition. The existing two-story house was built in 1965. The existing first floor has two bedrooms, two bathrooms, a kitchen and dining area, a family and living room, a retreat and laundry room, and a deck. The second floor has one master bedroom with a balcony and retreat, one bathroom, and a living room. The first story addition includes a three car garage including an attic, a storage room, two bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a hall. The applicant is proposing a total of five bedrooms. The City's Municipal Code requires a three-car garage based on the number of bedrooms. The existing house did not feature a three car garage; the proposal includes a 1,266- square foot three-car garage. Z:\Case Files1CUP12014114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large I-Tome\PC1Staff Report Draldoe Conditional Use Permit No. 14-15 1455 Queens Summit Drive July 11, 2017- Page 3 For lots with a lot area from 20,000 square feet to 24,999 square feet, the maximum allowable unit size is 4,000 square feet or 35 percent of the lot area, whichever is less. The subject property is 21,246 square feet; therefore the maximum allowable unit size for the property is 4,000 square feet. Furthermore, a Conditional Use Permit is required for a Large Home when the proposed addition exceeds the maximum allowable unit size by more than 25 percent (1,243 square feet, in this case). The proposed home would have a total floor area of 6,243 square feet and requires a CUP for a Large Home. The proposed addition is a total 2,167 square feet. Staff Survey of Surrounding Residences Staff review of the neighborhood surrounding the subject property found that the area consists primarily of two-story, single-family houses. Staff conducted a survey of 21 homes surrounding the subject property. The houses in the survey are located on Queen Summit Drive, Kings Crest Drive, South Hills Drive, and Hillward Avenue. The surveyed homes consisted of a mixture of one and two-story houses with two and three-car garages. The following chart shows the mean and median lot size, square footage of the homes, number of bedrooms, and floor area ratio of the surveyed homes. The mean is the average of all 21 homes, and the median is the number that falls directly in the middle if listed in numerical order. LOT SIZE FLOOR AREA NUMBER OF BEDROOMS FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) MEAN 14,187 sq. ft. 3,200 sq. ft. 4 23.3% MEDIAN 13,997 sq. ft. 3,085 sq. ft. 4 22.2% SUBJECT PROPOSAL 21 '246 sq. ft. 6,243 sq. ft. 5 33% The house as proposed would be 1.6 times larger than the average s'ze of the surrounding surveyed homes. The median size of the homes is 3,085 square feet. The house sizes range from 1,775 square feet to 4,735 square feet. The lot sizes of the surveyed homes range from 10,677 square feet to 20,553 square feet, while the lot size of the subject property is 21,246 square feet. Floor area ratios range from 13.3 percent to 42.7 percent. The proposed floor area ratio of the subject property is 33 percent. The house, as proposed, would be 1.6 times larger than the average size of the surrounding surveyed homes of 3,200-square feet. Although, the proposed house would be 1.6 times larger than the average house size, the house would be 1.3 times larger than the largest house size of the surveyed homes of 4,735 square feet. ZACase Files\CUP 120 I 4 114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large Home \PC\Staff Report Draft.doe Conditional Use Permit No, 14-15 1455 Queens Summit Drive July 11, 2017-Page 4 Subcommittee for Design Review The proposed two-story single-family residence requires a Conditional Use Permit for a Large Home and is subject to discretionary review by the Planning Commission. The following is a discussion of Subcommittee Guidelines for second-story additions: 1. Design the two-story house or addition so that all setbacks, including second story, have been met, The proposed two-story single-family residence is in compliance will all applicable setback requirements. 2. In an area that is predominately one story, consider reducing the size of the second story in relation to the ground floor. A smaller second floor will not appear as massive or boxy. The subject property is located in a primarily two story neighborhood. The first floor of the residence will be 5,049 square feet (including the 1,266-square foot attached three- ear garage), while the second floor of the residence will remain at 1,194 square feet. 3. New two-story additions can result in privacy impacts to neighboring properties. Consider designing the second story to reduce or eliminate the need for windows on the side elevations. High windows that allow light in but restrict views onto neighboring properties may also reduce privacy impacts. The subject property is in a neighborhood that is primarily two-story houses. These properties are also located in an area that has varied topography and view lots. The applicant is proposing standard windows on the rear and side elevations of the first story of the house and decorative dormers above the front of the garage. Therefore the privacy impacts of a second floor are not relevant in that the proposed addition does not include a 2" story addition and is located an area of varied topography. 4. In an area that is predominately one story, the elements of the house usually emphasize the horizontal. Many modern two-story designs emphasize the vertical through two- story porches with tall columns, tall windows, and two-story front elevations with no horizontal breaks. These elements are generally out-of-character with a one-story neighborhood. The house consists of an existing 1,194-square foot second floor. The proposed single- story addition is horizontally orientated as the new addition includes a one-story roof element. Z:\Case Files\CUP12014114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large llome\PC \Staff Report Draft.doe Conditional Use Permit No. 14-15 1455 Queens Summit Drive July 11, 2017- Page 5 5. When adding a second-story elevation in a one-story area, consider providing a significant second-story setback on the front elevation. By setting back the second story from the first story, the front of the house will fit better in the context of a one-story neighborhood. The subject property is in a neighborhood that is primarily two-story houses. The proposed first floor will be consistent with the majority of houses in the vicinity. 6. In an area that is predominately one story, the addition of a second-story balcony, especially in a flatland neighborhood, can have an effect on privacy. In these areas, balconies in rear yards are discouraged. The house is located in a two-story neighborhood. The house includes a one-story addition. The addition will not have any negative privacy impacts to adjacent neighbors due to the proposed single-story addition along the front of the house. 7. When designing a second-story addition, consider that all sides of the second story are visible. Window treatment on second-story windows is encouraged. The applicant has incorporated decorative elements in the proposed single-story single- addition, including stucco exterior siding, decorative trim along windows, a variety of window shapes, and river rock veneer along the façade of the proposed garage. The following is a discussion of the applicable Subcommittee Guidelines for single-story additions: Design the front and any other visible elevations especially corner houses with a variety of materials. Most houses have the exterior elevations that are primarily stucco. Providing an alternative material such as stone, wood (or simulated wood product) or brick will provide a more aesthetic elevation. (Where alternative material is at the corner, material should wrap around 24 inches on the side.) The front elevation includes silver gray stucco siding and gray asphalt shingled roofing to match the existing front elevation. River rock veneer has been included to provide a more aesthetic elevation. The rock veneer wraps around corner onto the east elevation. Design the house to fit into the architectural context of the surrounding neighborhood. The additions remain consistent with the traditional style of architecture of the existing structure. The neighborhood consists primarily of two-story, traditional style houses built in the late 1970s. The house is consistent both architecturally and in bulk and mass with the other homes in the vicinity. ZACase Files\ CUP12014114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large liome\PC Staff Report Draftdoe Conditional Use Permit No. 14-15 1455 Queens Summit Drive July 11, 2017- Page 6 3. Window treatment on windows are encouraged including stucco popouts, wood trim, potshelves, shutters, recessed windows, etc. or provide a variety of window types (bay windows, octagonal windows, other shapes, etc.) Consider painting window treatment in contrasting color to the house. A mixture of rectangular grid windows, and windows with shutters are featured along the front elevation. Additionally, the applicant has included decorative dormers along the front elevation. The windows are finished in a white vinyl to contrast the gray stucco siding. IV. FINDINGS Before an application for conditional use permit for a large home, may be granted, the following findings must be made: 1. The lot and proposed development is consistent with the general plan, zoning, and meets all other applicable code requirements. The lot and proposed building are consistent with the Neighborhood Low (1.1-8.0 dwelling units per acre) General Plan designation and "Single Family Residential" (R-1) zoning in that it consists of an addition to an existing single-family home. The project meets all applicable requirements of the "Single Family Residential" (R-1) Zone, Area District IIA. 2. The development utilizes building materials, color schemes, and a roof style which blend with the existing structure, if any, and results in a development which is harmonious in scale and mass with the surrounding residences. The proposed remodel of the house utilizes a side gable roof design and will feature new Elk Gray Asphalt Shingle roof on the existing house and proposed addition. The remodel also includes new stucco siding, new windows, decorative dormers, and river rock stone veneer on the proposed addition. Although the house would be 1.6 times larger than the median house in the neighborhood, it is designed so as to reduce bulkiness and fit into the context of the neighborhood. 