Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/25/2014 MinutesMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 25,2014 Vice Chairman Frank Farago 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: Vice Chairman Farago led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Oath administered by Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Pirritano, Jack Farago Jimmy Lin, Ruth Low, Peter Shah, and Vice Chairman Frank Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Assistant Planner-, Josue Espino, Assistant Planner, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 3. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Selection of Chair and Vice Chair. C/Shah nominated C/Farago to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission. C/Low seconded the motion. There were no other nominations offered. C/Farago was elected to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: C/Lin Yes C/Low Yes C/Farago Yes C/Pirritano Yes C/Shah Yes Chair/Farago nominated C/Shah to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. C/Lin seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. C/Shah was elected to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: MARCH 25, 2014 PAGE I C/Lin Yes C/Low Yes C/Pirritano Yes C/Shah Yes Chair/Farago Yes 4. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 Minutes of the February 25, 2014 Regular Meeting. C/Lin moved, VC/Shah seconded, to approve the February 25, 2014, regular meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 7. OLD BUSINESS: 8. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS None Lin, Pirritano, VC/Shah, Chair/Farago None Low None 8.1 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2013-136 Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant, Rupert Mok and property owners, Vincent and Terry Yang are requesting Development Review approval to construct a 1,799 square foot two -.story addition to an existing 2,993 square foot single family residence on a 0.43 acre (18,750 square foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit is requested for the expansion of a nonconforming structure where an existing patio cover has an existing nonconforming side yard setback of zero feet (five feet is required). The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. MARCH 25, 2014 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSIGZ PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 24209 Bryn Athyn Way (APN 8701.-016-021) Diamond Bar, CA 91789 Vincent and Terry Yang 24209 Bryn Athyn Way Diamond Bar, CA 91789 Rupert Mok 829 S. Lemon Avenue, Suite All -B Walnut, CA 91789 CDD/Gubman stated that staff and the applicant had initially agreed to schedule this matter on tonight's agenda; however, subsequent to that agreement, the applicant requested in writing that this item be rescheduled to the April 22, 2014, agenda. Prior to receiving the request to reschedule the item, notice of the public hearing was published in the Daily Bulletin and as a courtesy to any members of the public who may have seen that ad, this item has been placed on the agenda as a New Business item as an informational item to let everyone know that this matter will be scheduled for a full public hearing on April 22, 2014. Because this item was published in only one newspaper and notices were not mailed out to neighbors and the property was not posted, the matter was not properly noticed for a public hearing and staff will reschedule this matter to April 22, 2014, as requested by the applicant. 9. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 9.1 Development Review, Minor Conditional Use Permit and Tree Permit No. PL2012-529 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, applicant Pete Volbeda and property owners Mahesh and Jyoti Bhavnani requested Development Review approval to construct a multi. -level addition consisting of 4,537 square feet of floor area and 2,708 square feet 'of patio/balcony area to an existing 3,942 square foot single family residence on a 1.47 gross acre (64,032 gross square foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit is requested to allow a second story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a front setback of 19' 10" where 30' is required. A Tree Permit is also requested to remove five California Live Oak trees to be replaced at a 3:1 ratio. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. MARCH 25, 2014 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: 2577 Blaze Trail Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mahesh and Jyoti Bhavriani 2577 Blaze Trail Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Pete Volbeda 180 N. Benson Avenue, Suite D Upland, CA 91786 AP/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development_ Review, Minor Conditional Use Permit and Tree Permit No. PL2012-529, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Low asked if it was contemplated that all of the replacement trees would be planted onsite or elsewhere and AP/Tobon responded that they will be planted onsite and are incorporated into the proposed landscaping plan. C/Low asked if the landscape plan comes to the Commission for approval and AP/Tobon responded that it was included in the packet as Planting Plan Sheet L5.01. VC/Shah asked about the diameter of the trees scheduled for removal and AP/Tobin responded that they range from 18 inches to 30 inches. VC/Shah asked the size of the replacement trees and AP/Tobin responded 24 -inch box trees. C/Lin said it was unusual that an addition to a house consists of more than 110 percent of the existing floor area. He understands that aesthetics are not an issue; however, the existing house was built in 1978 and wondered how he could be assured that the new construction will be compatible with a building that was constructed in 1978. CDD/Gubman asked that this concern be referred to the applicant. It is certainly feasible to re -skin the entire building with the addition so that the two items knit together in an aesthetically appropriate way but it is a workmanship issue as far as treating the existing wall surfaces to accept the new exterior finishes including modification of the existing eaves to tie in the new roof framing to the existing. MARCH 25, 2014 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Low asked staff to comment on whether the improvements match the existing homes in the neighborhood if the homes in the area are older. CDID/Gubman responded that there is a continuing recycling of the housing stock in "The Country Estates" and this addition is part of the trend. For example, the adjacent house will eventually experience the same type of modification if not a complete tear down and rebuild. C/Low asked if this modification puts it in the category of what the homes are trending to look like in "The Country Estates" and CDD/Gubman responded yes, and said that the architectural character of "The Country Estates" is eclectic so it is almost impossible to be incompatible depending on what examples one chooses to use in their sample site and yes, the addition would be compatible with the character and direction the trend of home construction has taken in "The Country Estates." Chair/Farago opened the public hearing. Applicant Pete Volbeda stated that this site is challenging due to the descending slopes and plethora of oak trees. In order to complete the addition and comply with the 25 foot rear yard it will be necessary to import dirt and build retaining walls. Initially, eight oak trees were scheduled to be removed. However, that number was reduced to five oak trees. To the Commissioners