Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/28/2013MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION May 28, 2013 Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Frank Farago, Jimmy Lin, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Tony Torng, Chairman Steve Nelson Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Assistant Planner, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 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 May 14, 2013 - VC/Torng moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 14, 2013, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES-. NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): None None Farago, Shah, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None Lin None 7.1 Development Review No. PI -2012-100— Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner Ahdy Ayad, requested Development Review approval to construct a new 4,033 square foot single family residence on a 0.21 gross acre (9,320 square foot) lot. The MAY 28, 2013 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: 23885 Minnequa Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ahdy Ayad 12162 Black Stone Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739 AP/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2012-100, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng referred to Attachment 2, a letter received from Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Tobin, dated May 20, 2013. He said the neighbor's letter referred to Glendora's Code which calls for a 33 percent roof per 10,000 square feet of land and asked if Diamond Bar had such a code. AP/Tobon responded that the City's Development Standards state that within this zone there is a maximum of coverage of 40 percent footprint and the proposed project is 24.4 percent coverage. Chair/Nelson asked if it was a percentage of the footprint of the house or all hardscape and AP/Tobon responded that it is anything and everything with a roof so it includes the footprint of the house, patio covers and any other accessory structures. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Yasmine Ahmir, 1105 North Golden Springs Drive, said the issue was that due to a landslide, the house became inhabitable and was demolished in 2012. His engineer submitted drawings according to the requirements and the City's Code which the City approved. This project does not change the character of the street of Minnequa Drive and there should not be any problem with traffic nor should it have a negative impact on future sales. This project will add beauty to the homes on Minnequa. He feels that the person who cited the Glendora code (Attachment 2) did not realize that Glendora is an old City and Diamond Bar is a fairly young City. Mr. Ahmir submitted to Chair/Nelson a letter- in support of the project signed by the neighbors surrounding the project. Chair/Nelson asked for CDD/Gubman's recommendation on how the letter should be received and CDD/Gubrrlan stated his recommendation was that the Chair pass the letter to the Commissioners and that the letter then be entered into the record. Chair/Nelson offered the following summary: The letter is essentially in support of the project with a number of residents within the sarne MAY 28, 2013 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION street and/or less than one mile radius of the property stating that the project will not change the character of the houses located in the area. The height will be the same as that of the previous house and the elevation conforms to the City's regulations and that the project will not have a negative impact on the value of homes in the area. The letter speaks against the nature of the Glendora restrictions indicating that those restrictions basically do not apply to this project; that from an engineering and architectural standpoint there are quality individuals involved; there is a certificate of compliance for the plans and development for the Ahdy Ayad single family home issued by the engineers and the letter contains a number of signatures. In essence, this is a letter of statement from neighbors who say they have no problem with the project under any means whatsoever. Chair/Nelson entered the letter into the record and continued with the public hearing. Uanbin Hou, 23900 Minnequa Drive, across the street from the proposed project, said that he was against the project because he believed the size of the house would be double that of the house that previously existed and that it was not in keeping with the houses in the area. Second, the house is a two story house and that the house was one story and the proposed project will affect the houses on the west side. Third, the house is big and has a two car garage so there will be lots of people living there and where will they park and probably will park on the street. Ms. Yung, 23891 Minnequa Drive, next to the proposed project, said her house is a one-story house and a two story house next to her is too big and will block the light from her house. Also, there is only a two -car garage for such a big house. When the applicant finishes the house he may sell the house and there will be a big family living in the house. With only a two car garage cars will be parked on the street so it will create more traffic in her neighborhood. Emad Nabih, 8715 Pradero Court, Rancho Cucamonga, contractor, stated that when he submitted plans to build this house, they were submitted according to location, specifications and building codes. In addition, all setbacks and soil stability has been done to code. The City has reviewed and approved those plans. The recommendation for the slope came from GMU, the geotechnical engineer responsible for the landslide repair. The foundation was designed according to the specifications with a high factor of safety. With respect to the two car garage and the family that lives in the house, the area will not be impacted with vehicles because a two -car garage is sufficient for this size house which accommodates a husband, wife and one child. There are already some cars parked overnight on the street and there are no restrictions for parked cars because they do not block the traffic. The applicant made every attempt to match the area in accordance with Building and Safety recommendations. There is no attempt to do anything that is outstanding or out of the norm for the area. In addition, this house will increase the value of MAY 28, 2013 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION homes in the neighborhood because it is brand new and the next door neighbor will benefit from this project that also adds to the City and the community. Ms. Yung returned to say that the slide mitigation was guaranteed