3. The development is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. The existing house is accessible from a driveway off Queen Summit, and will not negatively impact circulation or safety for pedestrians and vehicles. The subject property is developed with setbacks greater than the minimum required by the Municipal Code. The proposed addition does not have any effect on the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians or vehicles in that it will not result in any visual obstructions adjacent to a right-of-way that would affect convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. ZACase Files\CUP12014114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large Home\PC1Staff Report Droll:Ace Conditional Use Permit No. 14-15 1455 Queens Summit Drive July 11, 2017- Page 7 4, The development can be adequately served by existing or required infrastructure and services. The lot is adequately served by existing infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, etc.). The proposed addition to the house is not anticipated to require additional infrastructure or services beyond that provided for the existing residences nearby. Therefore the development can be adequately served by existing infrastructure and services. 5. The design of the structure has given consideration to the privacy of surrounding properties through the usage and placement of windows and doors, cantilevers, decks, balconies, minimal retaining walls, trees and other buffering landscaping materials, The design of the house has given consideration to the privacy of surrounding properties in that the area consists of large lots developed with single-family residences. The area includes hillsides and varied topography, allowing for greater visibility into neighboring yards. Most of the houses in the area are two-story. The proposed single-story addition is located on the front northern elevation of the house the direction of the view facing the front yard. The proposed addition will be consistent and integral to the architecture of the house. The proposed balcony will not have a direct effect on the privacy of neighboring properties. 6. The development is sensitive to the natural terrain, minimizes necessary grading, de- emphasizes vertical massing which could disrupt the profile of a natural slope, and does not impede any scenic vistas or views open to the public or surrounding properties. The proposal is sensitive to the natural terrain in that there are no major terrain modifications. Any necessary precise grading for construction will require that a grading permit be obtained from the Public Works Department. The project proposes remodeling of an existing house and a single-story addition that would not impede any scenic views from surrounding properties. V. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303 pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), since the project consists of an addition to an existing single-family residence on an individual property. ZACase Files\CUP12014114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large Home\ \ Staff Report Draft.doc Conditional Use Permit No. 14-15 1455 Queens Summit Drive July 11, 2017- Page 8 VI. CONCLUSION As stated, the proposed addition was constructed without obtaining required building permits. However, the applicant has designed the plan in conformance with all required development standards. As previously discussed, the proposal includes a 2,167-square foot addition to the existing two- story house. The house with the proposed additions will be 6,243 square feet (including the 1,266-square foot garage). The surrounding neighborhood consists of two-story homes. The proposed size of the home is 1.6 times larger than the average size of the surrounding homes of 3,200 square feet as well as 1.3 times larger than the largest house size of the surveyed homes of 4,735 square feet. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 14-15 and Subcommittee for Design Review No. 17-44. REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Attachments: Attachment 1 — Conditional Use Permit Resolution for Approval Attachment 2 — Plans (Available for review by the public at the West Covina Library, West Covina Police Department, and West Covina Planning Department) ZACase Files\CUP12014114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large HomeNPC\Staff Report Draft.doe ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 14-15 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 14-15 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION APPLICANT: Mark Booth LOCATION: 1455 Queen Summit WHEREAS, there was filed with this City a verified application on the forms prescribed by the Commission requesting approval of a conditional use permit under the provisions of Chapter 26, Article VI of the West Covina Municipal Code, to allow: A "Large Home" that exceeds the maximum unit size allowable floor area by more than 25 percent On that certain property described as follows: Assessor's Parcel No. 8493-039-017, as listed in the records of the office of the Los Angeles County Assessor; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, upon giving the required notice, did on the 11th day of July, 2017, conduct a duly advertised public hearing to consider the subject application for an administrative use permit; and WHEREAS, studies and investigations made by this Commission and in its behalf reveal the following facts: 1. The applicant is proposing a conditional use permit for a large home to legalize the remodel of an existing 4,451-square foot two-story house to include a 1,266-square foot three car garage addition and a 901-square foot single-story addition. The house with the proposed additions total 6,243 square feet, including the 1,266-square foot garage. 2. Findings necessary for approval of a conditional use permit for a "Large Home" as follows: Z:\Case Files\CUP12014114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large Home1PC\CUP Reso.large.home.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No. 14-15 July 11, 2017 Page 2 a. The lot and proposed development is consistent with the general plan, zoning and meets all other applicable code requirements. b. The development utilizes building materials, color schemes and a roof style which blend with the existing structure, if any, and results in a development which is harmonious in scale and mass with surrounding residences. c. The development is sensitive and not detrimental to convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. d. The development can be adequately served by existing or required infrastructure and services. e. The design of the structure has given consideration to the privacy of surrounding properties through the usage and placement of windows and doors, cantilevers, decks, balconies minimal retaining walls, trees and other buffering landscaping materials. f. The development is sensitive to the natural terrain, minimizes necessary grading, de-emphasizes vertical massing which could disrupt the profile of a natural slope and does not impede any scenic vistas or views open to the public or surrounding properties. 