Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/12/2014 Minutes• . + •' AUGUST 1 Chairman Frank Farago called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Shah led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Ruth Low, Peter Pirritano, Vice Chairman Jack Shah and Chairman Frank Farago Absent: Commissioner Jimmy Lin was excused Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Assistant Planner; Josue Espino, Assistant Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. ;_ MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: . As presented 4.1 Minutes of the July 22 2014, Regular Meeting. C/Pirritano moved, C/Low seconded, to approve the July 22, 2014, regular meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None Low Pirritano, VC/Shaw, Chair/Farago None Lin AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-382 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a two-story addition consisting of 1,690 square feet of floor area and 394 square feet of balcony/deck area to an existing 1,753 square foot single family residence with an attached 523 square foot garage on a 0.19 gross acre (8,450 square foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a second -story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a front setback of 13'-5" (20 feet is required), side setback of 5'-5" to the north and 5' to the south (10 feet on one side and 5 feet on the other side is required), and a nonconforming distance to the structures on the adjacent lots of 11'-10" to the north and 11'-6" to the south (15 feet is required). The subject property is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (RLM) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Medium Density Residential (RLM). PROJECT ADDRESS: 846 Adamsgrove Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Julie Hsu 846 Adamsgrove Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Helen Li 1120 S. Vignes Street #100 Los Angeles, CA 90012 AP/Espinoza presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-382 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Farago opened the public hearing. Darrin Cheng, 1130 Branham Street, Monterey Park, applicant, said he was present to answer Commission questions. VC/Shah asked the proposed height of the side yard fence and the rear fence. Mr. Cheng said the bamboo would be added to the current fence to AUG U ST 12, 2014 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION provide privacy and the current height of five feet on the side and rear fences would be maintained. VC/Shah said that to him the renderings were nice but the drawings were out of proportion and misleading. Cruz Ortiz was concerned that the proposed project should remain a one - family residence and not be turned into a rental because in her opinion, once residences are rented out, the neighborhood changes. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. CDD/Gubman responded to the speaker that the house must be used as a single family residence in accordance with the limitation on the land use for this zoning district. The City cannot prevent a property owner from renting the house to a different family; however, the house cannot be converted into a multiple family unit. C/Low asked if the property was currently occupied and AP/Espinoza responded that the owner resides at the property. VC/Shah moved, C/Low seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2014-382, 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: Low, Pirritano, VC/Shaw, Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lin 7.2 Development Review No. PL2014-328 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the applicant/property owner requested approval to construct a 1,782 square foot, two-story addition to an existing 1,730 square foot, one-story single family residence on a 12,118 gross square foot (0.28 gross acre) lot. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 1004 Park Spring Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Kunal Kothari 1004 Park Spring Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION AP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2014-328, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Farago opened the public hearing. Jonathan Zane, Architect, 958 North La Cadena Drive, Colton, said that the owners could not be present this evening but were very excited about the addition. C/Low asked if the home was currently occupied by the owners and Mr. Zane responded yes, a family of four and they are hoping to bring grandpa and grandma into the residence which is why they need the extra bedrooms. C/Pirritano commented that it looked like a nice project. Doris Law, 23513 Silver Spring Lane, asked how this project and the Item 7.3 project which were very close together would impact traffic during construction. Mr. Zane responded to the speaker that during construction there will be a couple of pickups parked in the driveway and if they are pouring concrete, the truck will be at the site for about one hour. This project does not anticipate a lot of traffic during construction because it is being done by a small contractor who does most of the work himself. Other than vans parked legally on the street there will not be a lot of activity. VC/Shah asked how long construction would take and Mr. Zane responded that it would take about 90 days from beginning to end and not everyone will be present at one time. Doris Law asked when construction would commence and Mr. Zane said the applicant was hoping to begin construction shortly after approval or about the end of August and conclude about Thanksgiving. VC/Shah said it was somewhat difficult to address the concurrent construction issues surrounding this project and the next project (Item 7.3) until the Commission receives a report and considers Item 7.3. He asked Mr. Zane if the permits had been pulled and whether plans were submitted to Building and Safety and Mr. Zane responded that plans were submitted to Building and Safety, corrections were received and he is resubmitting the AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION plans and the owners signed a waiver in anticipation of tonight's approval so that the permit could be pulled in about two weeks. The project should be completed by Christmas. