Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/13/2015 MinutesMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 13, 2015 CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Low called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.�n. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 2 . 1810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chair Mahlke led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Frank Farago, Bob Nishimura, Raymond Wolfe, Vice Chairperson Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Chairperson Ruth Low Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart7 Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Assistant Planner; Josue Espino, Planning Consultant; Mayuko Nakajima, Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 8, 2015. C/Wolfe moved, C/Farago seconded, to approve the Minutes of the September 8, 2015, Meeting as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/Mahlke, Chair/Low' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Develoament Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-264 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DE3MG) Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applican . t and owner requested Development Review approval to construct a two-story addition consisting of 1,406 square foot, one-story, OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION single family residence with an attached 666 square foot, two -car garage on a 0.15 gross acre (6,633 gross square foot) -"lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a second -story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a 17 -foot, 8 -inch rear setback where 20 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 PROJECT ADDRESS 9;08_19�Iml 216 Cottonwood Cove Drive Diamon-d. Bar, CA 91765 Lewis Lam 6556 Darcena Street Chino, CA 91710 APPLICANT: Richard Su 8th Floor 155 N. Lake Avenue, Pasadena, CA 91101 AP/Espinoza presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-264, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nishimura asked what the deed restriction entails and AP/Espinoza responded that the deed restriction is a covenant and agreement which specifies that the house remain a single family home and that there can be no more than one lease agreement with renters on the property which is also a condition of approval within the resolution:. C/Nishimura asked if that meant the owner could have one only rental agreement and not two simultaneous rental/lease agreements where for example, the upstairs and downstairs could be rented to different parties) and AP/Espinoza responded that C/Nishimura's interpretation was correct. C/Nishimura asked if the Cypress trees would be planted along the rear portion of the lot or along the north and south*, sides of the house. AP/Espinoza responded that the Cypress trees will be.planted along the south side of the house where the balcony is located as depicted in the drawing. She further indicated that the rear of the property is. -heavily landscaped and very steep which prevents view of the neighbor's property. C/Nishimura asked if the second -story windows were aligned such that they did not look into the second story bedroom window of the existing two-story house to the north of the project and AP/Espinoza responded affirmatively. OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Low asked if construction would impact the homeowner down the slope to the rear of the project. AP/Espinoza reiterated that she visited the site and took pictures that show the tall trees at the rear property line of the project site as well as, on the neighboring property which provides very dense, heavy landscaping so that the addition will most likely not impact the neighbors.. Chair/Low asked how the property owners proposed to water the green roof and AP/Espinoza referred Chair/Low to the architect for a response. Chair/Low asked if the deed restriction operated as a matter of law despite the condition and ACA/Eggart responded that the deed restriction is declaratory of what the existing law is and essentially puts property owners on notice that they need to comply with the Municipal Code (provisions on boarding houses). It does not impose any new requirement that does not already exist. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. I Lewis Lam, property owner, stated that he and his family will live in the house and that it will not be a rental unit. Once he receives the permits, the tenants will be gone and the parking and noise issues will be gone as well. He graduated from Walnut High School and wants to move back into the City with his parents who work in Diamond Bar. Richard Su, project designer, responded to Chair/Low that the green roofs are designed to provide infiltration for the planters on the roof level before going to the landscaped area because the lot is very small. There are vegetative modules that can be purchased that could be used to provide six months of temporary irrigation and once it becomes self -sustainable it is left as -is because they are drought tolerant species that require little if any irrigation. If the City wants something that needs to be irrigated it can be done just as it would be done for a planter on grade. Chair/Low felt it was a nice concept but if it was not watered it could look dead and be an eyesore. In addition, drought - tolerant means some water and not zero water. Mr. Su said he completely understood Chair/Low's concern. The modules have been used with other projects and have been successful in spite of no irrigation for two years following the initial six-month setup. If the Commission is concerned it is not difficult to run a permanent drip system with a separate timer. The modules provide additional field of rain water before flowing through the downspout into the cisterns at the ground level. Mr. Su stated that since the proposed project is a two-story,unit preserving the privacy of the neighbors is a big priority. The home to the north is a two-story house and there is a 6x4 foot window on the second floor so they deliberately offset the window so that the line of sight does not cross the neighbor's window. When a bedroom window is placed on the side of a house, they are OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION 'high windows (six feet above the floor) except for the very rear corner which is out of the line -of -sight. The house to the south is a single=story house and is about three feet lower than the finished grade. So along with the six-foot walls for the project site their wall is about nine feet lower which gives them a nine - foot buffer. In addition, the project minimizes any possible intrusion by including tall and narrow windows in the bedroom with most of the windows being oriented toward the back to capture the view. The proposed landscape screening is 15 feet tall and with the three foot lower elevation that neighbor is getting about 18 feet of visual screening in about 15 years. The Cypress trees are six to eight feet tall and they grow a foot or two each y ' year so in five years they will be about 15 feet tall to provide screening for the neighbor's swimming pool. Although the architecture is more modern than the existing architecture it is compatible to the neighborhood using compatible materials including stucco, stone veneer and regular roofing tiles. He reiterated that this dwelling is meant to be a single family home. With only four bedrooms and the square footage it is not intended to be a multi -family home or rental for boarding house. There is a detached guest house in the back which will be razed to downgrade the density of the residence. He asked the Commission for consideration of removing the deed restriction for this home which has always been a single family residence in a single family zone. VC/Mahlke asked if the Italian Cypress were drought resistant and Mr. Su said he would not consider them to be drought resistant but they do well in this climate. In addition, there is established irrigation which will help them continue to thrive. C/Wolfe asked about the window on the north side that exists in the walk-in closet and how it lines up with the 6x4 window on the neighbor's property and Mr. Su said that the 6x4 window is roughly at the tall window in the center so the tall narrow window in the hallway clears the second Story of the house to the north as depicted on the site survey. The windows do -hot directly face each other. Art Kahn, 219 Cottonwood Cove Drive, said he has had two of his cars hit by people who live at the residence. After their parties, there are beer cans on. the sidewalks. This proposal seems ambiguous especially with respect to the deed restriction. Based on the applicant's testimony it will be a single family residence but he believed that a lease would allow six to eight people in the residence as well, should he decide to leave and rent the house out again. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. ACA/Eggart explained that the deed restriction would not prohibit the property owner from renting out the property. That is not something the City has the authority to prohibit property owners from doing — they have the right to rent OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION out their property. However, the Municipal Code does not allow people to use their property as a "boardinghouse", in a rem ential zone. A boardinghouse means the property is being rented under ltiple rental agreements. The speaker is right that any property owner could rent under one rental agreement to a renter who may have as many people in their family unit as can fit in the house which is not something the City can regulate through conditions of approval. The limit of a City's regulation is what is permitted occupancy under the Building Code which is remarkably high. C/Nishimura asked if the deed restriction was in place or written into the resolution. ACA/Eggart explained that the deed restriction is a proposed condition of approval that says the property owner would record a deed restriction that essentially says the property could not operate as a "boardinghouse" or other use prohibited by Municipal Code. It is in the resolution at the end of the main body of the resolution prior to the standard conditions. VC/Mahlke asked if a property owner would be able to petition to have that deed restriction removed at some point and ACA/Eggart responded that it is something that could be written into the deed restriction document which is essentially a contract with the City should the Commission so direct. VC/Mahlke asked for confirmation that the deed restriction reinforces what is currently in place for every property owner in Diamond Bar. ACA/Eggart said yes, and essentially says the owner could not operate the property as a "boardinghouse" or other illegal use except to the extent permitted by the Municipal Code. it is merely a "notice" document so that the property owner cannot come back and argue they did not know they were supposed to comply with this law. Chair/Low asked if this has been done before and ACA/Eggart says he has seen this condition before. CDD/Gubman said it became a standard condition, prior to when he began working in Diamond Bar. This is a boilerplate condition that has been imposed on numerous projects and it is. nothing unique or specific to this project. If there is a history associated with'a particular property, this is a measure the City uses to ensure that the property owner is placed on notice. By placing that on the deed, future purchasers of the.property receive that disclosure that the property cannot be subdivided as a "boardinghouse" and when there are floorplans proposed that may appear to present an opportunity to partition off sections or add new exterior entrances and so forth. When these opportunities present themselves staff does whatever possible to thwart the pursuit of that opportunity that might be seen by a future purchaser. Chair/Low asked if there was a history regarding this particular property that caused this deed restriction to be placed on it and CDD/Gubman said that to the extent that staff has heard the complaints that this residence apparently *CTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION has a reputation that has caused some disruption in the peace and harmony of the neighborhood. Staff feels that based on these complaints, it is appropriate to place the covenant on the property even though it has been stated that as is set