3. This project is categorically exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303 pursuant to Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), since the project consists of an addition to an existing single-family residence on an individual property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina as follows: 1. On the basis •of evidence presented, both oral and documentary, the Planning Commission makes the following findings for approval of a conditional use permit: a. The lot and proposed building are consistent with the Neighborhood Low (1.1-8.0 dwelling units per acre) General Plan designation and "Single Family Residential" (R-1) zoning in that it consists of an addition to an existing single-family home. The project meets all applicable requirements of the "Single Family Residential" (R-1) Zone, Area District 11A. b. The proposed remodel of the house utilizes a side gable roof design and will feature new Elk Gray Asphalt Shingle roof on the existing house and proposed addition. The remodel also includes new stucco siding, new windows, decorative dormers, and river rock stone veneer on the proposed addition. Although the house Z:\Case Files1CUP12014114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large Home1PC\CUP Reso.largelome,doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No. 14-15 July 11, 2017 - Page 3 would be 1.6 times larger than the median house in the neighborhood, it is designed so as to reduce bulkiness and fit into the context of the neighborhood. C. The existing house is accessible from a driveway off Queen Summit, and will not negatively impact circulation or safety for pedestrians and vehicles. The subject property is developed with setbacks greater than the minimum required by the Municipal Code. The proposed addition does not have any effect on the convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians or vehicles in that it will not result in any visual obstructions adjacent to a right-of-way that would affect convenience and safety of circulation for pedestrians and vehicles. d. The lot is adequately served by existing infrastructure (streets, sewer, water, etc.). The proposed addition to the house is not anticipated to require additional infrastructure or services beyond that provided for the existing residences nearby. Therefore the development can be adequately served by existing infrastructure and services. e. The design of the house has given consideration to the privacy of surrounding properties in that the area consists of large lots developed with single-family residences. The area includes hillsides and varied topography, allowing for greater visibility into neighboring yards. Most of the houses in the area are two-story. The proposed single-story addition is located on the front northern elevation of the house the direction of the view facing the front yard. The proposed addition will be consistent and integral to the architecture of the house. The proposed balcony will not have a direct effect on the privacy of neighboring properties. f. The proposal is sensitive to the natural terrain in that there are no major terrain modifications. Any necessary precise grading for construction will require that a grading permit be obtained from the Public Works Department. The project proposes remodeling of an existing house and a single-story addition that would not impede any scenic views from surrounding properties. 2. That pursuant to all of the evidence presented, both oral and documentary, and further based on the findings above, Conditional Use Permit No. 14-15 is approved subject to the provisions of the West Covina Municipal Code, provided that the physical development of the herein described property shall conform to said plan and the conditions set forth herein which, except as otherwise expressly indicated, shall be fully performed and completed or shall be secured by bank or cash deposit satisfactory to the Planning Director, before the use or occupancy of the property is commenced and before the Certificate of Occupancy or final approval is issued, and the violation of any of which shall be grounds for revocation of said conditional use permit by the Planning Commission or City Council. 3, The conditional use permit shall not be effective for any purpose until the owner of the property involved (or his duly authorized representative) has filed at the office of the Planning Director his affidavit stating he is aware of, and accepts, all conditions of this nease FilesTUP12014114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large Home\PCICUP Reso.large.home.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No. 14-15 July 11,2017 - Page 4 conditional use permit as set forth below. Additionally, no permits shall be issued until the owner of the property involved (or a duly authorized representative) pays all costs associated with the processing of this application pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8690. 4. The costs and expenses of any enforcement activities, including, but not limited to attorney's fees, caused by the applicant's violation of any condition imposed by this approval or any provision of the West Covina Municipal Code shall be paid by the applicant. 5. That the approval of the conditional use permit for a Large Home that exceeds the maximum unit size allowable floor area by more than 25 percent and is subject to the following conditions: a. Comply with plans reviewed by the Planning Commission on July 11, 2017. b. That the project comply with all requirements of the "Single-Family Residential" (R-1) Zone, Area District IIA, and all other applicable standards of the West Covina Municipal Code. c. This approval allows for the remodel an existing 4,451-square foot two-story house to include a 1,266-square foot three-car garage addition and a 901-sqaure foot single-story addition located on a 21,246-square foot lot. The proposed house would have a floor area of 6,243 square feet including the 1,266-square foot garage. d. This approval includes the following decorative elements in the proposed two- story single residence: stucco siding, clay tile roof; decorative clay pipe accents, wrought iron details, wrought iron balconies, decorative wood corbels, decorative wood trim along windows, decorative columns, and a clay tile roof. e. Pavement in the front yard shall be limited to the width of the garage, plus an additional six (6) feet on either or both sides of the garage driveway, or an additional twelve (12) feet on one side of the driveway (WMMC Sec. 26-402.5), per approval of the Planning Director. f That any proposed changes to the approved site plan, floor plan or elevations be reviewed by the Planning Department, and the written authorization of the Planning Director shall be obtained prior to implementation. g. This development shall conform to all applicable Municipal regulations, Fire, Building, Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing codes and recognized, approved, standards of installation. ZACase Files\CUP\2014 114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large Honac\PCICUP Reso.large.lionte.doc. Planning Commission Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No. 1415 July 11, 2017 Page 5 h. The approved use shall not create a public nuisance as defined in the West Covina Municipal Code Section 26-416 regarding landscape maintenance and property maintenance. i. The applicant shall sign an affidavit accepting all conditions of this approval. j. Any graffiti that appears on the property during construction shall be cleaned or removed on the same business day. k. That prior to final building permit approval, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan in compliance with AB 1881 and Executive Order B-29-15 shall be submitted for the front yard. Plans shall include type, size and quantity of landscape materials and irrigation equipment. All vegetation areas shall be automatically irrigated and a detailed watering program and water budget shall be provided. All damaged vegetation shall be replaced and the site shall be kept free of diseased or dead plant materials and litter at all times. The applicant shall coordinate with the applicable water district to determine if the water district has any specific requirements for water efficient landscaping. 1. Proposed landscape areas visible from the public right-of-way shall be in compliance with all applicable standards of the West Covina Municipal Code and shall be clearly indicated (including dimensions) on the landscape and irrigation plan. Landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection. m. This approval is effective for a period of one (1) year. All applicable building permits must be obtained within one (1) year of project approval. n. Fire Department Requirements: i. NFPA 13D/13R113 Fire Sprinkler System. ii. New fire flow test required. iii. Required Fire Flow of 1000 GPM @ 20 PSI for 2 hours. iv. Provide 1 fire hydrant within 250 feet of the property line. v. Hard-wired smoke detectors/carbon monoxide detectors with battery back-up, vi. Additional Fire Department requirements may be set upon future review of a full set of architectural plans. P. Building Requirements: 1. All Conditions of Approval as approved by the Planning Commission shall appear as notes on the plans submitted for building plan check and permits. 2. Submit complete plans to Building Division for plan check and permit per 2013 CBC. 3. Structural plans shall be prepared by a licensed engineer. ZACase FileACTJP12014114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Large HomeIPC1CUP Reso.large.home.doe Planning Commission Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit No. 14-15 July 11, 2017 - Page 6 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina at a regular meeting held on the 11 th day of July, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: DATE: July 11,2017 EXPIRATION DATE; July 11,2018 If not used. Don Holtz, Chairman Planning Commission Jeff Anderson, AICP, Secretary Planning Commission Z:\Case Files\CUP \2014 114-15 1455 Queen Summit Dr Largo Home\PC\CUP Reso,large,home.doc City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 DATE: July 11, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION CODE AMENDMENT NO. 14-05 Entitlements Processing I. DESCRIPTION On September 23, 2014, the Planning Commission initiated Code Amendment No. 14-05 to consider changes to the Code in regards to entitlements and processing of the entitlements. II. BACKGROUND This code amendment was initiated at the request of staff as there are a number of technical issues with the current Municipal Code that should be addressed. Some of the issues have been noted by staff for some time, others were raised when the City hired a new attorney firm to represent the City, and others have come up since the time the code amendment was initiated. The amendments are meant to provide more efficient and transparent entitlement processing standards. Entitlement processing is the means by which applications are submitted to the City, reviewed and approved. The City has a variety of entitlement processes requiring administrative review, staff committee review, Planning Commission Subcommittee review, Planning Commission review and City Council review. III. DISCUSSION A study session was held by the Planning Commission on May 9, 2017. At that meeting staff identified 13 potential modifications to the Municipal Code. The potential modifications included the following. 