Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/2019MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Barlas called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Mok led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1 2. 3. 4. ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Ken Mok, William Rawlings, Vice -Chair Frank Farago and Chair Naila Barlas Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; May Nakajima, Associate Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes —July 23, 2019: C/Rawlings moved, C/Mok seconded, to approve Consent Calendar Item 4.1 as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None MokRawlingsVC/Farago , Chair/Barlas None Mahlke None 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2019-59 -Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.58, the property owner and applicant SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION requested a Conditional Use Permit to relocate an existing chess school to a 945 square foot space within Diamond Bar Town Center, an existing 39,965 square foot multi -tenant commercial center. The subject property is zoned Regional Commercial (C-3) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Commercial (C). PROJECT ADDRESS: 1155 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, #B Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Bar Town Center. LLC 6621 E. Pacific Coast Highway #270 Long Beach, CA 90803 APPLICANT: Shijie Chen 1110 Cleghorn Drive #B Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AP/Espinoza presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL2019-59, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Chair/Barlas opened the public hearing. David Pai, Property Manager for the Diamond Bar Town Center, speaking on behalf of the property owner and tenant, said he appreciated the Commission's hard work and stated that the chess academy provides a unique and valuable experience for the youth of this community. Mr. Chen, owner of the academy, is a chess champion and relatively young, and this is a great opportunity for the community to experience his ability. David said he would very much appreciate the Commission's approval for this school. Chair/Barlas closed the public hearing. C/Mahlke moved, C/Rawlings seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL2019-59, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke, Mok, Rawlings, VC/Farago, Chair/Barlas NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C/Mok stated that because he owns property within several hundred feet of the property being discussed under public hearing item 7.2 he was recusing himself from this matter and he left the dais. 7.2 Development Review No. PL2017-213 —Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to demolish an existing single family residence to construct a new 12,636 square foot single family residence with a 1,774 square foot garage and 4,790 square feet of storage/porch/patio areas on a 1.98 gross acre (86,249 gross square -foot) site. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. No protected trees are being removed as part of this project. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 22307 Broken Twig Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Jacqueline Hsu 22888 Canyon View Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Pete Volbeda 164 N. 2 d Avenue Upland, CA 91786 AP/Nakajima presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2017-213, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Mahlke said that normally when the Commission sees projects in The Country Estates it is an indicator that it has proceeded through the architectural committee for approval. However, staff's report indicates this project has not yet been approved by the committee and she asked if it was SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION scheduled for review. AP/Nakajima explained that it is often submitted concurrently and perhaps the applicant can enlighten the Commission on the status. Chair/Barlas opened the public hearing. Pete Volbeda, Architect, spoke about the project and explained that he runs process plan concurrently through the City and the HOA so that he can apply any changes to both sets of plans at the same time. He expects to hear from the HOA within the next two weeks. Chair/Barlas closed the public hearing. VC/Farago moved, Chair/Barlas seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2017-213, 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 Commissioner Mok returned to the dais. Mahlke, Rawlings, VC/Farago, Chair/Barlas None Mok 7.3 Development Review No. PL2019-55 —Under the authority of DBMC Section 22.48, applicant Brian Huang and property owner Liu Chang Pei, requested Development Review approval to construct a 914 square foot, second story addition and a 116 square -foot patio, to an existing 1,272 square foot, single story residence on a 7,980 square foot lot. The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential, PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 332 N. Platina Drive Diamond bar. CA 91765 Liu Chang Pei 48 Sweet Fields Buena Park, CA 90620 SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Brian Huang 20472 Carrey Road Walnut, CA 91789 AP/Espinoza presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2019-55, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. C/Rawlings stated that in the spirit of full disclosure, one of the neighbors met him out front to ask a couple of questions which started him thinking about whether there were any proposals to remove trees between the homes. AP/Espinoza stated that there was no proposal to remove any trees, only a proposal to re -landscape the front of the property. Chair/Barlas opened the public hearing. Aiko, 340 N. Platina and neighbor to the property under consideration asked about the estimated construction timeline because when she asked the owner she was told two to three months which she did not believe was achievable. She has a tree in her front yard that may conflict with the second story on the construction site depending on which plan the Commission approved and wanted to confirm that she would not be asked to cut any of her trees. In addition, she feels the second story will be very close to the large window in her master bedroom and asked if the applicant might be allowed to change from Plan A to Plan B. Clark Menace, Decorah Road; said he did not appreciate this project because he felt it would clutter the neighborhood and result in other similar projects and the streets would be blocked and it would ruin his view. He is opposed to this project and felt that if the applicant wanted a bigger house he should sell his one story house and find a bigger house to buy. Anthony Quijano lives in the house directly behind the proposed project and would not approve of this construction because it would block the view from his house and would depreciate the value of the property. Chair/Barlas closed the public hearing. C/Mahlke said that page 7 of 9 of staff's report states thatthe property owner attempted to contact the neighbors to the north, south and east of the. project to review the plans and obtain support. The neighbors to the north SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION and east expressed their support for the project, but what was just stated by Mr. Quijano (property to the east) did not support the project. AP/Espinoza said she spoke with the property owner when she was writing the staff report