Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/9/2007MIUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULA MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 9, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Torng c, Quality Management C Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PLEDGE OF ALLE 1. ROLL CALL Present: Shah, Vice Chai Absent: led the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air ytrict/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, E: C/Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Jack an Tony Torng. Chairman Steve Nelson was excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Greg Gubman, Planning Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; David Alvarez, Planning Technician; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney, Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer, Erwin Ching, Jr. Engineer; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OFAGENDA: VC/Torng requested that Item 7.1 be moved to after Item 8.4. 4. CONSENT CALE DAR: 4.1 Minutes of Reqular Meetinq of September 25. 2007. C/Lee moved, C/N Ian seconded to approve the Minutes of September 25, 2007, as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COM ISSIONERS: Shah ABSENT COM ISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 4.2 Conditional Use Permit No 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: Ronald Reagan Park 2201 Peaceful Hills Drive City of Diamond Bar Sprint/Nextel 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 CDD/Fong presented staff's report. Ed Gala, Sprint/Nextel, asked that the letter from his firm's attorney be entered into the record. CDD/Fong responded that Mr. Gala"s request was so noted. A resident requested to speak in opposition of the project and VC/Torng reminded the speaker and audience that comments were to address the Resolution of Denial, which was the subject of this matter. C/Lee moved, VC/Torng seconded, to approve the Resolution of Denial for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 to establish a wireless facility. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None None Lee, VC/Torng Nolan Shah Chair/Nelson 8.1 Development Review No. 2007-29 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a two- story addition of 1,151 square feet and to remodel the existing dwelling to OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION create a 7. property is acres) of Iz froom, 4 -bathroom, single-family dwelling unit. The subject led R-1 (8,000) and contains 14,466 gross square feet (.33 area. PROJECT DDRESS: 1510 Kiowa Crest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERT OWNER/ Martha and Paul Gonzales 1510 Kiowa Crest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Roofing Plus Construction 18 N. Central Avenue Upland, CA 91786 CDD/Fong presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review 2007-29, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were Ino exparte disclosures. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Paul Gonzales said the remodel was to accommodate his handicapped son. The home has a driveway that accommodates all vehicles. During construction the personal items are being stored in the garage and once construction is completed the vehicles can be parked inside of the garage. CDD/Fong asked the applicant if he understood he would have to provide one additional parking covered garage to accommodate the room addition. The condition of approval requires an additional garage. The intended use of the garage is for parking cars and the City's code requires one additional space for th additional bedrooms. Mrs. Gonzales stated that there are additional cars parked in the driveway because nurses come to her home to care for her son. Cleaning ladies also come to her home and park on the street. CDD Fong explained that a typical single family home with up to five bedrooms h is a two car garage. We assume two cars are parked inside the garage with two cars parked on the driveway, which accommodates four cars. However, this family needs additional living space and is proposing to add three more bedrooms for a total of seven bedrooms. OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan asked if there was sufficient space on the lot to add a garage and CDD/Fong responded that the applicant could add another garage space next to the existing two -car garage in the side yard area or the applicant could use the side yard area as a driveway to get to the rear yard and add a car two -car garage in the back yard area. VC/Torng asked Mrs. Gonzales if she understood the condition regarding the garage space and she responded that she did but that this was the first notice she and her husband had received about the requirement. CDD/Fong recommended that this matter be continued to allow staff to work with the applicant to revise the plans. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded to continue Development Review 2007-29 to October 23, 2007. Motion approved by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Lee, Shah, VC/Torng, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 8.2 Development Review No. 2007-23 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of site and architectural plans for a first and second story addition of approximately 1,985 square feet, a new three -car garage of approximately 704 square feet with a roof deck of 460 square feet. The request also included a second unit of 1200 square feet in the rear yard. PROJECT ADDRESS: 24303 Northview Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Ming K. Lan APPLICANT: 24303 Northview Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2007-23, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution C/Shah asked if this home was handicapped accessible and CDD/Fong said she believed it was not and that it was not required. There were no exparte disclosures OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Mr. Lan stated that the house is sitting on top of a hill and uses a single driveway from the end of the cul-de-sac up hill to the house. The addition will be at the back of the house and most of the neighbors will be unaware of the addition. Also, the existing pad will be used and there will be no change in the drain ige pattern. Mr. Lan responded to VC/Torng that he reviewed the conditions of approval and concur ed with all of the conditions. VC/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Nolan m