Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/9/2010MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kathy Nolan and Jack Shah; Vice Chairman Steve Nelson and Chairman Tony Torng. Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee arrived at 7:08 p.m. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; David Alvarez, Assistant Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 12, 2010. C/Nolan moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January -26, 2010, as presented. Motion carried-hy the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None Nolan, Shah, VC/Nelson, Chair/Torng None Lee FEBRUARY 9, 2010 PAGE 2 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2009-48 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.63.030, the applicant requested approval for the following improvements: • Exterior renovation to the front of the home; • 1,990 square -foot first floor addition; • 244 square -foot second floor addition; and, • 127 square -foot third floor addition The Minor Conditional Use Permit is being requested due to the expansion of a nonconforming structure because of a nonconforming side yard setback. The subject property is zoned RR (Rural Residential) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation. (Continued from January 26, 2010) PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 23240 Ridge Line Road (APN 8713-02-018) Diamond Bar, CA 91789 David Li 23240 Ridge Line Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PT/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2009-48, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review and Conditional Use Permit No. PL 2009-48, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: FEBRUARY 9, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES NOES: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): Lee, Shah, Nolan, VC/Nelson, Chair/Torng None None 8.2 Development Review No. PL2009-54 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant requested approval for the following improvements: A 238 square foot addition to the front of an existing 1,463 square - foot single family residence. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow the continuation of an existing nonconforming front setback of 19'0" (20 feet is required), a side setback of 5'9" (10 feet is required) and the building separation of 13'4" (15 feet is required). The subject property is zoned RLM (Low -Medium Density Residential) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation. PROJECT LOCATION PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 22432 Falconburn Way (APN 8293-013-016) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Rohit and Hetal Patel 22432 Falconburn Way Diamond bar, CA 1765 Havier Camoriinga 5655 Dover Street Chino, CA 91710 AP/Alvarez presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2009-54, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. FEBRUARY 9, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Rohit Patel, Owner, asked for approval of the addition. He said he concurred with the conditions of approval. C/Lee said he was concerned about the fagade matching neighboring properties. Mr. Patel said his house was built in 1973. C/Lee asked if Mr. Patel agreed with staff about the requirement to add stone veneer on the building fagade as conditioned and Mr. Patel said he agreed with staff about the condition. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. VC/Nelson wondered if the City had ever disallowed individuals to build additions that exceed the standards because other portions of the existing homes are non -conforming and in this instance, did staff consider asking the applicant to hold the addition back to 20 feet instead of 19 feet? CDD/Gubman responded that the Code is crafted with the regulation that requires a Minor Conditional Use Permit to continue the non -conformity that has already been established for the building envelope. Given that existing condition and considering that this is a one story addition, it is relatively small in proportion to the entire structure and since there was nothing egregious or excessive, particularly since the encroachment was one foot, staff would not have any concerns about maintaining the one -foot encroachment. If an addition provided a second story to an existing one-story dwelling, staff might have issues with the setback being that close and in fact might work with the applicant to step back the second level, for example. The Conditional Use Permit process allows staff to look at the appropriateness of and the context of the proposal. VC/Nelson said he agreed with the one foot setback issue. However, if the non -conforming use had a six foot setback, he hoped that staff would not recommend that the Planning Commission allow the rest of the house/addition to extend to the six foot setback as well. CDD/Gubman said that staff would not simply allow for that. Because the Code states that a Conditional Use Permit is required there is no right to continue that non- conformity. C/Nolan said the six foot is not included in the 20 feet so it is the appearance of the 25 feet in the front. CDD/Gubman said he would not give a lot of weight to that because nearly all homes in Diamond Bar have a 12 foot parkway from the face of curb. In reality, instead of a 20 foot setback it is a 32 foot setback from face of curb which is the standard that must be upheld in this zoning district. C/Lee said that to him, the stone veneer did not seem compatible with neighboring properties. He saw no comment on staff's report about the FEBRUARY 9, 2010 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION stone veneer and elevation design. He asked if the stone veneer was compatible with the neighborhood. CDD/Gubman responded that the stone veneer and elevation is compatible with neighborhood diversity. The houses are not all identical on the street and this design adds additional interest to the streetscape. C/Lee said that everyone has their own taste and wondered if the design was being proposed by the applicant or was it being required by city staff. C/Lee is familiar with other cities requiring specific styles and he believed this was unfair to ask of applicants. CDD/Gubman responded that when the application was first submitted, staff asked the applicant to provide architectural enhancement to it. By virtue of the fact that this was a tract home built in the 1970's it would indicate that the architecture would be non descript and this was an opportunity for the applicant to bring his home into contemporary Diamond Bar design guidelines so staff uses these opportunities to help enhance the value of the property as well as, the entire neighborhood. C/Lee asked if there was a specific guideline or standard to require this type of design by the applicant or is this condition based on staff's discretion. CDD/Gubman stated that the residential guidelines that were adopted by the City specify that architectural design should be considered on all sides of the home and in particular, those offering the greatest visibility from the street. C/Lee said he was talking about the wall: CDD/Gubman responded that the design guidelines do not mandate any particular type of architectural treatment. The appropriateness of the architectural treatment proposed is a matter for the Commission to decide whether the applicant has achieved the intent of the design guidelines. VC/Nelson moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2009-54, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Nelson, Chair/Torng None None 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nolan thanked staff and her colleagues for their condolences and thoughts on the passing of her mother. FEBRUARY 9, 2010 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lee said that every City adopts high architectural standards that occasionally discourage residents to renovate or enhance their space. If Diamond Bar has an opportunity to talk with applicants everything should be smooth in considering the applicant's needs and consideration of their situation so that people will be encouraged to invest in their space. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman said that due to a lack of business the February 23 Planning Commission meeting will be adjourned to the next regular meeting. Staff expects to begin the public hearing process for the Site D Specific Plan on March 9 or more likely on March 23, 2010. This will begin the public hearing process for certification of the Environmental Impact Report and adoption of the Specific Plan. He said he anticipated a minimum of two meetings for a project of this scope. The first meeting will include staff's presentation, the opening of the public hearing and public testimony. Given the controversy of the project, the hearing will likely be continued to a subsequent meeting to continue receiving public testimony and conclude deliberations, if possible, in order to move the project forward to the City Council. Chair/Torng asked if there were any major changes since the last hearing at Heritage Park. CDD/Gubman responded that there were no changes to the proposed project. The purpose of the Heritage Park meeting was not to discuss the merits of the project but the adequacy of the environmental analysis. Neighborhood comments included a lot about the neighborhood preferences for the type of project desired but in terms of the environmental issues, comments were provided both orally and in writing. Staff included those comments in what will be the Final Environmental Impact Report and responses will be provided to all comments. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. FEBRUARY 9, 2010 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 7:35 p.m. to March 9, 2010. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 9th day of March, 2010. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, "'Zaa�' Greg Gub Community Development Director Tyr yTorng, Ch i man