for only 10 years and after 10 years it will happen again and they will not warranty it again. Also he said it is a beautiful house and she agrees. But the surrounding houses are small and suddenly when there is a big house next to a small house it does not add to the value of her home, it detracts from that value. Raf Madrid, 17840 Newbrook, Cerritos, Certified Inspector for Los Angeles County, said he was involved with looking at the house and the slope failure. In his opinion, this area is a very good area. He lives in a two story house and no other houses on his street are two story. His house was built in 1975 as the rules and regulations allowed and there was no restriction from the point of view of Building and Safety. The regulation. for the City also allows for distance between the houses for fire safety and the proposed house meet those codes. The City of Diamond Bar has a very highly qualified staff and they know what they are doing. The engineer who submitted the plans knows the codes for single family homes and the rules were very carefully applied for this single family home for many reasons including insurance. Both sides of this home are safe for purposes of lighting. From a fire safety standpoint, the back of the house is an open area. The front line of the house matches all of the other houses in the street. Who will be living in this house is not the concern of anyone in this district because it could be one person with two cars or five people with only two cars. These plans were submitted to the City by a professional structural engineer under California Building Codes. The architect is certified and builds in accordance with'California Building Codes. The City sends the plans to two consulting engineers to carefully study the plans, thus the recommended modifications which were done. After that the City made three revisions to the plans — plans do not pass through this City that easily and the Planning Division of this City is responsible about what will be built in their community. Anyone who objects to this house is dealing from an emotional standpoint and this house is being built to code. With no one else present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lin asked what the footprint of the house is and CDD/Gubman responded that the square footage of the lot is 9,320 and the lot coverage as stated in staff's report is 24.4 percent (the footprint of the house) or about 3,000 square feet which is the area of the first floor, garage, covered patio, covered entrance which is 2,274 square feet. The 2,992 square feet does not include the garage. With the inclusion of the garage and balconies the square footage totals 3,723 square feet which is the gross floor area. C/Lin said that typically, garages and balconies are typically not considered "living space." MAY 28, 2013 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman said that C/1 -in was correct and directed him to pages 3 and 4 of staff's report which contain four bullet points breaking down the square footage that comprises the structure. C/Lin said that the setbacks are to code and nothing that is proposed to be built is in contrast or violates the City's Subdivision Code and CDD/Gubman confirmed that C/Lin was correct. C/Lin said that in terms of how many members live in the house is not included in the criteria for approving or denying the project and neither does the blocking of light from the neighbor's property and CDD/Gubman confirmed that C/Lin was correct. CDD/Gubman said that when staff reviews projects, every effort is made to take into account compatibility with neighboring structures in terms of privacy, ensuring that bedroom windows do not face each other, etc. He showed the photo of the building that was demolished which was a two-story residence. The neighboring one-story house is shown on the right and that house is actually upslope from the project site so that even though it is one- story, the subject property is down slope and its pad is actually a few feet lower than the one-story house so that the proposed structure is not looming over the neighboring property and there will be no impacts in terms of creating shadows onto the neighboring property. C/Lin asked if the City had the landslide repaired and CDD/Gubman responded that the City had to review the structural engineering plan and the landslide had to be repaired to a minimum safety factor which is a technical term that gets into its geotechnical stability. The slope repair has been engineered so that it is not going to fail. This is a safe building pad and it has improved the safety for the Surrounding properties as well. The slope repair went through an extensive engineering effort and has been vetted through the City's geotechnical consultants to ensure that it meets or exceeds the minimum safety factors required. C/Lin said it has a 10 year warranty and who paid for the repair and who is responsible for the failure of the construction. CDD/Gubman explained that the engineer of record is ultimately responsible and has liability insurance that covers the work. The landslide occurred on private property, not on public property. C/Farago asked if the house on the down slope to the west of the project site was a two story structure and CDD/Gubman responded yes as seen on the upper left of the slide. C/Farago asked the square footage of the project that was demolished and CDD/Gubman responded that the living area was 2093 square feet which is a net increase in square footage between the former and new structure of about 900 square feet. C/Shah said that it appears that according to the site drawing the square footage meets all of the requirements for the City. The slope and slide is a geotechnical issue and once it was fixed it was warranted for 10 years which surprised him. MAY 28, 2013 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman stated that any development project that goes through the Planning Commission for review, the Commission is reviewing it for use of the land and for the appropriateness of the way in which the building was designed. The Planning Commission's approval is subject to several conditions that must be complied with before the City issues permits. The Planning Commission is not looking at the structural plans for the house because that is something this approval is subject to — subject to going through the Building and Safety Division for verification that the structural plans comply with the building codes. There is the same requirement for the earthwork and for all of the grading that would be involved. Those structural safety building code requirements are mandated to go through the technical staff for verification that they meet the safety criteria. The Commission's