Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/09/2021MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 9, 2021 CONSISTENT WITH THE GOVERNOR'S LATEST EXECUTIVE ORDER TO STAY AT HOME, AVOID GATHERINGS, AND MAINTAIN SOCIAL DISTANCING, THIS MEETING WAS CONDUCTED TELEPHONICALLY AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, CITY STAFF, AND MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATED VIA TELECONFERENCE, CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Mok called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chair Rawlings led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Mahendra Garg, Raymond Wolfe, Vice Chairman William Rawlings and Chairman Kenneth Mok. Absent: Commissioner Naila Barlas Staff participating telephonically: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney, Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Mayuko (May) Nakajima, Associate Planner; Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. F� APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the City Council/Planning Commission Special Joint Meeting of January 26, 2021. 4.2 Minutes of the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 26, 2021. 4.3 Corrected Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 8, 2020. C/Wolfe moved, VC/Rawlings seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: OLD BUSINESS: None Garg, Wolfe, VC/Rawlings, FEBRUARY 9, 2021 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 6. 7 NEW BUSINESS: None PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7A Development Review Planning Case No. PL2020A42 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a 670 square foot addition and a comprehensive exterior remodel for an existing two-story, single family residence. The subject property is zoned Low Medium Residential (RLM) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Medium Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1523 Silver Rain Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Jing and Jim Pan APPLICANT: 1523 Silver Rain Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AP/Nakajima presented staff's report and recommended the Planning Commission review the design, receive public comments, and then determine whether or not the proposed design is appropriate for the location. C/Wolfe asked if comments were received from any other neighbors in the cul- de-sac and AP/Nakajima responded that while staff had not received any comments, the property owner indicated they spoke with several of their neighbors who stated they had no objections to the project. VC/Rawlings said that since this is a divergence in style, he wondered if more outreach could be done to confirm their comments; if there is an HOA with CC&R's that staff would need to check with or was that addressed; and, if staff is aware of any other properties that have such a divergence in style from the other homes in the same neighborhood, or if this proposal would essentially be a first. AP/Nakajima said she is not aware of an HOA, and that The Country Estates gated community has a divergence in style CDD/Gubman responded to VC/Rawlings that staff can conduct additional outreach if that is the Commission's desire, as opposed to relying on hearsay from the applicant. The property is currently posted with a large 4'x6' public hearing notification board and he would expect that the surrounding neighbors have seen it. CDD/Gubman said he is not aware of whether there is a Homeowners Association and it would be beyond staff's purview to get involved if there is an HOA. The applicant is obligated to comply with the CC&Rs and bylaws that have been recorded as a civil matter. With respect to other properties in the City that have been remodeled this extensively, in his 13 years with the City, does not recall any home that has been this much of a departure from the FEBRUARY 9, 2021 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION prevailing architectural character for a tract neighborhood. The architecture within The Country Estates is eclectic, but The Country Estates should not necessarily be considered a benchmark when evaluating projects within tract developments. C/Garg asked if the neighbor at 1531 Silver Rain Drive can be invited to speak to the Commission. Also, 1514 Silver Rain Drive seems to be slightly different from the other homes and perhaps it was remodeled. ODD/Gubman responded that 1514 Silver Rain Drive appears to be the same model as the subject property and is most likely one of the three or four architectural variations provided for each floor plan when this tract was developed. C/Garg asked if it was okay to request comments from other neighbors to better understand how they feel about the project changes. CDD/Gubman said that staff could solicit feedback from them but there is no obligation for them to respond. ACA/Eggart responded to C/Garg that there appear to be several meeting attendees and before providing direction, he believes the Commission should receive public comments. Chair/Mok opened the public hearing. Jim Pan thanked staff and the Commission. He is an architect and may be the first architect/owner to submit such an application. He and his family have lived in Diamond Bar since 1980 and upon his wife's retirement last year he