1. Establishing height limits in multi-family residential, commercial and industrial zones. 2. Changing the process for review of Slight Modifications. 3. Revising the Planning Director's Modification process to modify the title of the process, provide a review process (or processes), and establish criteria for approval. 4. Eliminating the need for an administrative use permit (AUP) when concurrent with a conditional use permit (CUP) for single-family house additions. 5. Address requirement for Subcommittee Review when CUP is submitted for a Large Home. Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12014114-05 Entitlement Processing\PC 55.7.11.171Study Session.SR.doc Code Amendment 14-05 Entitlement Processing July 11,2017 - Page 2 6. Establish Findings for Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps. 7, Establish standards for extensions for Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps. 8. Modify the expiration time frame for Case Files from 1 year to 2 years. 9. Establish modification procedures for Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps. 10. Require City Council review for entitlement cases when concurrent with cases that require City Council approval (such as General Plan Amendments, Zone Changes, and Code Amendments). 11. Consider establishing standards in the case of split votes on the City Council for appeals. 12. Consider establishing standards to allow Councilmembers to request a "call for review" of a Planning Commission decision. 13. Review the findings for a variance. IV. ANALYSIS Based on the discussion at the study session, there were four modifications that staff is seeking further direction on. These include. 1. Establishing height limits in multi-family residential, commercial and industrial zones. 6. Establish Findings for Tentative Tract and Parcel Maps. 8. Modify the expiration time frame for Case Files from 1 year to 2 years. 13. Review the findings for a variance. Staff has prepared a table to allow for discussion, alternatives, and recommendations on the specific topics mentioned above. V. CONCLUSION The purpose of the study session is to provide the Planning Commission with a discussion and alternatives on the issues being studied. After discussion on the issues, the Commission may ask for additional information to be provided which may necessitate another study session. Once the Planning Commission agrees on the standards to be implemented, staff would prepare the code amendment and schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission. Subsequent to Planning Commission review, a public hearing will be scheduled for the City Council to determine if changes to the code are appropriate. VI. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the information in the staff report and attachments and provide appropriate direction to staff regarding standards to be included in the code amendment. ZACase Files \CODE AMEND120 I 4\14-05 Entitlement Processing \PC SS.7.11.171Study Session.SR.doc Code Amendment 14-05 Entitlement Processing July 11, 2017 - Page 3 PREPARED BY: Attachments: Attachment No. 1 - Study Session Table Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12014114-05 Entitlement Processing\PC SS.7.11.171Study Session.SR.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Code Amendment No. 14-05, July 11, 2017 Entitlement Processing Item Discussion Options Recommendation Establish Height The Municipal Code currently does not have height limits for Option 1 — Establish a Option 3 & 4— Establish a Limits in nonresidential or multi residential zones except within 100 feet height limit of 10 height limit of 3 stories/40 Nonresidential & of single-family residential zones. The Downtown Code stories/140 feet feet and allow approval of Multi-Family establishes a height limit of 3 stories (40 feet) in perimeter additional height if building is Zones areas and 5 stories (70 feet) in the central areas adjacent to the Option 2 — Establish a more than 200 feet from freeway. height limit of 5 stories/70 feet residentially zoned or developed property. Option 3 — Establish a height limit of 3 stories/40 feet. Option 4 — Allow additional height if proposed building is 200 feet from residentially zoned or developed property. ZACase Fil es \CODE AMEND12014114-05 Entitlement Processing\PC SS.7.11.171SSTable.doe Page 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Code Amendment No. 14-05, July 11, 2017 Entitlement Processing Item Discussion Options Recommendation Modify Discretionary applications approved by the Planning Commission Option 1 — Allow Option 1 — This will allow expirations for are valid for one year unless an extension request is submitted. approval for 2 years plus applicants 2 years to obtain a Case Files from 1 Many of these applications are for larger projects that may take 2 one-year extensions. building permit but will not year to 2 years longer than a year to complete plan check and grading. extend the timeframe for Expiration standards were originally adopted to establish a limit Option 2— Allow extensions beyond the 4 on when projects can be constructed as Council policy and philosophy changes from time to time. Code currently allows for one year plus three one-year discretionary extensions approved by the Planning Commission. approval for 2 years plus 3 one-year extensions. years currently allowed_ Z:\Case Files\CODE AMEND12014114-05 Entitlement Processing \PC SS.7.11.171SSTable.doc Page 2 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Code Amendment No. 14-05, July 11, 2017 Entitlement Processing Item Discussion Recommendation Establish Findings Current findings used for Subdivisions (not provided Recommended findings to be included in the Code in for Tentative in the Municipal Code). compliance with State law. Parcel Maps and a. That the proposed map is consistent with a. The proposed map is consistent with applicable general Tract Maps applicable general and specific plans. and specific plans. b. That the design or improvement of the b. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision proposed subdivision is consistent with is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. applicable general and specific plans. c. The site is physically suitable for the type of c. That the site is physically suitable for the type development. of development. d. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density d. That the site is physically suitable for the of development. proposed density of development. e. The design of the subdivision or the proposed e. That the design of the subdivision or the improvements are not likely to cause substantial proposed improvements are not likely to environmental damage or substantially and avoidably cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife or their habitat. substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife or their habitat. f. Neither the design of the subdivision nor the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health f. That the design of the subdivision or the type problems. of improvements are not likely to cause g. The design of the subdivision or the type of serious public health problems. improvements will either (i) not conflict with recorded g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with or adjudged easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the easements acquired by the public for access proposed subdivision; or (ii) alternate easements, for through or use of property within the access or for use, will be provided, and these will be proposed subdivision, substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. Z:\Case Files \CODE AMEND12014-114-05 Entitlement Processing\PC SS.7.11..171SSTable.doc Page 3 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Code Amendment No. 14-05, July 11, 2017 Entitlement Processing Item Discussion Recommendation Review Variance Findings to Determine Appropriateness Current findings used for Variances (not provided in the Monicipal Code). a. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances not applicable generally to the other property or class of use in the same vicinity and zone. b. That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. c. That granting such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in such vicinity and zone in which property is located, d. That granting such variance shall be consistent with the adopted General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans. Recommended findings to be included in the Code in compliance with State law. a. There are special circumstances (which may include, but are not limited to, size, shape, topography, location or surroundings) applicable to the property which are not applicable to other property in the property's vicinity under identical zoning classification. b. As a result of the special circumstances, the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives the property of meaningful privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. c. Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other property in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question. d. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to residents or owners of nearby properties. e. That the granting of such variance shall be consistent with the adopted general plan and any applicable specific plans. f. The variance does not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulations governing the parcel of property. Z:\Case Files1CODE AMEND \2014 114-05 Entitlement Processing\PC SS.7.11.171SSTable.doc Page 4 City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND: Planning Commission DATE: July 11, 2017 Planning Department STUDY SESSION — REVISION TO PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE POLICY FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS ALLOWING FOR STAFF LEVEL REVIEW The purpose of the study session is to allow the Planning Commission to consider a policy allowing for staff-level review and approval of specific types of improvement. The reason for the design review of single-family residences by the Planning Commission Subcommittee for Design (Subcommittee) is to ensure quality development, promote orderly development of the city, conserve property values, preserve the architectural character of an area and promote harmonious design that is complimentary to adjacent properties. The Municipal Code enumerates what types of improvements require review by the Subcommittee and include the following: D New construction of single-family residences D Structural additions or modifications on the front elevation of a residence D New second-story additions to one-story residences D New second-story additions to two-story houses D New balconies D Other modifications that are readily visible from a public right-of-way Over the years, the Subcommittee has formulated certain guidelines (rules of thumb). Originally, the Subcommittee was primarily concerned with the conversion of the one-story houses into two- story houses. As a result of the issues that surrounded two-story additions, the Subcommittee adopted a list of guidelines to assist homeowners, architects and contractors in preparing plans that could be readily approved by the Subcommittee. There are two sets of Design Guidelines, one for one-story houses and another for two-story houses (Attachments 1 and 2). These handouts are meant to convey to homeowners, architects and contractors the Subcommittee rules of thumb in a manner to allow for consideration prior to the preparation of plans for review. DISCUSSION On May 23, 2017, staff requested that the Subcommittee discuss the concept of establishing a new policy that would allow for review and approval by staff for a certain improvement, if those Z: \PLANCOM \Subconun ittee.DesignRevi ew120 I 'Mindy Session Staff Approval Process.doe Christine Delostrinos Planning Assistant .19frAnderson, AICP Planning Director Subcommittee Review Policy— Study Session July 11, 2017 — Page 2 improvements were consistent with the Guidelines. The following is the policy the staff recommends: Additions to the rear of an existing single-family residence where the roof or portion of the roof is visible from the public right-of way. The abovementioned type of projects will continue to require the submittal of a Subcommittee for Design Review application. Upon submittal, staff would review the proposal and inspect the site. If staff determines that the proposed improvement is consistent with the Guidelines, staff would approve the application. If not, the proposal would be scheduled for the next available Subcommittee meeting. The concept would allow for expedited review and approval of the recommended categories. It would also reduce the amount of items on the Subcommittee agendas. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the Policy provided as Attachment 3. REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY: Attachments: Attachment l — One-Story Addition Guidelines Attachment 2 — Two-Story Addition Guidelines Attachment 3 — Planning Commission Policy on Subcommittee Review Process ZAPLANCOMISubcommittee.DesignReview120171Study Session Staff Approval Process.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 Design Review Subcommittee Guidelines For One-Story Houses and Additions • Design the house so that all setbacks have been met. )> Design the front and any other visible elevations especially corner houses with a variety of materials. Most houses have the exterior elevations that are primarily stucco. Providing an alternative material such as stone, wood (or simulated wood product) or brick will provide a more aesthetic elevation. (Where alternative material is at the corner, material should wrap around 24 inches on the side.) • Design the house to fit into the architectural context of the surrounding neighborhood. )=. Front porch rooflines should be lower in height than the main portion of the roof. • Window treatment on windows are encouraged including stucco popouts, wood trim, potshelves, shutters, recessed windows, etc. or provide a variety of window types (bay windows, octagonal windows, other shapes, etc.) Consider painting window treatment in contrasting color to the house. • Provide the City-owned parkway width for the strip of property between the private property and the street. (This area is to allow for sidewalks or the widening of the street.) • A water heater enclosure should be constructed to match the colors and materials of the house. (Especially for water heaters added outside of the house located on a corner lot.) • If the roof pitch is being raised, consider designing the new pitch to allow the attic space to accommodate a central air conditioning/heating system. • Landscaping that is removed or destroyed during the construction process shall be replaced prior to final inspection. • In an area that is predominantly developed with rear-entry garages, no garage doors should be installed on the front of the house. ZAPLANCOM\Subcommittee.DesignReview\One Story Design Guidelines.doo 02/10 ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Design Review Subcommittee Guidelines For New Two-Story Additions D Design the two-story house or addition so that all setbacks, including second story, have been met. (Plans must indicate parkway width to verify compliance of second story setback) D In an area that is predominantly one story, consider reducing the size of the second story in relation to the ground floor. A smaller second floor will not appear as massive or boxy. (Plate height shall be consistent with the first story of the house) )0. New two-story additions can result in privacy impacts to neighboring properties. Consider designing the second story to reduce or eliminate the need for windows on the side elevations. High windows that allow light in but restrict views onto neighboring properties may also reduce privacy impacts. D In an area that is predominantly one story, the elements of the house usually emphasize the horizontal. Many modern two-story designs emphasize the vertical through two-story porches with tall columns, tall windows, and two-story front elevations with no horizontal breaks. These elements are generally out-of-character with a one-story neighborhood. D When adding a second-story elevation in a one-story area, consider providing a significant second-story setback on the front elevation. By setting back the second story from the first story, the front of the house will fit better in the context of a one-story neighborhood. D In an area that is predominantly one story, the addition of second-story balcony, especially in a flatland neighborhood, can have an affect on privacy. In these areas, balconies in rear yards are discouraged. D When designing a second-story addition, consider that all sides of the second story are visible. Window treatment on second-story windows is encouraged. D Discuss your proposed house or addition with adjacent neighbors. An administrative use permit or conditional use permit requires written notification to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the property. D. Landscaping that is removed or destroyed during the construction process shall be replaced prior to final inspection. D Provide the City-owned parkway width for the strip of property between the private property and the street. (This area is to allow for sidewalks or the widening of the street.) D In an area that is predominantly developed with rear-entry garages, no garage doors should be installed on the front of the house. ZAPLANCOM\SubcommitteeDesignReview \Second Story Design Guidelines.doe 02/10 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Memorandum TO: Planning Department FROM: Jeff Anderson, Planning Director DATE: July 11,2017 SUBJECT: Revision Plamiing Commission Policy on Subcommittee Review Process On July 11, 2017, the Planning Commission approved a policy allowing for review and approval by staff for certain