ved, C/Shah seconded to approve Development Review No. 2007-23, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng, NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 8.3 Development Review No. 2007-30 Minor Variance No. 2007-08 Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-16 — In accordance with Development Code Secti ns 22.48, 22.52, 22.58 and 22.68, the applicant requested approval of site and architectural plan for a first and second story addition of approximately 2,768 square feet. The addition includes habitable space, decks and enlarging the garage and front entry. A Development Review application was for evaluating the architecture and site design of the project. A Minor Variance approval was required to decrease the front setback by not more than 20 percent. A Minor Conditional Use Permit approval was required to maintain a non -conforming front setback. PROJECT DDRESS: 2656 Indian Creek Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTI OWNER: Mr. and Mrs. Siobo Batricevich 2656 Indian Creek Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Bob Larivee Award Winning Design 17 Rue Du Chanteau Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2007-30, Minor Variance No. 2007-06, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-16, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no exparte disclosures. VC/Torng asked why this was not in compliance with the Hillside Ordinance and AssocP/Lungu explained that because the house exists it was difficult to work with the ordinance. The applicant is splitting the deck in varying levels and creating it in proportion to the home, which will result in a significant overall improvement to the design. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Branca Batricevich thanked the Commission for its time and for AssocP/Lungu's thorough presentation. She and her husband believed It was necessary to update the home to today's construction standards and felt that the architectural style would make a significant improvement to the existing home. The front will be better and the back of the house will create a significant improvement in aesthetics and safety. VC/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2007-30, Minor Variance No. 2007-08, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-16, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Shah, Lee, Nolan, VC/Torng, None Chair/Nelson 8.4 Development Review No. 2007-18 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-15 — I n accordance with Development Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant requested approval to add 495 square feet of livable area, 20 OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION net additio al square feet of garage and storage space, and a 118 square foot covered patio to an existing 1,749 square foot single-family residence on an existing 11,168 square -foot, Low Medium Residential (RLM) zoned lot with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Medium R "d tial (RLM); and a Minor Conditional Use Permit for the cont inuatio9 of a non -conforming front yard setback. PROJECT,4DDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 24331 Sentry Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Reyn and Kristie Shimokawa 24331 Sentry Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Pro Builder 449 W. Allen Avenue, Suite 109 San Dimas, CA 91773 PM/Gubma presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review NO. 2007-18 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-15, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. There were lno exparte disclosures. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Ken Klobel, Pro Builder, complimented CDD/Fong and PM/Grubman fortheir good effort on behalf of a higher design standard for the City. Home improvement to these high standards prevents properties from turning into rental properties. C/Lee mo) No. 2007-1 Fact, and c carried by tl AYES: NOES: ABSENT d, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-15, Findings of editions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion following Roll Call vote: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng, COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Shah recused himself from deliberating on Item 7.1 and left the dais. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Negative Declaration No 2007-05, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-08 and Development Review No. 2007-14 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.58 and 22.48, the proposed project was a request to demolish an existing residence and develop a private school (kindergarten to eighth grade). The proposed three-story school building is approximately 13,760 square feet in area with 16,977 square feet of subterranean parking. A Conditional Use Permit was required to establish a school. The Development Review application was required to evaluate the architecture and site design of the project. (Continued from September 25, 2007) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1009 Via Sorella Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Daar-Ul-Ilm of Muslim Youth, Inc. 733 Summerwood Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91789 APPLICANT: Nomaan Baig, President and CEO Daaar-Ullm of Muslim Youth, Inc. 733 Summerwood Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91789 PM/Gubman presented staffs report and addressed the four items of concern called out by the Commission that included a request for visual simulation from three vantage points; consideration of traffic safety issues with regard to the possible need for streetlights, and parameters for acceptable level of playground area for private schools. PM/Gubman recommended Planning Commission approval of Negative Declaration No. 2007-05, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-08 and Development Review No. 2007-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution and as amended by staff. C/Lee believed that this was more of a cultural center and believed that the applicant should be granted more autonomy with regard to school hours. PM/Gubman explained that a change in school hours was subject to Planning Division review and approval, which would eliminate some of the bureaucratic steps of coming back before the Commission for a fully noticed OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION hearing. He said that in his opinion, it was important for