decided to design their retirement home for her. As an architect he paid close attention to the City's development guidelines and the General Plan standards as he attempted to encourage innovation and broaden the range of the housing stock. This is a 1970's tract house. There is no HOA, nor HOA fees and no CC&R's for this property. His home has water damage from the underground water pipe bursting which means he has to re -pipe his home. In addition, many of his windows have cracked due to settling. He was an architect for Lewis Homes and other local construction projects and he pays special attention to the residential community and public buildings. In this case he specifically designed the house with the same setbacks and actually reduced the height. The house will appear to be the same size because he extended to the back yard area. 1514 Silver Rain Drive was a model floorplan but certain architectural features and materials were changed for other properties in the tract. His project proposes to use the same materials as before while developing to a higher quality and design which he believes is an improvement for the neighborhood. Mr. Pan said that Victor Lee and his wife at 1531 Silver Rain Drive and Mr. Cho and Mr. Mahan and Mr. Lee at 1515 Silver Rain Drive, all of whom welcomed the improvement project. Robin Smith submitted an email to the Commission and reiterated her objecting to the project due to 91 mansion ization" and jarringly different character which is a FEBRUARY 9, 2021 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION problem in this and other cities and asked the Commission to consider a redesign and resubmission at a later date. AC/Marquez read an email from Iris Mann who objected to the project on the basis of a modern and out -of -character design. Deborah Lee, 1503 Silver Rain Drive, said that upon seeing the design this evening, she believes it is awkward and too modern for the neighborhood. Douglas Barcon agreed with previous speakers about mansionization and a design that is out -of -character with the neighborhood. He also expressed concerns regarding the possibility of the home becoming an Airbnb. Randall Northam agreed with other speakers that the project is out -of -character with the neighborhood and would visually impose on his privacy at the rear of the project. He is also concerned that this home has been a rental and he can see that the design could allow for separate rooms and as such, he vehemently opposes the project. Tracy Pan, daughter of the property owners, said her parents spoke to several of their neighbors who live adjacent to the project who said they had no issues with the project and supported it. She understands people's concerns about the rental issue which has nothing to do with the design. Going forward, this will not be a rental property and it will not be an Airbnb, it will be the primary residence for her parents, which is why her dad has spent so much time designing and getting approval for this project. It is his dream home where he wants to retire with her mom and both are extremely good neighbors. To her, this project represents what future generations would like to purchase as their homes which is not only about design but also about structural and material improvements. Paul Deibel spoke in favor of the proposal and said he does not view this property as "mansionization" in terms of scope and structure. To him, this is a modest expansion to an existing coverage of other homes which is consistent with the zoning, size, scale and not overbuilt. He felt it would be advantageous for the City to have more architectural diversity that is compatible in size and scope to the neighborhood throughout the community. It may be difficult to make findings to deny the project. Julio Ayala agreed with Mr. Northam and Ms. Smith that homes should be remodeled in keeping with the neighborhood and surrounding homes. While the architecture of the proposed remodel is beautiful, in his opinion it is not in keeping with the feel of Diamond Bar and will set a precedent. Jim Pan thanked speakers for their comments. This property will be his retirement home. Where the home previously had five bedrooms, one has been converted to his office and it has become a three bedroom house. The house is FEBRUARY % 2021 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION less than 3,000 square feet and is his only house and he and his family are coming back to their neighborhood and are investing a lot to make this remodel work. He has no plans to sell his home and this is the first he has heard people refer to it as a mansion. He is sorry a tenant caused a problem for his neighbor which is why he left the house empty so that he could prepare for the remodel and let his neighbor know his intention to remodel the house to be his retirement home. Chair/Mok closed the public hearing. C/Wolfe said he could appreciate the myriad of comments in support and opposition and he also appreciates Mr. Pan's comments. It is his opinion that the project is a drastic departure from the architectural style of the neighborhood. He is generally a supporter of property rights and the City should encourage property owners to invest in their properties to keep the community vibrant and fresh; however, he appreciates