concerns about the compatibility of the addition to the neighborhood, he likes to build additions so that no one can tell it is an addition. He has completed more than 20 additions in "The Country Estates" and doubts anyone can tell they are additions because he intends that the addition blend in. There will be all new windows and a new roof for the entire structure. C/Lin asked if the applicant intended to put in pilings to prevent the terraced fill from sliding and Mr. Volbeda explained that the soils report has been approved and the construction will conform to the nailing, bearing pressure and sliding criteria. If the engineer requires the retaining walls to be on piles it will be done. VC/Shah asked why No. 2 and No. 4 trees that were outside of the construction zone could not be saved. Mr. Volbeda said that retaining walls have to be built for the open space and a certain amount of open space is required in the 25 feet area. He has no problem trying to save the tree if possible. MARCH 25, 2014 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Low stated that the Arborist's report states that trees No. 1, 2, 6 and 8 are in a position where the new retaining walls will cut into the root of the trees (Page 1) which will compromise the ability to properly anchor (the retaining wall) on the hillside of which they are located and her concern is with the trees. It is commendable that the applicant would attempt to save the trees but putting that aside, the report indicates that the trees the applicant is not being asked to remove, the root system will be compromised by the wall. Mr. Volbeda explained that the five retaining walls are shown under the trees scheduled for removal and the retaining walls are not anywhere near the trees that are being saved. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. VC/Shah asked if the Commission should revise the recommendations to includethe applicant's attempt to save the trees wherever possible without reducin " g the number of replacement trees. CDD/Gubman stated that there is a supplement to the Arborist report that indicates that three of the trees which were previously proposed to, be removed which were in compromised positions were, after consultation with the landscape architect through the retaining wall plan, it appears they believe that retention of those trees that did not have a good prognosis in the initial report could feasibly be retained. Regarding trees No. 2 and 4, No. 2 appears to have some structural and physiological issues that may not make it a viable candidate for preservation but the Commission could add into the conditions addressing tree protection standards a recommendation that at least a "good faith effort" be made to retain and protect trees No. 2 and 4. If this addition is made, it should include monitoring by staff to require a follow up Arborist report to evaluate the condition of the trees post improvement and if they are not surviving the trauma of reconstruction staff would want to make certain that the requirement for mitigation ratio be put in place. C/Low asked the date of the Arborist report and CDD/Gubman stated that the addendum is dated March 21, 2013. AP/Tobon stated that the first Arborist report was submitted on December 28, 2012, and when the addendum was submitted it was stapled to the original report. C/Low said that perhaps the following last line of the report was a typo which reads "trees will be photographed, tagged and a revised report indicating such MARCH 25, 2014 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION will be submitted to the City by April 2, 2012. AP/Tobon responded that the date should indicate April 2, 2013, and the City did not receive the report from the applicant. C/Low asked if it was customary for the City to receive a report this old and AP/Tobon responded that this project was first submitted to the City in 2012 and once the applicant was asked to revise the project the applicant submitted the addendum to the report. C/Low asked if it was possible that there had been material changes during the year that has passed and AP/Tobon responded no because each time the applicant submitted the plans staff checked to determine whether the plans and materials were changed. C/Low asked for confirmation that the Arborist report as contained in the packet is current and AP/Tobon responded that C/Low was correct. C/Lin asked if there was a specific requirement as to where the imported dirt comes and what the delivery process will be and CDD/Gubman responded that there is no requirement as to where the dirt comes from and the Public Works Department may have a requirement for import. The fill material has to meet the structural requirements to serve as a foundation fill for the project. C/Lin said that 300 truck trips could cause damage if not properly managed with respect to dirt spillage, etc. CDD/Gubman responded that the project is subject to state and federal regulations and the City is required to enforce the Storm Water Permit which requires that the loads are properly covered and that no debris spills onto the street and if spillage does occur best practices have to be implemented to remove the spillage from the streets before it enters the storm water systems. VC/Shah said he believed that the truck routes and traffic management plan would most likely be required by the City as part of its permitting process. C/Lin moved, VC/Shah seconded, to approve Development Review, Minor Conditional Use Permit and Tree Permit No. PL2012-529, 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 Lin, Low, Pirritano, VC/Shah, Chair/Farago None None MARCH 25, 2014 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION 10 11. C/Lin said he was pleased that the Commission now had a full quorum and welcomed the new Commissioners aboard. Chair/Farago and VC/Shah welcomed Commissioner, Low and Pirritano to the Planning Commission. C/Low and C/Pirritanb thanked their colleagues for the warm welcome. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 11.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman congratulated Chair/Farago and VC/Shah on their appointment. The next Planning Commission meeting of April 8 has two iterns scheduled, both of which are Conditional Use applications. One CUP is for a Crunch Fitness to be located at the former Ralph's Shopping Center and occupying about 15,000 square feet and the other CUP for a Tutoring Facility — an art school for children, proposed for one of the smaller tenant spaces in the two-story building where Subway and other tenants are located. VC/Shah asked about the new massage business where there was previously a cell phone business next to the Chinese Restaurant. He said that the new massage business never came before the Commission. CDD/Gubrrlan said that staff would look into the matter and get back to the Commission. One of the statewide problems with massage businesses is that legislation that was passed a few years ago requires cities to treat massage establishments no different than any other office or commercial business such as an insurance office, dental office, medical offices, etc. If the massage technicians are certified by the California Association of Massage Therapy Council (TAMTC) cities are not allowed to require a Conditional Use Permit. MARCH 25, 2014 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION] • As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Farago adjourned the regular meeting at 7:43 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 8th day of April, 2014. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director