categories of improvements, if those improvements were consistent with the Guidelines. The following are the types of improvements that can utilize this policy: • Exterior siding replacement • Front porches • Additions to the side of an existing single-family residence that are visible from the front yard or street side yard • Conversion of Garages into living space • Additions to the rear and/or side of an existing single-family residence that are visible from the public right-of way, but behind the front portion of the house, where the addition projects less than 10 feet from the existing wall (toward the side property line) • Additions to the rear of an existing single-family residence where the roof or portion of the roof is visible from the public right-of way. The abovementioned types of projects will continue to require the submittal of a Subcommittee for Design application. Upon submittal, staff will review the proposal and inspect the site. If staff determines that the proposed improvement is consistent with the Guidelines, staff will approve the Subcommittee for Design application. If it is determined that the proposed improvement is not in compliance with the Guidelines, the proposal will be scheduled for the next available Subcommittee meeting. Jeff Anderson Planning Director Storagellplandata1PLANCOM1Subcommittee.DesignReview12017114-01 Planning Commission Policy on Subcommittee Review.Revision.doe City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 DATE: July 11, 2017 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Department SUBJECT: STUDY SESSION — SMALL COLLECTION RECYCLING FACILITIES At the Planning Commission meeting on February 28, 2017, the Planning Commission requested a study session to review existing recycling facilities operating in West Covina to ensure compliance with City standards and to set up a protocol for periodic review of such facilities. Municipal Code Requirements Under the Municipal Code, small collection recycling facilities are allowed in conjunction with an existing or planned commercial use, industrial use, or service facility. Small collection recycling facilities include buy back recycling centers, drop-off centers, reverse vending machines, and bulk reverse vending machines. The centers may be a maximum of 500 square feet in size, and must be set back 50 feet from a right-of-way line. Additionally, such recycling facilities may take up a maximum of 5 parking spaces in a center, depending on the total number of available parking spaces. (WCMC 26- 685.96) Due to concerns about possible negative impacts from recycling facilities, the West Covina City Council approved Code Amendment No. 09-06 related to recycling facility standards and procedures for hearings, revocations and appeals. The initiation of the code amendment followed the revocation of Administrative Review No. 08-09 in July of 2009. Issues of concern about the operation of a small collections recycling facility include the hours of operation, cleanliness of the operation, the dumping of liquids in the parking lot, and noise levels. Survey of Existing Recycling Facilities Staff worked with HDL, the company that issues Business Licenses, to obtain a list of recycling facilities within West Covina. There are three small collections recycling facilities currently operating in the City: Z:\Case Files\ SWdy Sessions120171Recycling Facilities \Study Session PC Staff Report.doc Study Session— Recycling Facilities July 11, 2017 Page 2 141.04s.,-,Namc RePlanet, LLC filtscitio AAIOwss- rtp,0:-p ',11.tfiit: , SkoPkir,g: ( co t r' Von's 777 S. Glendora Buyback RePlanet, LLC 2630 E. Workman Bulk Reverse Vending Machine Albertson's (Eastland) Sunset Recycling 1314 W. Francisquito Buyback Northgate Market Center The Municipal Code also includes development standards for Materials Recovery Facilities (MRF) — solid waste facilities where solid wastes or recyclable materials are sorted or separated, by hand or machinery, for the purpose of recycling or composting. There are no MRFs currently in operation in West Covina. . RePlanet, LLC (777 S. Glendora) RePlanet operates a buyback facility at the Von's shopping center, located on the northwest comer of Glendora Avenue and Cameron Avenue. The facility is located to the northeast side of the Von's grocery store, adjacent to multi-family residential units to the northwest and single-family residential units to the northeast. The facility has been in operation since 1998, and was not subject to review under the Administrative Use Pen-nit process adopted in 2009. 2. RePlanet, LLC (2630 E. Workman) RePlanent operates a bulk reverse vending machine facility at Eastland Center, near an existing Albertson's, located on the southeast corner of Citrus Avenue and Workman Avenue. The facility is located in a commercial area, with single-family residential properties to the northeast. The facility was originally in operation from 1996-2003, and 2012-2016. On June 14, 2016, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 16-5814 approving Administrative Use Permit No. 15-45 for the construction and operation of a 320-square foot small collections recycling facility. The facility meets all development standards in the Municipal Code. 3. Sunset Recycling (1314 W. Francisquito) Sunset Recycling is a buyback recycling center and pays a fee for the delivery of recyclable materials. It is located in the parking lot of Northgate•Market, on the southeast corner of Sunset Avenue and Francisquito Avenue. The facility is located in a commercial center, which is surrounded by single-family and multi- family uses. On July 19, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2016-66 approving Administrative Use Permit No. 15-46 for the construction and operation of a 320-square foot small collections recycling facility. The facility ZACase Files\Stady Sessions120171Recyc1ing Facilities\Study Session PC Staff Report.doe Study Session— Recycling Facilities July 11, 2017 - Page 3 meets all development standards in the Municipal Code and was reviewed for compliance on February 28, 2017, as a condition of approval. Review for Potential Concerns In order to provide information to the Planning Commission, staff contacted the Community Enhancement Division and the Police Department on June 8,2017, and June 22, 2017, respectively. Thdi:kolict:linopottinont indiciad it had not hd miy calls foi. #vice thiung tlie time the tili± es he e been dpttailip* The Community Enhancement Division also indicated they had not had any complaints about any of the facilities and there were no citations on file. Staff visited the existing sites on June 28, 2017. The facilities located at 2630 E. Workman and 1314 W. Francisquito are in compliance with all conditions of approval. The facility located at 777 S. Glendora was found to be generally clean and well- operated. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission requested a study session on recycling facilities in the City to determine if existing sites were in compliance with development standards and to possibly set up a protocol for a periodic review of such facilities. The Planning Commission originally discussed an annual review of recycling facilities in the City. Staff reviewed the recycling facilities at 2630 E. Workman Avenue and 1314 W. Francisquito Avenue, which were approved under the current Administrative Use Permit process, and found them to be in compliance with the Municipal Code and all conditions of approval. Staff also reviewed the site at 777 S. Glendora Avenue and found it to be well-operated and generally in compliance with the intent of the existing development standards. Staff has received no complaints about any of the sites. ZACase FilesIStudy Sessions120171Recycling Facilities\Study Session PC Staff Report.doc Study Session— Recycling Facilities July 11, 2017 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and file this report and provide direction regarding a periodic review of recycling facilities in the City. PREPARED BY: Veronica Hernand Assistant Planner REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Z:\Case Files\Study Sessions120171Recycling Facilities\Study Session PC Staff Report.doc City of West Covina Memorandum AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 TO: Planning Commission DATE: July 11, 2017 FROM: Public Works Department SUBJECT: LEASE OF AUTO SHOP FACILITY AT CITY YARD CONFORMANCE WITH GENERAL PLAN AND CEQA DETERMINATION The City of West Covina has worked with West Covina Ford to enter into a lease arrangement to allow West Covina Ford to provide auto repairs at the auto shop facility at 825 S. Sunset Avenue. The auto shop facility is located in the northerly portion of the City Yard in close proximity to Cameron Avenue and to the Walnut Creek Wash. The auto shop facility is an 8,760 square foot (146 foot by 60 foot) steel building with 6 bays used for vehicle and equipment maintenance. There is also a smaller bay located at the south end of the building used for smaller maintenance projects. Within the facility itself, there are 6 vehicle lifls, overhead track hoist, steel fabrication shop, oil and fluids storage and dispensing, and a tire storage area. Also constructed within the facility, there is one office, a parts storage room, and an upstairs storage loft. The facility is utilized for the operations of vehicle and equipment maintenance and repair, ranging from small engine