approval, in this case and as always, is subject to the City's technical staff's ensuring that no permits are issued and no final inspections are signed off until staff has verified that all construction and all designs have been done in compliance with the relevant safety codes for the State of California. VC/Torng asked for a clarification of the balcony square footage on Page 1 of staff's report. C/Farago said that according to the plans, the square footage of the demolished house first floor was 1,280 and the first floor of the new building is only 1,465 which is a difference of less than 200 square feet. The second floor is 1,527 and the demolished building was 813 so the increase in the square footage can be found in the second floor. CDD/Gubmari said that C/Farago made a good point. Chair/Nelson said that as long as he has served on the Planning Commission it has never rejected the idea of having families want to increase the size of their homes or move out of Diamond Bar. This is a very family friendly City and supports approval. He also believes that the rule of real estate does apply that if you want a good investment in real estate you buy the lesser valued home on the block and move up from there. C/Lin moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2012- 100, 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: Farago, Lin, Shah, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None None RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the Planning Commission at 7:40 p.m. MAY 28, 2013 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSIOil RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the Planning Commission at 7:50 p.m. 7.2 Development Review No. PL2013-104 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the property owner, Samson Family Trust, and applicant Federico P. Samson, requested Development Review approval to demolish an existing house and construct a new 7,401 square foot single family residence on a 0.84 gross acre (36,590 square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 2442 Alamo Heights Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Samson Family Trust 23810 Canyon Vista Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Federico P. Samson 2442 Alamo Heights Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 CDD/Gubman presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PI -2013-104 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Torng liked the plan and staff's detailed report. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Federico Samson, property owner, asked the Commission to please approve the project which he feels will improve and upgrade the neighborhood. The current house is outdated. With no one else present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Farago moved, VC/Torng seconded, to approve Development Review No, PL2013-104 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. The motion was carried by the following Roll Call vote: MAY 28, 2013 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Lin, Shah, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None C/Lin asked about the status of the potential Ralph's project. CDD/Gubman responded that the Walmart Neighborhood Market will open in that space when corporate elects to tell the City when construction will take place and when the store will be open for business. There is a larger rollout plan for several locations but staff is not privy to that information at this tirne. C/L.in asked if the plan would be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval and CDD/Gubman responded no, only if the exterior of the building were to be modified. If this project involves only an interior remodel with new signage it would not come to the Planning Commission. C/Lin asked if traffic and parking would be a problem and CDD/Gubman responded that if the square footage does not change and the property is going from a market to a market, it would be exempt from that type of review. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that the June 11 Planning Commission will go dark since there are no scheduled agenda items and the next Commission meeting will be June 25. There are currently two items on the agenda: 1) addition to a single family residence and 2) a new office building at the corner of Brea Canyon Road and Washington Street. CDD/Gubman further stated that staff released the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for a zone change for a portion of Tres Hermanos that lies directly south of Diamond Ranch High School. When the City adopted the current Housing Element it was obligated by the state to establish zoning in the City at a sufficient density to accommodate 490 affordable housing units which is simply defined as creating zoning that allows a density of 30 units per acre. It is not that the City is going to be subsidizing or providing any financial backing for a project, it is simply obligated to provide a zoning designation with sufficient acreage to accommodate that number of units at the given density. Staff anticipates coming to the Planning Commission on August 13 for the first hearing on the proposed zone change. The EIR has been released for a 45 - day public review period. If the Commissioners have any questions on the document feel free to contact him or SP/Lee. If the Commission would like to have a study session as it did when the Site D EIR was released, that can be scheduled for the June 25 meeting. MAY 28, 2013 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSIOil Chair/Nelson asked that any Commissioner wishing to schedule a Study session should contact CDD/Gubman for scheduling. VC[Torng said he would like to have a study session and asked for concurrence from his colleagues. CDD/Gubman said that staff would schedule a study session to discuss navigating through the EIR to obtain information which is provided in a summary form for 6:00 p.m. prior to the regular June 25 meeting. The rest of the document is the technical basis for the summary information. C/Lin asked if staff prepared the EIR and CDD/Gubman said that the City contracted with a consultant who assembled a team of specialists in the various disciplines such as air quality, noise, traffic and biology to collectively provide the basis for the EIR and the document went through a collaborative effort that included staff and attorney review. C/Lin asked if it would be prudent to invite the consultant to attend the study session. CDD/Gubman said he would work on that issue. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 8:11 p.m. to June 25, 2013. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 25th day of June, 2013. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Xe�v Nelson, Chairman