Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/26/2007MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 26, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Wei led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei, Vice Chairman Tony Torng and Chairman Steve Nelson. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; David Alvarez, Planning Technician; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administration Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Submitted 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Torng requested that the Minutes of June 12, 2007, be corrected to reflect that VC/Torng called the meeting to order; and the page numbers be corrected. VC/Torng moved, C/Wei seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ,ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ,ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: VC/Torng, Wei, Lee, Nolan None Chair/Nelson None 6.1 Development Review No. 2004-16(1) —The applicant requested to change the design and expand the deck located at the rear of the residence. JUNE 262007 7. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 22807 Lazy Trail Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Rita Medirata 1387 Magnolia Chino, CA 91765 Simon Shum 20272 Carrey Road Walnut, CA 91789 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended the Planning Commission determine that the revised plans were in substantial conformance with the City's development standards and delegate the review and approval to the Community Development Director. C/Nolan moved, C/Lee seconded to find the revised plans to be in substantial conformance with the City's development standards and delegate the review and approval to the Community Development Director. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Lee, Wei, VC/Torng Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Development Review No 2007-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-11 — In accordance with Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant requested to construct a 1,923 square foot addition to an existing 1,728 square foot Single Family Residence on an existing 5,998 Lot Zoned R -A-6000 with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Medium Density Residential (RLM), and for the continuation of legal non -conforming side yard setbacks and distance between structures. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1162 Clorinda Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Thomas Mar and Jennifer Lin 1162 Clorinda Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JUNE 262007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Leo Wu & Associates 67 E. Live Oak Avenue #201 Arcadia, CA 91006 PT/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2007-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lee wanted to know if the proposed residence would contain additional units or apartments. CDD/Fong responded that there are no condominiums or apartments in the neighborhood. This is a single-family home and if the owner wishes to rent out the property it is his right to do so. Chair/Nelson reopened the public hearing. Thomas Mar, owner, said he and his wife have lived at the property for the past seven years. Last December their twins were born and they decided to add on to their home to provide more room. He intends to keep this home as his primary single-family residence. He and his wife own two cars and believe parking is not a major issue. He believed that improvements to the home would increase the value of the surrounding area as well. He asked for approval of his proposed project. Maria and Kevin Barber, 1144 Clorinda said she has friends who are certified appraisers and realtors and she asked them for information regarding this proposal. One appraiser commented that the massive increase in square footage would not increase the value to the true value of a 3700 square foot plus home. Maria Barber said that in her opinion adding so much square footage to a tract home did not make sense and would stick out like a "sore thumb." A real estate agent indicated to her that because the proposed project would overshadow other homes the neighboring homes would not increase in value. Kevin Barber said no one is living in the subject house and after living in the neighborhood for seven years he has never seen the applicant. Maria Barber questioned whether the applicant intended to live in the house or intended to use the property for an organization or some other use. Kevin Barber said he has seen only groups of people arrive for meetings and the result is that many cars are frequently parked around the home and in the street. Valenti Saenz, 20507 Calpert Drive, said he lives next door to the subject property and no one lives in the house. He has seen people arrive for JUNE 262007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION meetings on several occasions and he has personally seen 30 pairs of shoes left in front of the house on a Friday night. He did not believe the owners wanted the property for a single-family residence but for another purpose. David Porter, 1132 Clorinda, showed photographs of the subject property that to him clearly indicated a dramatic affect of a massive house to the neighborhood. The majority of the homes in the area are 1300 square foot single -story and two-story homes. Reference was made to rentals in the area and he found five or six in the area that are overpopulated for single- family residences. He wanted to know if staff could give him an expanded definition of a single-family residence. If construction were to move forward it could present a safety issue. And if