the Public Works Director to -eview and approve the change of hours and whether the study contemplated such traffic impacts. He felt it was not an onerous requirement and that the condition provided for flexibility in modifying the hours of operation ithout being open-ended. C/Lee asked if staff talked with the applicant about Condition No. 7 and PIVI/Gubman responded affirmatively and explained that the applicant was not initially comfortable with the condition. He reiterated that this does not lock the applicant into those hours in perpetuity and staff would be happy to consider a hange to the hours but needs to have discussion between the applicant arid staff to ensure no additional impacts. Once the project is up and running it could be determined that the impacts were overly conservative, for example, and staff would be more amenable to expanding the hours. C/Nolan said she felt that staff was not completely comfortable with the accuracy of the photo simulations. PM/Gubman said that it was difficult to identify all vantage points and potentials for impacts. This project is on a hill with different site elevations and staff did not reach a complete level of comfort given the height of the building plus the projections above. He felt that what was presented was not comprehensive enough for a true view of the project. C/Nolan asked if the changes of 42 and 45 -foot maximum heights would satisfy staff without requiring additional photo simulations. PM/Gubman responded t at staff would be comfortable with a 45 -foot maximum height. CDD/Fong larified that the 45 -foot height was not the maximum building height it was the maximum for the additional projections. The building height maximum requirement is 35 feet. VC/Torng opened the public hearing. Nomaan Big, 7337 Summerwood Avenue, said that with respect to Condition No. 7, the weekday classes with its limitation from 6:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. was a constraint upon the traditional functioning hours of the school, which is from 6:00 a -m. to 3:30 p.m. He again requested that the hours be as noted in the Planning Commission Agenda, page 5, Section (d). He asked the Commission to add the after-school program hours and weekend operational hours to Item 7 of the resolution. C/Nolan said the OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION after-school program hours and weekend operational hours are included within the table. PM/Gubman said he crafted the language to be less constraining than the programming activity shown on page 5 of staff's report. He said he would not have a problem moving the schedule information into Condition 7. However, he was attempting to not tie the applicant down to those specific time intervals. Mr. Baig said that with that understanding he would have no problem with the resolution as written. Mr. Baig said that only about one-half of the 135 students would be playing on the playground area at any given time. Play Area A would consist of 1,800 square feet, Play Area B would consist of 1,300 square feet and the Open Area C would consist of 2,160 square feet. Mr. Baig thanked the Planning Department for its understanding of this project. What makes this structure an Islamic structure is the dome and minaret. If those two items were stripped from the building it would remove the Islamic identity. It is important to the Muslim community that the proposed structure be enhanced with these two exclusive architectural productions. If asked for a compromise to reduce the height of the dome to 42.9 feet and increase the minaret by three or six feet to about 50 or 51 feet to achieve a height differential. C/Lee asked if there was a profound meaning to the applicant's concept and Mr. Baig responded that it was the equivalent of a church steeple, serves as a beacon of light and is part of the Islamic heritage. Muslims who live in Diamond Bar are representative of many other countries and are multi- generational. He showed a photo of an Islamic structure located in Anaheim with a minaret at a height of 75 feet high and a dome that is 50 feet high. C/Lee asked if staff and the applicant discussed this matter sufficiently. The rendering should be relative based on the distance and height from different angles so that it can be properly viewed. If the height of the dome was reduced to 42 feet and the height of the minaret were increased it would appear awkward to him. Has staff thoroughly discussed this matter with the applicant and what is the better of the four options according to staff. CDD/Fong responded that staff was concerned about the height of the building design. The maximum building height in accordance with the City's Code is 35 feet. The applicant requested projects in the form of a dome and a minaret. The applicant has to abide by the Code. Staff brought up the issue that the height of the projection is a concern. Staff is not referring to the significance of the religious symbol, rather that the project conforms to the City's Code and whether the projections create a dominant feature. OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee saic that if the minaret is like a cross it could be scaled back. However, when he looks at scenario #4 the structure has been cut down and the minare is proportionately higher and he was not comfortable with the design. C)D/Fong explained that the building height was not cut down because it meets the Code at 35 feet. The bigger dome was reduced in height to 42 feet as suggested and the applicant is requesting that the minaret be increased to a height of 45 feet to comply with the symbolism. Staff agrees with this scenario and that is what staff has presented to the Commissio for consideration. C/Lee said the applicant requested that the minaret hei ght be increased to 48 or 51 feet. PM/Gubman reminded C/Lee that the Pla ning Commission is the decision-making body and staff merely provides its recommendation. C/Nolan as ed if there had been any discussion of reducing the size of the dome toemphasize the height of the minaret. CDD/Fong said that staff would prefE r not to see the domes at all so that the building meets the 35 - foot height equirement. Staff is trying to work with the applicant and while staff underE tands the significance of the appendages staff is also concerned with the projections being exposed to view. Staff would prefer that the applicant have a projection that would not project such a dominant view. Mr. Baig sa d he was