in the statutes in the City's Municipal Code that this is a single family residence. For some reason that may not be apparent at this time, this house has been used as a rental before and the renters that have been attracted to this property apparently have a need to be put under a watchful eye. Chair/Low asked if there was a sunset provision on these restrictions and CDD/Gubman responded no, the restrictions run with the land in perpetuity and cannot be quit claimed without consent by the City. Chair/Low asked if the property owner could petition the City to remove the restriction and CDD/Gubman said "yes." C/Nishimura asked that under the current Code the owner moves in and rents a room out that is not a boarding house and it is legal to which CDD/Gubman responded that the homeowner can rent a maximum of one bedroom to a boarder. C/Wolfe moved, VC/Mahlke seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-264, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution and corrected by staff. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/Mahlke, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-242 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant/owner requested Development Review approval to construct a two-story addition consisting of 2,382 square feet of floor area to an existing 1,904 square foot, one --story single family residence with an attached 696 square foot, three -car garage on a 0.27 gross acre (11,730 gross square foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a second story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a 16 foot 11 inch rear setback where 20 feet is required, and a nonconforming distance to a structure on the adjacent lot to the west of 11 feet, 1 inch where 15 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. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1606 Ano Nuevo Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER/ Beatriz Flores APPLICANT: 1606 Ano Nuevo Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PC/Espino presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PI -2015-242, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Wolfe said that the view from bedroom #4 on the second floor to the southeast neighbor appears to be potentially infringing on their privacy in the back . yard and asked if staff had considered that in its review. PC/Espino responded that staff looked at the neighborhood sensitivity with .respect to the adjoining properties. In this particular case the distance that was maintained on that side of the property was felt by staff to be adequate on the southeast side which is 15 feet from the adjacent property. There is no pool or balcony extending out on that side whereas, the northwest side has a pool and staff has conditioned that side of the property to maintain existing tall shrubs and conditioned the rear of the property to maintain shrubs. If that is a concern, it is within the commission's purview to extend the condition to include the southeast side of the property. C/Wolfe said he found it odd that one side and not the other was conditioned when it is clear that the project has the view shed into the neighbor's backyard. There may not be a pool in that neighbor's back yard today but it does not mean that one might be put in someday. C/Nishimura asked if the second story bedroom window toward the front on the north side looked into the two upstairs bedrooms of the house to the north (left). Staff requested the applicant to modify the size of the windows to provide privacy from the residence as well as, to the neighbors. One window in particular staff felt was adequate to provide lighting for the bedroom and did not feel there would be direct line -of -sight because there is shrubbery on that side of the property line. The distance is about 30 feet because the balcony area on the adjacent neighbor's balcony to the northwest is directly above the garage with the habitable floor area recessed a significant area from the garage. In performing a visual test on the site plan, there is a distance of about 22 feet from corner to corner and in reality, the adjacent home is recessed far beyond the front fagade of the home. Chair/Low asked if the right -of -privacy extended tothe deck area and PC/Espino responded technically, no. The imposing view might be from the existing balcony onto the subject property. This is an issue that was discussed with the applicant and it was felt that the privacy would be maintained. OCTOBER 13,2015 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSIOJ C/Nishimura asked if the required setback was 15 feet on that side of the project property and PC/Espino said that it is 10 feet from the property line and 15 feet to structures on adjoining properties. Chair/Low opened the public hearing. Katie Flores, MK Studio, project designer/architect, said that bedroom #4 window mentioned by C/Wolfe, the separation between the two houses is significant and the project lot is slightly higher than the neighboring lot. So these factors along with the landscape materials should provide sufficient privacy. For the office window as discussed by C/Nishimura, due to the pie shape of the lots it worked to the applicant's advantage that the neighboring structure walls are not parallel to each other so they are splayed and from that window one would be looking more toward the front door of, the house and not into the front windows facing the street. She reiterated th at the prayer room was not intended to be a house of worship. The owner wants a quiet sitting room/den at the front of the house where one could sit, meditate and pray in privacy, a room that was not part of a bedroom and hustle and bustle of the main living spaces. In addition, one of the bedrooms on the second floor is intended to be an office and another is a bonus room for teenage boys to have their own space away from the adult living space downstairs. Tony Maze said that Ms. Flores has been a good neighbor and there are six cohesive neighbors on the street. One issue for him is that prior to Ms. Flores owning the property, a doctor owned the property and was involved in illegal activities and not knowing what circumstances might change, would there be a deed restriction placed on this