equipment, light duty cars and trucks, heavy duty trucks and equipment, machinery, fire engine apparatuses and police fleet vehicles. The facility receives regular deliveries of materials, supplies, vehicles and parts. The vehicles and equipment being worked on are limited to those owned by the city and the auto shop facility is not open to the public. Located outside of the shop is a wash rack and clarifier used for washing vehicles and equipment. The facility generally operates Monday through Thursday from 6:30 am to 4:30 pm with the occasional Friday or Saturday for emergency repair work. The facility has been used in the capacity as an auto shop for the last several decades. The proposal by West Covina Ford is for the operational characteristics to remain the same. West Covina Ford would use the facility as a "satellite" facility extension of the service that is taken in at the dealership. It is unlikely that the general public would be accessing the site on a daily basis, but some fleet contracts may be scheduled to deliver their vehicles to the site for repair as opposed to dropping them off at the dealership. The building would continue to include an office, a parts storage room, and an upstairs storage loft. The business operation would continue to include vehicle and equipment maintenance and repair, ranging from small engine equipment, light duty cars and trucks, heavy duty trucks and ZAENVDOC1201:71Loasc of Auto Shop at YardIGP Conform Auto Shop Lease.doe Conformance to General Plan, City Yard Auto Shop July 11,2017 equipment, machinery, fire engine apparatuses and police fleet vehicles. However, in addition to maintaining City vehicles, the auto repair business would include the service and maintenance of private vehicles through West Covina Ford. Days and hours of operation will increase to a Monday-Friday work week with an occasional Saturday for emergency work. Hours of operation will also increase to a 7:00 am to 9:00 pm work day. There is also an expected modification to the building to install restroom facilities for staff. ANALYSIS: The subject property has a General Plan Land Use Designation of Civic: Public and Institutional. The proposal does not entail the construction of new facilities, but rather would allow the continued operation of the auto shop facility at the City Yard by West Covina Ford. The General Plan does not specifically reference the operation of the City Yard. The site would remain under the ownership of the City and would remain as part of the City Yard. No physical changes are proposed. The proposal is in conformance with the following policies of the General Plan: Our Prosperous Community Policy 2.7 Target employment based uses to downtown. Policy 2.9 Support local businesses. Our Well Planned Community Policy 3.4 Direct new growth to downtown area and the corridors. Adapt economically underused and blighted buildings, consistent with the character of surrounding districts and neighborhoods, to support new uses that can be more successful. Provide opportunities for healthy living, commerce, employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, civic engagement, and socializing. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Section 21000, et seq. of the California Public Resources Code), requires that the potential impacts of projects that will have a physical impact on the environment be analyzed prior to their construction. State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378 exempt projects that have no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. ZAENVDOC120171Loaso of Auto Shop at Yarct1GP Confortn,Auto Shop Lcaso.doc Conformance to General Plan, City Yard Auto Shop July 11,2017 In addition, the project is categorically exempt under Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures) as the proposal is the conversion of a small structure, with no additions or modifications, from a City-operated facility to a privately-operated facility. Therefore, the determination of consistency will not have a direct effect on the environment. As such, the potential action qualifies for this exemption and no further environmental review is required. CONCLUSION: The attached resolution allows the Planning Commission to make a determination that the project conforms with the General Plan and that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission find the lease of the auto shop at the City Yard in conformance with the General Plan. Planning Director, AICP Attachment No. 1 — Resolution of General Plan Conformity Attachment No, 2 — Project Description ZAENVDOC120171Leaso of Auto Shop at Yard\GP Conform.Auto Shop Leaso.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTIONNO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE LEASE OF THE AUTO SHOP AT THE CITY YARD IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN WHEREAS, the City has operated an auto shop at the City Yard at 825 S. Sunset Avenue for the past several decades to repair and maintain a variety of City vehicles including small engine equipment, light duty cars and trucks, heavy duty trucks and equipment, machinery, fire engine apparatuses and police fleet vehicles; and WHEREAS, the City intends to enter into a lease with a private auto dealership to continue the repair of City vehicles and to repair and maintain private vehicles from the auto dealership at the auto shop; and WHEREAS, the operation of the auto shop will continue in a significantly similar manner and include vehicle and equipment maintenance and repair, ranging from small engine equipment, light duty cars and trucks, heavy duty trucks and equipment, machinery, fire engine apparatuses, police fleet vehicles and the service and maintenance of private vehicles; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina is the planning agency for the City; and WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on 11 11 of July 2017, reviewed the report and determined that the leasing of the auto shop was consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina does resolve as follows: 1. The determination of the General Plan consistency for City Yard auto shop lease is consistent with the Genera Plan based on the following citations: Our Prosperous Community Policy 23 Target employment based uses to downtown. Policy 2.9 Support local businesses. ZAENVDOC120171Lease of Auto Shop at Yard\GP ConfonmAuto Shop Lease.Reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Conformance to General Plan July 11, 2017 - Page 2 Our Well Planned Community Policy 3.4 Direct new growth to downtown area and the corridors. Adapt economically underused and blighted buildings, consistent with the character of surrounding districts and neighborhoods, to support new uses that can be more successful. Provide opportunities for healthy living, commerce, employment, recreation, education, culture, entertainment, civic engagement, and socializing. 2. This Resolution shall constitute this Commission's report and recommendation to the City Council as required by the Government Code. 3. The Planning Commission also finds and determines that the project does not qualify as a project or is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) and 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, in that the proposed action consists of a general plan consistency determination, which does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and that it also qualifies as a categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15303 (as the proposal is the conversion of a small structure) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. The Secretary of this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and forthwith transmit a certified copy to the City Council, as the report required to meet California Government Conde 65401. ZAENVDOC120171Lease of Auto Shop at Yarcl\GP Conform.Auto Shop Lease.Reso.doc Planning Commission Resolution No. Conformance to General Plan July 11, 2017 - Page 3 I HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of West Covina, at a regular meeting held on the 11 th day of July, 2017 by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: DATE: July 11, 2017 Don Holtz, Chairman Planning Commission Jeff Anderson, Secretary Planning Commission ZAENVDOC120171Lease of Auto Shop at Yard\ GP ConformAuto Shop LeasoReso.doc ATTACHMENT NO. 2 Lease of City of West Covina Auto Shop 825 S. Sunset Project Description The following is a summary of the current operation of the auto shop facility and proposed operation by West Covina Ford (potential lease). Current Operation The auto shop facility is an 8,760 square foot (146 foot by 60 foot) steel building with 6 bays used for vehicle and equipment maintenance. There is also a smaller bay located at the south end of the building used for smaller maintenance projects. Within the facility itself, there are 6 vehicle lifts, overhead track hoist, steel fabrication shop, oil and fluids storage and dispensing, and a tire storage area. Also constructed within the facility, there is one office, a parts storage room, and an upstairs storage loft. The facility is utilized for the operations of vehicle and equipment maintenance and repair, ranging from small engine equipment, light duty cars and trucks, heavy duty trucks and equipment, machinery, fire engine apparatuses and police fleet vehicles. The facility receives regular deliveries of materials, supplies, vehicles and