approved, when would the project be completed. He referred to a petition presented to the City that contained about 94 signatures in opposition to this project. He did not find one resident living in the area that would be in favor of approving this project and hoped the Planning Commission would not approve the project. Jorge Arcia, 1139 Clorinda, said he owns the same size house as the subject property and he has three bedrooms and two baths upstairs. Kathy Abelar, 20465 E. Calpet Drive, lives adjacent to the proposed project. She presented a list of her concerns and questions and asked for responses during the discussion period. Her first concern was what the structure would be used for because although the property owner's address is listed as 1162 Clorinda Drive, the applicant does not reside in the subject property and people come and go. Someone puts out a green trashcan that sits at the curb for days. People take care of the yard and mail accumulates in the mailbox. On occasion, many people come and go and it appears that some type of meeting is being held in the structure. If the request is approved will someone actually take residency in the structure. What is the legal definition of a single-family residence and does it include immediate family only or an extended family? The proposed second story addition with the legal non- conforming side yard would impact the home directly to the south that fronts on Calpet Drive. Impacts to the neighborhood that should be considered are overcrowding, traffic, parking, litter, noise, further overloading of the current sewer system and if approved, when would the project be completed. Construction could severely impact the area because there is no access to the rear yard where the construction will take place. Paul Garcia, 1107 Arkley Drive, wondered how it would benefit the applicant's children to lose yard space. In addition, the impact to the surrounding neighbors would be severe and the applicant would have very JUNE 262007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION little access to a back yard. The project addition would be more than the original size of the house and would negatively impact the traffic. He and his wife did not have an opportunity to sign the petition but were opposed to the project. Bruce Harr, 20525 Calpet Drive, said he too had the same concerns as previous speakers. He does not know the individuals who are building this house and alleging to live in this house but he has concerns about building a house of this size as a single-family dwelling, especially learning this evening that there are only four family members involved. He wondered if the City had conducted a traffic survey. Big rigs in residential neighborhoods violate the vehicle code and the Sheriff's Department needs to enforce this issue. If this property is not being used as a single-family dwelling the City should be seriously concerned. He did not have an opportunity to sign the petition and hoped this matter would be thoroughly investigated. Lisa Wong -Owens, 1135 Clorinda, said that she and her husband have lived in their home for nearly 12 years and when they moved into the neighborhood there were no homes for sale. She has never seen the owner at the subject property. When she and her neighbors saw the large construction sign they became concerned. She hoped the Commission would thoroughly investigate this situation and make its decision based on the truth of the matter. David Porter hoped that Diamond Bar would address the issue of ,.mansionization" to prevent overbuilding in residential areas. Thomas Mar responded to speakers that he understood the neighbors' concerns and either this project is approved or declined but he and his family still want to live at the subject property. He said he would sign the covenant that the house would remain a single-family residence if the project were approved. The meetings were held three years ago for his church but there have been no meetings at his home since that time. Since his twins were born and since he and his wife have been preparing for construction, they have been living with his in-laws because their house is too small. Even though he and his wife have not lived in the house for a long time they did not rent it out. He and his family currently live in Rowland Heights and do not pick up their mail regularly and that is probably why neighbors have not seen him. JUNE 262007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson asked Mr. Mar if he planned to move back into the subject property once the construction was completed and Mr. Mar said yes, that his family was looking forward to living in their home. CDD/Fong responded to Chair/Nelson that there are no restrictions to using residences for church meetings. Based on First Amendment rights private gatherings are not regulated. Chair/Nelson indicated to Mr. Mar that the City must govern within the rules. C/Wei asked about the possibility of increased traffic because the house has five bedrooms and his in-laws will be living with the applicant. Mr. Mar responded that his in-laws would not be living in the home with his immediately family. He intends to have only his immediate family live in the house when construction is finished but in the future he may have his mother live with him. C/Wei asked if Mr. Mar ever lived in the subject property and Mr. Mar said "yes." He said he knew his next-door neighbor and worked together to construct the common wall between their homes. He said he and his wife lived there for many years and since the twins were born they moved in with his in-laws so that his in-laws could take care of the babies while he and his wife worked. CDD/Fong