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing C/Low asked if the City had a vehicle in place for concurrent construction issues and CDD/Gubman responded no, but this is not a large scale project. They are room additions and the projects are a couple of streets apart from one another and workers will not be traveling the same residential street. It is not unusual for a couple of remodel projects_ to occur within close proximity to each other so he does not see a need .to coordinate the activities of the two projects. C/Low said that traffic and air quality concerns are not under the purview of the Planning Commission and CDD/Gubman responded that C/Low was correct. There is street sweeping and best management practices to keep dust and construction debris in check. There are requirements under the Clean Water Act and AQMD that they are intended to protect the community that is going to be living with this construction activity. C/Pirritano moved, Chair/Farago seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2014-328, 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: Low, Pirritano, VC/Shaw, Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lin 7.3 Development Review No. PL2014-387 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48, the applicant and property owners requested Development Review approval to construct a 1,736 square foot, two-story addition to an existing 1,724 square foot, one-story single family residence on a 9,120 gross square foot (0.21 gross acre) lot. The subject property is zoned Low -Medium Density Residential (RLM) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL). PROJECT ADDRESS: 23508 Grand Rim Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: Mehul-and Alpha Sonawaia 23508 Grand Rim Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Edith Reginaldo 23502 Grand Rim Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765d AP/Espino presented staff's report, and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2014-387, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Farago opened the public hearing: Edith Reginaldo, designer, said she was present to answer questions. Doris Law asked when the project would begin and when it would be completed. Angelo Reginaldo, signing engineer, said he believed construction would commence sometime in September or October and construction will take about four to six months. The project is located on a cul-de-sac and the impact to traffic would be minimal since the project is contained within the immediate area. In addition, the applicant will comply with all City, NPDES, and AQMD rules and regulations with respect to parking and absolutely would not be parking or blocking driveways at any time. Offloading of materials will be staged during the construction period. Chair/Farago asked about the average day crew size and Mr. Reginaldo estimated four to six individuals in one or two trucks at the most at any given time. Vehicles will be parked in the driveway. VC/Shah said he believed there would be only one concrete pour that might take three or four hours and materials will be stored on-site and Mr. Reginaldo agreed. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Low moved, C/Pirritano seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2014-387, 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: Low, Pirritano, VC/Shaw, ; Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lin 7.4 Development Review and Tree Permit Permit No. PL2014-301 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48, the applicant and property owners requested Development Review approval to construct a new single family residence consisting of 10,730 square feet of livable area; 1,261 square feet of garage space; 2,254 square feet of balcony and patio areas; and a 576 square foot gazebo on a 1.25 gross acre (54,450 gross square foot) lot. A Tree Permit was also requested to remove 12 protected 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 PROJECT ADDRESS: 2626 Wagon Train Lane Diamond, Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Connie Kuo 2957 E. Sorano Place Brea, CA 92821 APPLICANT: Daniel Dascanio 17460 Drake Street Yorba Linda, CA 92886 SP/Lee presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2014-301, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Low asked if the discussion of projects going forward included discussion of water conservation and landscape requirements in light of the drought conditions. CDD/Gubman responded affirmatively and stated that in fact, in 2010 the City adopted the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, an adoption of local amendments of state law mandating that landscape for AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION new development and additions exceeding a certain threshold must comply with "the water budget." There is a limit to the allowable water consumption that may be used to irrigate landscaping and the project landscape plan has to be designed to stay within that water budget. There are families of plant materials that are prescribed in the ordinance that have to abide by the water-efficient/water-wise principles. Among other things there are limits to the amount of natural turf that can be used in a new landscape plan. In addition, there are other requirements for water -harvesting on-site. The water budget calculations are very complicated and beyond the scope of in- house staff's capabilities. The City has a consultant on retainer (David Evans and Associates who recently merged -with Hall and Foreman, Inc.) with landscape architects who have the technical expertise and ongoing training to be able to review landscape plans to ensure that it is in compliance with the WELO (Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance), as well as horticultural expertise and are able to review the plans to ensure that at maturity, the shrub and ground cover spacing and tree locations and