the need for harmony and design within neighborhoods and was inclined to ask the property owner to withdraw and consider a fagade more in line with adjacent properties. He believes there is a much better way to accomplish the floor plan improvements to fit within the existing neighborhood. VC/Rawlings concurred with C/Wolfe. His biggest concern is that overall, he is generally okay with the size, scale, and massing but he is concerned about its compatibility with the character of the neighborhood. While it is a beautiful and bold design, he believes there would be options for completing the upgrade to the infrastructure and structural changes necessary with a design that is less drastic than the proposed change and he would also consider a withdrawal and reconsideration of the project at a later date. Chair/Mok said he agreed with the speakers and Mr. Pan that the scale and mass of this project is not that much bigger than that of his neighbors. It will be the largest house in the neighborhood and possibly in that tract, but it is not that big. In terms of the list of items provided by staff, speakers mention compatibility with the neighborhood and he believes as his colleagues have said, that the project is certainly a detraction from the rest of the homes in the neighborhood, the nature of which is 70's ranch style, and will not match. C/Wolfe moved, VC/Rawlings seconded, to request the owner to withdraw his proposal and consider redesigning the fagade to be more compatible with the neighboring properties. Chair/Mok asked Mr. Pan if he was willing to withdraw his proposal and consider redesigning the fagade to be more compatible with the neighboring properties. Or, Pan said the Commission is forcing him to withdraw his application and he encouraged Diamond Bar to be more progressive and promote innovation instead of trying to keep the City in a 70's mode. FEBRUARY 9, 2021 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION ACA/Eggart explained that if Mr. Pan chooses not to withdraw his proposal, the Commission may need to continue the hearing with other direction or re -notice the hearing. If the applicant is agreeable to withdrawing and resubmitting his proposal, the matter can be continued indefinitely. The effect of not withdrawing and otherwise denying the application that the applicant would then be able to appeal the Commission's decision to the City Council and if the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision, the applicant would be prohibited for a period of time from filing another application. ACA/Eggart recommended the applicant be given an opportunity to state his intentions. ACA/Eggart explained Mr. Pan's options in accordarice with the motion on the table. Mr. Pan asked if the Commission was asking him to follow the current design of the house. Chair/Mok explained to Mr. Pan that the Commission is asking him for a redesign that is not so radically different from the current design. The Commission is not opposed to updating and modernizing residential project facades, but no other home in the neighborhood has the kinds of materials proposed (large amounts of glass and corrugated metal). Mr. Pan said that the material is a current market material which was not available in the 70's and is an improvement of technology and material production. The glass offers better insulation for the house, provides better light during the day and saves energy, all of which is incompatible with the existing style according to the Commission. The truth is that the 70's style will not be seen in future construction, even if the Commission rejects him and other applicants. The difference will be an improvement to the City because overthinking this will not bring the young innovative professionals to Diamond Bar. Chair/Mok asked Mr. Pan if he was willing to withdraw the proposal and submit a revised application for further consideration. CDD/Gubman stated that based on the direction of this deliberation, he would suggest that the Planning Commission consider continuing the matter and direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial. The applicant has indicated an unwillingness to consider a redesign, so a denial would give the applicant an opportunity to appeal the matter to the City Council, which would uphold or reverse the Commission's decision. C/Wolfe revised his motion to continue the matter and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial. VC/Rawlings seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: FEBRUARY 9, 2021 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Garg, Wolfe, VC/Rawlings, Chair/Mok NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Rawlings encouraged the applicant to explore his options recognizing that it is a beautiful bold project he has put forth. Chair/Mok said it was nice to see activity at the old Big Lots building and hopefully, when COVID-19 restrictions are lifted, the community will be able to visit the businesses that have committed to those spaces. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Mok adjourned the regular meeting at 7:54 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 23�d day of February, 2021. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman, Community Development Director f� Kenneth Mok, Chairperson