property. The house is very large for the neighborhood and while he is not concerned ' about his current neighbor, he is concerned about future ownership and use. Chair/Low asked how many years Mr. Maze had been a neighbor to Mrs. Flores and he responded since 1997. Ron Escodon, 1627 Ano Nuevo Drive, said he had an issue with doubling the size of the house where other houses in the neighborhood are much smaller in a small cul-de-sac area where parking is at a premium. - Robert Van, 1620 Acacia Hill, said his concern is that the house will be a church because he has seen church activities taking place at the property and he believes that will continue. A 4,000 square foot home will accommodate several hundred people and vehicles will be parking on that street and spill over onto other streets and as a result, in an emergency the street will become inaccessible toemergency equipment. He is certain the house will be a business and he is concerned about traffic when a business is in the middle of a neighborhood. PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION Beatriz Flores said she has lived on Ano Nuevo Drive since 1997. She is the eldest of 17 children. She took care of her mother and father. Now that she is 70 her daughter is concerned about her staying in her house and asked her to sell the house so she could live with her daughter. Understanding that her parents were very sad to leave their home and her aunt was really sad to leave her home, her daughter decided to build instead of moving- out of the neighborhood. There will be no business and there will not be a church. She said "we do. come together in prayer" as do other neighbors and for family gatherings. Her daughter wanted to build a dream home because she wanted ,to create space which she understood. was important to her mother. Her family is a professional family and they understand laws and abide by those laws. People have gathered at her residence for doctoral celebrations that merit people coming into their home. She said she could guarantee there would not be a business in her home and that it would not be a church. Her family grew or room te famy up in prayer and whether in the kitchen, chen, bedroom came together. Her family felt this was an opportunitlivingthemy foto hcreateila space because the family has been limited in space. The residence will not be turned into a boardinghouse. She felt it was her privilege to be able to turn her small house into a 4,000 square foot home to accommodate her family. Chair/Low closed the public hearing. C/Nishimura noted that Finding of Fact "C" 1 in the resolution states that this should be approved and that it is consistent with several things including the design guidelines. His copy of the 'Residential Guidelines, Page 32, talks about tract homes and how as they age, they will be remodel * ed. Further, it states that one of the most important issues is to ensure that new or remodeled residential development is compatible and complementary to the existing neighborhood. Page 33 talks about compatibility and three states that dwellings and other improvements should be appropriate in mass and scale to the site on which they are placed. The site in relationship to other structures., etc. should be complementary and depicts a "yes" and "no." In looking at this proposal, the size of the addition is quite large and the architecture is to him not compatible. He asked staff to explain how they came to the conclusion that this architecture and mass to the front was compatible to the neighborhood. when the development. guideline photo clearly shows that it is not. PC/Espino said that as stated, the design guidelines address issues of compatibility and mass and scale. Staff looks at these projects in the form of context in the neighborhood as well as how the massing scale relates to the building, its neighbors and the neighborhood. In this case, there is mass and scale that is recessed from the front, a majority of which is above the existing floor area. As far as the floor area itself, there is no floor area ratio standard that staff can use to equate or evaluate to other homes. He could say that the OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION' average floor area in the neighborhood was about 2100 to 2200 square feet in a mix of single story hornes* and two-story homes. Yes, this is a substantial addition; however, it complies with the City's Development Standards in setbacks, proximity to adjacent structures and is also under the lot coverage ratio. Potentially, all of the lots in- the neighborhood could increase substantially more. In addressing the guidelines in the design aspect, staff looks to make sure that the character of the home is consistent with other homes in the neighborhood. There are Mediterranean design styles that have been transformed from tract homes to what is seen today. Staff also looks at whether this is a predominately one-story or two-story home neighborhood. In this case, it is a mix. The neighbor to the southeast is a single story, the neighbor to the northwest is a two-story. Going back to the context issue, if this home were in the middle of the block it might be a challenge to say this fits into the neighborhood. This project being toward the cul-de-sac (tucked into the corner) and the proposed floor area addition being above the current floor area (a little over 300 feet), staff felt it was compatible to the design standards and those goals and objectives described in the City's General Plan. Chair/Low said that as one proceeds up Ano Nuevo toward the property, there are two other houses that were quite large on the opposite side of the street and PC/Espino reiterated that there are many existing two-story homes in the immediate neighborhood which averaged about 2200 square feet. Chair/Low said that the house next to the subject property is a two-story home as well. C/Farago asked how many feet the house facing the property is and PC/Espino said it is a two-story home upwards of 2000 square feet. C/Farago said that the largest two-story homes in' the neighborhood average 2300 square feet and this project proposes to be over 4000 square feet. Chair/Low asked to see the renderings again stating she thought the second story was recessed and