ultimate canopy breadth will be accommodated for in the layout. C/Low asked if the consultants had reviewed this project's plans because she noticed that the vegetation is quite lush and there are two swimming pools on this large piece of property. CDD/Gubmarl stated that as part of the plan check process, as is true with the building, it,must go through the technical review along with grading plans, geotechnical and other technical studies. David Evans has not yet done the plan check review for this project. The plans have been prepared by a licensed landscape architect and they have prepared those plans using the City's WELO ordinance as the basis for the preparation of that plan. He cannot provide confirmation that the project as submitted is what will ultimately be approved. The final landscape construction plan must be substantially in conformance with this concept and if not, depending on the amount of deviation, staff has the option of bringing a revised plan to the Planning Commission for further review. C/Low said that it is her understanding that when the Commission approves the plan it approves the entire project including landscaping, two pools, sports court and gazebo. As proposed, ,the water remaining in the water budget seems to be a material portion of this plan perhaps the Commission can make sure that the project is conditioned to provide for further deviation. CDD/Gubman pointed out that there is a condition of approval that re- emphasizes what is already statutorily required which is that the project must comply with the WELO ordinance. VC/Shah said he did not see a water retention pond or similar device on the plans and looking at the cut on the property and coverage of the property he assumes that there is a need to retain the water drainage coming off of AUGUST 12,2014 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSIOA the covered area and once this project goes through the plan check and permit process, it will be checked and approved. As mentioned by C/Low, it may be a good idea that it will come back to the Planning Commission should there be a need for additional amenities added to the site plan such a retention pond. Also, he did not see any mention about the quantity of cut and fill. SP/Lee responded to C/Low that the resolution includes the conditions requiring conformance with the Water ordinance on Page 4 of the resolution, Condition 3. With respect to VC/Shah's concern about the hydraulics, that too is , a condition of approval on Page 10 under the Public Works Department Condition of Approval a) 2. Regarding the cut and fill, that information is included in staff's report on Page 6 as follows: "they are proposing to cut 300 cubic yards of soil and fill 900 cubic yards to create a buildable pad at the rear of the property." Chair/Farago opened the public hearing. Daniel Dascanio, architect, said he was available for any questions. In essence his firm attempted to be sensitive to the context of surroundings and balance that with an appropriate size for the family. C/Low asked Mr. Dascanio to address the water conservation issues with the landscaping and two pools. Mr. Dascanio responded that the Commission is addressing the concepts and the technical aspects will be addressed in the construction document phase at which point the conditions of approval will be addressed including water conservation. There are several ways in which the project can comply with the water conservation requirements and one of the ways in which the project can meet those requirements is to include a holding tank to capture rain water as well as, installation of moisture sensors so that the sprinklers do not run after a rainstorm and water will be used only when necessary. C/Low asked.if Mr. Dascanio is familiar with the water budget allotted to this particular property and Mr. Dascanio responded that he is not but his landscape architect is. C/Low asked if the plans Were developed without factoring in the water budget allotment and Mr. Dascanio responded that it would be. C/Low asked about the second elevation at the front of the property that contains laundry and at the end is situated a master closet which appeared to her to be a hall area and is labeled "closet." Mr. Dascanio said it is one massive closet as requested by his client. AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Shah said that Mr. Dascanio provided a very impressive design and beautiful renderings. Ron Everett, 2618 Rocky Trail Road, adjacent to the project said he was present to make sure the public system is working, the City's system is working and the community is working. This is a beautiful home that will be right next door to him and he looks forward to that. He stated that he has lived on his property for 37 years and at that time and in that community the lots each had 10 foot easements adjacent, which provides 20 feet of easement between his property and the project property. This easement was intended for equestrian that worked for awhile. Today there are not many horses remaining. About 25-30 years ago in the 20 foot easement between his house and the project site he planted a Jacaranda tree and it has grown and become more beautiful and is now 30 feet high and it is a special tree for him. Three to five years ago the HOA voted to change the CC&R's and within that action they returned the easement, 10 feet on each lot, to the property owner. So the tree he planted was in the middle of the equestrian trail which was typical to do so that as they grow horses can walk around them. Now there is no easement and that tree is on the property line. It has become fully engaged and even more beautiful this year and bloomed purple for six to eight weeks. Today he is present to witness the process and express his position because his tree is at risk. The tree is planned to be moved to make room for a six foot wall with which he has no problem. He is asking the applicant and anyone who is in a position to consider the issue and to contemplate one more time before the tree is removed to do something to compensate. If there is a creative way to move