parts. The vehicles and equipment being worked on are limited to those owned by the city and is not open to the public. Located outside of the shop is a wash rack and clarifier used for washing vehicles and equipment. The facility generally operates Monday through Thursday from 6:30 am to 4:30 pm with the occasional Friday or Saturday for emergency repair work. The facility has been used in the capacity as an auto shop for the last several decades Proposed Operation The proposal by West Covina Ford is for the operational characteristics to remain the same. West Covina Ford would use the facility as a "satellite" facility extension of the service that is taken in at the dealership. It is unlikely that the general public would be accessing the site on a daily basis, but some fleet contracts may be scheduled to deliver their vehicles to the site for repair as opposed to dropping them off at the dealership. The building would continue to include an office, a parts storage room, and an upstairs storage loft. The business operation would continue to include vehicle and equipment maintenance and repair, ranging from small engine equipment, light duty cars and trucks, heavy duty trucks and equipment, machinery, fire engine apparatuses and police fleet vehicles. However, in addition to maintaining City vehicles, the auto repair business would include the service and maintenance of private vehicles through West Covina Ford. Days and hours of operation will increase to a Monday-Friday work week with an occasional Saturday for emergency work. Hours of operation will also increase to a 7:00 am to 9:00 pm work day. There is also an expected modification to the building to install restroom facilities for staff. Micah Martin Public Works Superintendent June 26, 2017 AGENDA NO. 7. a. DATE: July 11, 2017 FORTHCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS July 25, 2017 A. CONSENT CALENDAR None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (1) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-07 TATTOOING APPLICANT: Kathy Barajas for Manifest Studio LOCATION: 421 South Glendora Avenue (2) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 17-11 ON-SALE ALCOHOL SALES AT THEATER APPLICANT: Edwards Theater, Inc. LOCATION: 1200 Lakes Drive C. NON-HEARING ITEMS None August 8., 2017 A. CONSENT CALENDAR None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (1) PRECISE PLAN NO. 17-03 VARIANCE NO. 17-03 REMODEL OF AUTO DEALERSHIP APPLICANT: Bently Real Estate LOCATION: 2539 East Garvey Avenue North C. NON-HEARING ITEMS None \\Storagcl Iplandata\PLANCOMWORTFICOMING12017 Forthcoming17,11,17 forthcoming.doc AGENDA NO. 7b. DATE: July 11, 2017 WEST COVINA PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PLANNING CONFERENCE ROOM — ROOM 208 REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, June 13, 2017 6:30 p.m. MINUTES 1. ROLL CALL Present: Jimenez, Redholtz Absent: None City Staff Present: C. Delostinos, A. Hernandez 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 23, 2017 AYES: Jimenez, Redholtz NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE 3. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE 4. REVIEW ITEMS (A) APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROPOSAL: Betrona L. Nava 333 S. Montezuma Way SD No. 17-38; the applicant is proposing four awnings to be installed above the front windows and the front entryway of an existing home. Motion by Jimenez seconded by Redholtz that the proposed addition is in accordance with the Subcommittee Design Review Board Guidelines. Conditions of approval shall include that the proposed awnings be maintained and in good condition. 11 Storage 1\plandata \PLANCOMISubcommittee.DesignReviewl2 0 1 7 IMINUTES16.13.17.doc Page 2— May 23, 2017 (B) APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROPOSAL: Xiao Yang Zhou 1246 Inspiration Point SD No. 17-13; the applicant is proposing to construct a 299- square foot second story balcony and covered patio in the rear of the single family residential. The proposed structure will be architecturally consistent as the primary residence. Motion by Redholtz seconded by Jimenez that the proposed addition is in accordance with the Subcommittee Design Review Board Guidelines. (C) APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROPOSAL: Tony Argueta 519 Dancove Dr. SD No. 17-29; the applicant is proposing an 851 square foot addition to an existing single-family residence. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to remodel the façade of the home. The home is of an inspired modern architectural style including, fiat concrete roof tiles of charcoal color, gray gutters and fascia boards for cornicing, smooth cement plaster along all elevations in the color of pixel white, fiber cement siding as accents in grey and tan, window and door trimming in dark bronze, and decorative lighting fixtures on the front porch. The porch will incorporate a decorative louver in the color of light bronze. Motion by Jimenez seconded by Redholtz that the proposed addition is not in accordance with the Subcommittee Design Review Board Guidelines. Commission recommends that the applicant continue to work with staff to incorporate staff recommendations. (D) APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROPOSAL: Katie Chiu 1010 Holiday Drive. SD No. 17-02 (AUP No. 17-02); the applicant is proposing a 780- square foot addition to the existing single-family residence. The proposed structure will be architecturally consistent with the primary residence. Motion by Redholtz seconded by Jimenez that the proposed addition is in accordance with the Subcommittee Design Review Board Guidelines. 5. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn at 6:57 p.m. \\Storagellplanclata\PLANCOM\Subcommittee.DesignReview1201711141NUTES16.13.17.doc AGENDA NO. 7b. DATE: July 11.2017 WEST COVINA PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD PLANNING CONFERENCE ROOM — ROOM 208 REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, June 27, 2017 6:39 p.m. MINUTES 1. ROLL CALL Present: Jimenez, Redholtz Absent: None City Staff Present: C. Delosfrinos, V. Hernandez 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 13, 2017 AYES: Jimenez, Redholtz NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE 3. OTHER MATTERS OR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE 4. REVIEW ITEMS (A) APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROPOSAL: Mark Olvera 845 E. Michelle Street SD No. 17-42; the applicant is proposing modifications that will include a 92- square foot addition to the front of the home to allow a kitchen extension. The front modifications will also allow for the elevation to incorporate brick siding and a front porch feature to be consistent with the existing architectural feature on the home of a gable roof Motion by Jimenez seconded by Redholtz that the proposed addition is in accordance with the Subcommittee Design Review Board Guidelines. \\Storage" lplandata\PLANCOM Subcommittee.DesigtiReview1201711141NUTES16.27.17.doc Subcommittee Design Review Board Agenda Page 2 — June 27, 2017 (B) APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROPOSAL: Junior Limon 1220 Inspiration Point SD No. 17-46; the applicant is proposing to construct a 375- square foot second story balcony and covered patio to the rear of a single family residence. The applicant is also proposing a 6'-8" retaining wall to the rear of the property. The proposed structure will be architecturally consistent with the primary residence. The project requires the approval of an Administrative Use Permit for a second-story addition (AUP No. 17-09). Motion by Redholtz seconded by Jimenez that the proposed addition is in accordance with the Subcommittee Design Review Board Guidelines, and to move forward with completion of the mailings and review period. The Subcommittee for Design Review will be notified regarding the status of the project upon completion of the public notice period. (C) APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROPOSAL: Jose Loera 1016 S. Spring Meadow SD No. 17-45; the applicant is proposing to convert an existing car-port and library structure to a new attached 1,066 square feet three car garage and laundry room. The proposed roof pitch and materials are consistent with the existing residence. Motion by Redholtz seconded by Jimenez that the proposed addition is in accordance with the Subcommittee Design Review Board Guidelines. (D) APPLICANT: LOCATION: PROPOSAL: Howard Lo 707 Quail Valley Lane SD No. 17-35; the applicant is proposing to construct a 40.30-square foot porch to the front of a single family residence, and a 140-square foot second story balcony and covered patio to the rear of the single family residence. The proposed structure will be architecturally consistent with the primary residence. The project requires the approval of an Administrative Use Permit for a second-story addition (A-UP No. 17-22). Motion by Redholtz seconded by Jimenez that the proposed addition is in accordance with the Subcommittee Design Review Board Guidelines, and to move forward with completion of the mailings and review period. The Subcommittee for Design Review will be notified regarding the status of the project upon completion of the public notice period. 5. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn at 6;53 p.m. \\Storage Iplandata\PLANCOM SubcommitteeDesignReview120171MINUTES16.27. I 7.doc