responded to speakers that the large addition and the question of value was based on market conditions and was not under the control of the City. The applicant has responded to whether or not he lives in the house and staff believes the applicant lives in the property except since the birth of the twins. The owners' personal property is still in the house and the owners return to their residence from time to time until construction is completed and they can move back into their home. The applicant also addressed the concern about group meetings and the City cannot regulate private gatherings. The applicant would need to address the issue of when construction would be completed. Cut -through traffic is a regional issue and affected residents are invited to appear before the Traffic and Transportation Commission if they are concerned. During construction there will be increased traffic and the City has standards regarding construction activities. The Minor Conditional Use Permit is for maintaining the legal non -conforming side yard setback of five feet and the separation between structures of less than 15 feet and does not relate to the percentage of increase to the house. CDD/Fong responded to written questions from Ron and Kathy Abelar. The definition of Single -Family Residence according to caselaw is "anyone that chooses to live together is a bona fide family." Regarding privacy issues, the City has no provisions for regulating privacy and view. The applicant has JUNE 2132007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION attempted to be sensitive to the privacy issue by not having windows on the side elevation except for a small bathroom window. ACA/Wohlenberg explained that state law provides that structures cannot be built that will reduce the amount of exposure of solar array in order to continue and encourage the use of solar energy. He said he was not aware of this project impacting such an installation. CDD/Fong said that the street would continue to be well served by the Los Angeles Fire and Sheriffs Departments. The addition of two children to the household would not likely negatively impact the existing sewer system. The covenant regarding the type of occupancy (single family residence) is a condition of approval for all room additions and for all new single-family residences. Leo Wu, Architect for the project, said that usually this type of construction would take about six to eight months. After three months when the addition is dried in the work will be confined to the interior. The temporary fence and restroom facility will be set up on-site behind the fence during construction. CDD/Fong stated that before construction begins the applicant must go through plan check, a process that could take two to three months or longer. Once the applicant is given a building permit construction it could take six to eight months beyond that point. Therefore, it could be a year from approval before the construction is completed. Construction hours are Monday through Saturday from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan, VC/Torng and Chair/Nelson said they drove by the subject property and did not speak with anyone and did not learn any new information outside of staff's report. CDD/Fong confirmed to C/Nolan that the current side yard setbacks were five feet and were considered non -conforming and would remain intact. The outside perimeter of the addition in the year yard area would generally line up with the two adjacent houses. CDD/Fong said she believed that presently the largest house in the neighborhood slightly exceeded 2000 square feet. According to public assessor records, houses range from over 1700 square feet to one house on Flintgate that is 2474 square feet. In driving the area she did not observe any houses with solar panels. C/Nolan commented that the trash containers should be subject to code enforcement and residents should call the City to report their concerns. JUNE 262007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION Regulations also apply to 18 -wheelers and other matters and anyone who is concerned should call the City to make a report. CDD/Fong agreed that trashcans are to be taken back into yard areas out of public view after trash pickup, an issue that would be referred to code enforcement. Chair/Nelson said that in concept, the idea of a homeowner increasing the size of his house to accommodate a growing family and be able to stay in Diamond Bar is not a bad thing. In fact, this Commission has several times approved projects for that very reason. He said he was sensitive to the size but it is hardly mansionization. The values that Mr. Mar will get back and the size of his yard that his kids will play in is his business and this Commission cannot make its judgment on this type of criteria or concern. Bottom line is that the City has a Development Code that permits property owners to do certain things and the City cannot prevent them from doing those things if they are permitted in the Code. What the City has done in the past and what he intends to suggest if this project is approved is that Mr. Mar make every effort to become a neighbor in the community and there may be things he can do to alleviate his neighbors' concerns. For example, he could have his construction crew start work on Saturday at 8:00 a.m. rather than 7:00 a.m. Clearly, there has not been adequate communication with respect to this residence. He did not believe there was anything in the City's Development Code that would preclude any portion of this project. CDD/Fong concurred. C/Lee moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Development Review No. 2007-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan Wei, VC/Torng Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 8:30 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 8:40 p.m. JUNE 262007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Development Review No 2007-03 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-12 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant requested to construct a 1,475 livable square foot addition to an existing 1,260 square foot single-family residence on an existing 8,467 square foot lot (Lot 28 Zoned R-1-8000) with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Low Medium Residential (RLM), and Minor Conditional Use Permit for the continuation of a legal non- conforming front yard setback. PROJECT ADDRESS: 434 Deep Hills Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Stevin & Marisol Fiedler 434 Deep Hill Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DA/Alvarez presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2007-03 and Minor Variance No. 2007-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nolan said she drove by the subject project and did not speak with anyone. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Steven Fiedler, 434 Deep Hill Drive, explained that the main purpose for the addition was to accommodate his mother who was recently diagnosed with the West Nile Virus. She is currently in a rehab facility and he wants to bring her to his residence to be with her family when the addition is ready. Also, he and his wife have five children and need additional accommodations for them and for a caretaker for his mother. Curt Ramirez, 224 Rock Ridge Road, said his only concern was how long a port -a -potty might be left in the front yard. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, C/Wei seconded to approve Development Review No. 2007-03 and Minor Variance No. 2007-12, Findings of Fact, and JUNE 262007 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan Wei, Lee, VC/Torng Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 8.2 Development Review No 2007-19 and Minor Variance No. 2007-05 — In accordance with Sections 22.48, 22.52, 2256 and 22.68, the applicant requested to construct a first and second story addition of approximately 2,630 square feet to an existing two-story single-family residence of approximately 2,777 square feet with a three -car garage. C/Lee, being the applicant in this matter, recused himself from deliberation and assumed his role as applicant to address the Commission. All Commissioners confirmed that they would be impartial in the deliberation of Mr. Lee's application as a citizen having and enjoying First Amendment rights. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 23746 Gold Rush Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Kwang Ho Lee 23746 Gold Rush Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2007-19 and Minor Variance No. 2007-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nolan said she drove by the property and did not learn anything new that was not contained in staff's report not realizing at the time that it was her colleague's project. VC/Torng said he also drove by the property. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. CDD/Fong responded to Chair/Nelson that the front yard setback was decreased to pull out the garage and addition to visually comply with the current setback. JUNE 2162007 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION Paul Bascron, 23737 Gold Rush Drive, across the street from the project, thought that Mr. Lee was going to build a guesthouse in the back of his residence and wanted to know if he could build a house on his rear slope. Chair/Nelson recommended that Mr. Bascron visit the Planning Department at City Hall to get answers to his questions. Chair/Nelson closed the Public Hearing. C/Wei moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2007-19 and Minor Variance No. 2007-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES NOES: ABSENT C/Lee returned to the Dais. COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Wei, Nolan, VC/Torng Chair/Nelson None Lee 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nolan recommended that the old public hearing sign be removed from in front of the storage area at 275 Prospectors Road. VC/Torng said he called CDD/Fong about the variance issue. Since there are so many people who want to build additions staff should review the City's Code. He was glad the Commission heard from the City Attorney about blocking solar energy. The City and Commissioners have to study the codes and maybe staff can show the Commissioners more codes that are more often used so that the Commissioners can better educate themselves. C/Lee thanked staff for tonight's report and said he believed that staff had the passion and eagerness to fulfill the needs of the residents. He is very glad and honored to work with a great staff. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Fong reported that at its June 19 meeting Council approved the Crestline Annexation and today CDD/Fong filed the application with LAFCO. JUNE 262007 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION The next step is for LAFCO to review the application to make certain it is complete and once that is determined, LAFCO will send out information to all affected agencies after which an annexation public hearing process will commence. CDD/Fong responded to Chair/Nelson that the Aera EIR would likely be ready for public review the early part of 2008. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 9:09 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Na cy Fong, omm ity Development Director Jame= Steve Nelson, Chairman