and was told by the property owners that they went to the properties to speak to their neighbors, and according to the property owner, they received verbal support from the neighbors. However, the property owners are not present to confirm. C/Mahlke noted for the record that the neighbors in the audience were shaking their heads vehemently indicating that was not true. C/Rawlings said he was personally concerned about a couple of things and since the applicant is not present, he would hesitate to make a decision based on the information the Commission has at this point. He wondered about options for continuance of this matter to attempt to have all parties including the property owner present to respond. VC/Farago asked if staff could clarify the ordinance with respect to obstruction of views or a resident's rights to a view. AP/Espinoza stated that the property located to the east (rear of the project site) is located approximately 18 feet above the finished grade of the existing home on the project site. The existing house is 13 feet tall and with the proposed edition, the house will be 23 feet tall. When the applicant originally presented this project, they proposed the addition to be located on the east side which would have impacted the neighbor's complete view. So, staff directed the applicant to relocate the addition toward the north side to account for a "slot" view for the neighbor located to the east (rear of the project). While the design guidelines indicate that property owners can have slot views - they will not always be able to have panoramic views. C/Mahlke asked if it was true the Commission could not base a decision on whether or not it would preserve a neighbor's view because there is no guarantee of that view as long as there is still some view available. CDD/Gubman stated that the view protection provisions in the Municipal Code and Design Guidelines acknowledge that views are an important attribute to residential properties in Diamond Bar, but it also expressly states that no resident is perpetually entitled to an unobstructed panoramic view and that there are going to be projects that will partially obstruct views. As AP/Espinoza indicated, staff worked with the applicant to redesign the structure to retain as much of the neighbor's view as can be done given the relative positioning of the lots and structures built upon them. SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Farrago said that it looks to him like there is a tree in front of the yellow box to the rear of the subject property that is approximately 23 feet high and is blocking the view of the neighbor to the east. Based on past projects, when there has been something of significance interfering with the view, the applicant has been asked to put a pole framing the addition so that Commissioners could visit the site to see what kind of impact the project might present. AP/Espinoza responded that story poles could be done. C/Rawlings stated that at this point he would probably abstain because he is not comfortable with his knowledge about how this would impact the neighbors and having story poles would be very helpful. Chair/Barlas said it made sense to her as well and has been done for other projects. CDD/Gubman said that if the Commission needs that information to make an informed decision and to consider the concerns expressed this evening, it is within the Commission's purview to continue the matter and direct the applicant to install story poles or actual field mockup to provide an opportunity for the Commission to see what the basic envelope of the building addition would be. C/Mok said that theoretically, the Commission could request the property owner and applicant to put up some story poles to allow the Commission to see how the outline of the addition would affect the view. Suppose the applicant and property owner refused to do so because they did not want to pay the cost and if that were to occur, how long would it delay the project? CDD/Gubman said it would delay the project at least until October 22, about six weeks from now. I has a full agenda coming up and it will take time for the applicant/property owner to make arrangements to have the story poles installed. The public hearing can be continued to October 22nd or to a date uncertain and send out new meeting notices accordingly. Staffs recommendation would be that if the Commission wished to continue the matter with the instruction to the applicant that the Commission would like to see the story poles, that this matter be continued to October 22nd and with continuance to that date, the item would not need to be re -advertised because the item will be placed on the October 22nd agenda. Chair/Barlas reopened the public hearing. SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Farrago moved, C/Mok seconded, to continue the public hearing for Development Review No. PL2019-55 to October 22, 2019, and request the applicant to install story poles. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: AP/Espinoza proposed 2"d window. COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Mahlke, Mok, Rawlings, VC/Farago, Chair/Barlas None None explained to the Commission that the only window on the story at 340 N. Platina facing the project is a bathroom C/Mahlke affirmed that the only plan under consideration by the Commission for this item is the addition on the north side which means there is a lesser view impact for the neighbors behind the project and less potential window conflict all around. AP/Espinoza stated that C/Mahlke was correct. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Project Status Report. CDD/Gubman reported that the Commission will now make up for having the entire month of August off beginning with the next meeting on September 24th during which there will be three public hearing items on the agenda, including two residential projects (a new single family residence in The Country and an addition in The Country) and a Conditional Use Permit for an existing office building on North Diamond Bar Boulevard a couple of doors south of Oak Tree Lanes and the auto center. The applicant is proposing to enlarge their parking lot by cutting into the back slope to accommodate more medical office tenants in the building. The September 24th meeting will be adjourned to September 25th for the first of two scheduled joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Sessions to introduce the General Plan document the City has been working on for the past three years. The hope is to get everyone introduced to the documents and provide as detailed an overview as possible and give the public an opportunity to weigh in early in the process. There will be a public review period that lasts for 45 days likely commencing at the end of this week and staff wants to provide these study sessions so that when the Public SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Hearings begin with the Planning Commission (November), Commissioners will be prepared to move forward with informed recommendations. In October, the Planning Commission will meet on the 22"d and again on October 30th for a Special Meeting to consider the proposed hotel -anchored project at the former Brea Canyon Boat and Storage property. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Barlas adjourned the regular meeting at 7:18 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 24�h day of September, 2019. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Naila Barlas, Chairperson