the wall he would ask for that consideration. The second option as discussed with the architect is to remove and replace the Jacaranda tree with two white Birch trees acceptable to the experts as a second choice to be installed on the opposite side of his house between his house and his neighbor's house on Rocky Trail Road. He wants to be a good neighbor and appreciates the exercise by the Commission and staff in working through this project. He respects the architect and looks forward to a relationship as neighbors with the owner. Mr. Dascanio explained that he and Mr.. Everett have exchanged emails and this is the first time meeting Mr. Everett in person. The surveyor discovered that the tree was right in the middle of the property line which made the decision about what to do with it a little easier. If it was one foot into his property it would have been difficult to work with it because there was a chance that by putting in the wall it would damage the root system and would probably require consideration of wrought iron fencing. AUGUST 12, 4 PAGE Mr. Dascanio's initial proposal was to remove and replace it with a new tree or series of trees to compensate for the size which could be located wherever Mr. Everett chose and would consist of any species he selected. Mr. Everett proposed two Birch trees which Mr. Dascanio included in his site plan and will become part of the construction documents. The landscape contractor will remove and replace the tree with a series of new trees. Mr. Everett said he was fine with that decision and the applicant is good with that solution as well. VC/Shah asked if there was any way to find a compromise to save the tree because Mr. Everett has said he would love to save the tree. Mr. Dascanio said that unfortunately there is a block wall that is going on the property line which gives privacy between the homes which will be afforded to both homeowners so short of not doing that portion of the wall that is not a solution. C/Low asked the height of the wall and Mr. Dascanio said that it would be a minimum of five feet and a maximum of six feet. C/Low asked the height of the structure and Mr. Dascanio responded that it is under the maximum of six feet. The wall will be on top of a bank which will help give privacy. C/Low asked if the tree would provide more privacy than the wall and Mr. Dascanio said it would not work with the plans. VC/Shah said that if Mr. Everett agreed to building the wall around the tree would that provide a solution and Mr. Dascanio said that the wall has to be substantially away from the root system of the tree. Otherwise, there would be a great risk that the tree could not survive. Chair/Farago said that of all of the trees named in the report the Jacaranda is the only tree deemed excellent. Mr. Dascanio said that Mr. Everett watered the tree regularly and a lot of the other trees are not in good health and they will be removed and replaced. Chair/Farago asked if it was feasible to relocate the Jacaranda and Mr. Dascanio responded that it is a massive tree and relocating the tree would be an extremely expensive endeavor. Frankly, since Mr. Everett gave Mr. Dascanio the verbal okay to plant a couple of fair-sized Birch trees wherever he wants them that seemed to be a reasonable conclusion. He has included this in his site plan per verbatim. Chair/Farago asked Mr. Everett if his comments were in agreement with that resolution and Mr. Everett acknowledged acceptance. Chair/Farago asked if the resolution needed to be amended accordingly and CDD/Gubman responded that the landscape plan reflects that compromise. Chair/Farago closed the public hearing. AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Low said that the house design is very beautiful but she noticed the one tree which she thought was beautiful which is the Jacaranda is not a protected tree which was, for her, a little heartbreaking even without Mr. Everett's comments. VC/Shah echoes C/Low's sentiments. Since the two parties agree there is little that can be done at this point. VC/Shah moved, C/Pirritano seconded, to approve Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2014-301, 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: Low, Pirritano, VC/Shaw, Chair/Farago NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Lin Mr. Dascanio thanked the Commission for SP/Lee who was exemplary in her work on this project. 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Chair/Farago noted that tonight is VC/Shah's last meeting with the Commission. VC/Shah resigned his position and his colleagues are sad to see him go. It has been an honor serving with him these past two years and Chair/Farago thanked VC/Shah for his service to the Commission and the community. C/Low echoed Chair/Farago's comments. VC/Shah is an excellent asset to the Planning Commission and he will be sorely missed. C/Pirritano double echoed Chair/Farago and C/Low's comments. In the short time he has known VC/Shah, C/Pirritano said he has gained a great deal of respect for VC/Shah who has done a greatjob on the Commission on behalf of the community. C/Pirritano wished VC/Shah the very best. VC/Shah said that over the years he has had a great time working with the current and prior Commissioners. It is a great team and with an excellent staff, the job is easy although challenging. The Commission embraced the challenges and solved the challenge and 99 percent of the time the Commission has made the public happy. Even when it was difficult to satisfy the public, compromise was reached. He thanked staff and his colleagues for their support and kind words. AUGUST 12, 2014 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that the August 26 meeting will be dark due to lack of agenda items. The next scheduled meeting is September 9 and staff will advise the Commission whether there will be a meeting on that night. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Farago adjourned the regular meeting at 8:15 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 9th day of September, 2014. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director