asking for Commission consideration. He felt that a three-foot d fferential would not be sufficient and if it could be pushed to 48 feet with the dome at 42 feet it would be an acceptable compromise. However, he would accept what was proposed by staff. C/Nolan as ed Mr. Baig if he would consider lowering the height of the dome. Mr. aig said that if it were lowered more than 42 feet there would be no point in aving the dome. VC/Torng confirmed with Mr. Baig that he would compromise to 42 feet for the dome arid 48 feet for the minaret. Omar Rang onwala, 20739 Lycoming #88, asked for Commission approval. Dr. Ari FreZE e said the dome and minaret should not be cut down because it would kill the project. Mohammed Jibaje, 23385 Golden Springs Drive, said the length of the minaret is very essential and had he thought about it he could have provided OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION many pictures of Islamic structures that shows that the minaret should stick up much higher than the domes. Waseem Majmi, Walnut, felt that the applicant's request to work with the Commission on the height of the dome and extend the height of the minerette was a legitimate request. Mustafa Farooqi agreed with C/Lee that the proportion of the building to the minaret was important and 48 feet for the minaret and 42 forthe dome would look better than reducing both down to 45 feet. Mr. Baig reiterated that he has worked diligently and cooperatively to move this project forward in a respectful and thoughtful manner. He understood that the Commission has its duty. Everyone has done his part and it is now time for the Commission to approve this project. He thanked staff and the Commissioners for their time and said he looked forward to greater involvement within the community. VC/Torng asked for confirmation of the applicant's request and agreement for 42 feet for the dome and 48 feet for the minaret. Mr. Baig said VC/Torng was correct and that the applicant agreed with the remainder of the conditions within the resolution. C/Lee likened the project to a community center and said to him safety was an important issue with the respect to the children. Mr. Baig responded that the applicant would employ every type of method possible to deter crime including a surveillance system. If there is an open house, presentation or workshop at night the facility will include security. Mr. Baig responded to C/Nolan that the feature on top of the minaret is a crescent that would extend the minaret to one to two feet above the 48 feet. C/Nolan asked if the applicant would be satisfied with a maximum height of 48 feet including the crescent. Mr. Baig said that the extra two feet would take away from the proportion. VC/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Lee felt the request was reasonable for the type of facility being proposed. He wanted to cooperate with the applicant's request. However, the applicant must also comply with the City's codes and believed in this instance that 48 feet was very suitable for the Commission's decision. OCT013ER 9, 2007 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan said she believed there had been good cooperation on this project between the applicant and staff. She was satisfied with the safety issue regarding the streetlights, as well as the issues of the drop-off, and supervision of the students. She said she would like to see a designated area for hard court use. She empathized with the sentiment and religious implications of the dome and the height but as home is where the heart is, so is a church and a building is important but a building is not the most important aspect. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Negative Declaration No. 2007-05, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-08 and Development Review No. 2007-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as amended and listed within staff's report, including a change in height to 42.9 feet for the dome and 48 feet for the minaret. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: C/Shah returned to the dais. Nolan, Lee, VC/Torng None Shah Chair/Nelson 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nolan said she received a call this afternoon from a teacher at Golden Springs Elementary School who asked why the school had not previously been able to apply for the Blue Ribbon School Recognition and wanted to know what had occurred to affect the school's criteria to allow it to be able to apply. The builder under Item 8.4 made a valid point about the high standards of homes and amount of rentals. C/Nolan wondered if the condos near Jims Dairy with a high percentage of rentals fell under Section 8 and wanted to know if the income status allowed the school to reach proper status to apply for the recognition. The teacher was concerned about the standard of living and low income housing in communities and how it affects schools within the community. CDD/Fong responded that the federal government regulates Section 8 housing and cities have no control as far as the number of rental units that can qualify for Section 8. In accordance with state law the City is required to offer a certain number of affordable units. OCTOBER 9, 2007 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Shah thanked the Commissioners for receiving him with open arms and felt the Commission handled Item 7.1 very well. VC/Torng welcomed C/Shah to the Commission and thanked staff for their assistance with this evening's meeting. He hoped that the Sprint/Nextel matter would not cause any problems and that the matter would soon be resolved. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Fong said that earlier this evening the Commission discussed a project with seven bedrooms and the ratio of garage spaces to the number of bedrooms. She believed the City's Code needed to be modified to address this type of future request and she wanted to research the matterfurther and bring a report before the Commission for consideration of criteria for staff to implement as these types of situations come to the City. Another issue of concern related to the number of bedrooms is the matter of rooming and boarding within these houses that is difficult for cities to control. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, VC/Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 9:32 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Nancy Fong Tony Torng, Vice 01iairman nity Development Director