Katie Flores said that the proposal sets the second floor back over the garage with a good amount of roof between the face of the garage and the second floor which was broken up with little elements of towers to give it the Mediterranean articulation and tower over the front door. Chair/Low asked if the prayer room was being brought forward to line up with the garage. Katie Flores said yes and that it remains set back from the front setback a good distance at that point. Due to the shape of the lot, the front right corner of the proposed addition is actually at the back corner of the front element of the neighbor's house which means the project is 30 to 40 feet back at that point. Although it appears flat on the plans when viewed from the street, the front of the house where the prayer' room is located is quite far back from the sidewalk. - OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION PC/Espino stated that staff included a condition to provide a covenant and agreement as part of the resolution with respect to maintaining the home as a single family home as its , Intended use and restricts the rental of rooms to no more than one. Chair/Low said that there was no evidence provided to the Commission that there has been any interruption or unintended use of this property. She asked ACA/Eggart for clarification that there are no restrictions on how big a person can make their house. ACA/Eggart said there are development standards for heights and lot coverage ratio. CDD/Gubman said there are restrictions as to lot coverage, building separation requirements and setback requirements as well as, building height. Chair/ Low asked if in this case the Commission was within the parameters of permissible size and CDD/Gubman said definitely. There is no question of whether or not this proposal meets the development standards. He believes the question goes to the findings of compatibility and conformance with the design guidelines which is where the role of the,Commission comes to the forefront where the more qualitative or subjective review of the appropriateness of this project needs to be deliberated upon. Yes, the project meets the development standards. Staff has reviewed this project in the context of the neighborhood, the orientation of the building, the particular characteristics of the streetscape and staffs recommendation is to approve it based on it fitting into that neighborhood streetscape. The guidelines are intended to be used as a guidepost to evaluate the project and to consider the subjective views of the neighborhood at large, whether this is an appropriate project as proposed. C/Farago asked what would be the largest home that could be put on the lot. PC/Espino said that this could be a flat roofed three-story home with a 35 foot height limit with no floor area ratio requirement the development standards would limit the volume of this home. Conceivably, one could have a home twice the size of the home being proposed. C/Farago said that in looking at the elevation it seems to be massive. If the ridgeline is actually further back, the cross view on the plans is deceiving because it makes it appear larger than what it actually is if it is set back. He asked where the ridgeline is in relationship to the property line at the sidewalk at the driveway entrance and PC/Espino said it is set back quite a distance because there is a transition from the design going from tract home to Mediterranean style which will incorporate a hip roof. Currently, there is a gable roof which is more imposing on the front. A hip roof has rooflines that PLANNING COMMISSIOZ #CTOBER 13, 2016 PAGE 12 M are set back. He guessed that it was about 20 feet from the face to the back of the garage so it is probably 40 feet from the ridgeline to the front property line. C/Farago asked where the current ridgeline lies and PC/Espino said it is a gable roof directly above the garage. C/Wolfe commented that this is a very beautiful design but he agrees with C/Nishimura that the design of the house is probably a bit imposing to the neighborhood. He thinks there are r some redeeming qualities to contemplate such as the orientation of the house, the fact that the front of the house to the right of the proposed project is behind the house on the southeast corner but this is a very large house and he thinks the Commission needs to be careful about allowing mansions in neighborhoods that do not support them. He. is not saying he has made a decision but he is concerned about the mass of the house. He understands that the architect attempted to address that issue by including different planes at the front of the house for which;':he complemented the architect on the features proposed. He believed the ori , entation ultimately helps the proposal significantly. C/Nishimura said that based on C/Wolfe's concern about the ridgeline that if one looks at the photo the existing roofline is 17 feet 6 inches tall and when this project is built the new roofline will be just over 23 feet across the top. VC/Mahlke said she appreciated neighbors speaking before the Commission and how kindly they spoke about the applicant. She ' understands their concerns and trusts the systems that are currently in place that will help counter any of those concerns in terms of parking and business. She acknowledged the potential overbuild for this project as also indicated by her colleagues. At 1900 square feet up without any other changes this home would be at 3800 square feet. Because of that she said she would move to accept the proposed plan. VC/Mahlke moved, Chair/Low seconded, to approve De'velopment Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PI -2015-242, Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion failed 2-3 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Mahlke, Chaikow 1' NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C/Nishimura moved to deny the project. ACA/Eggart said that denial of a Development Review application requires written Findings and Facts to support those Findings. C/Nishimura is making a motion and articulating Findings that staff could put into a resolution but a OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION resolution would be required and in order to do so, this item would need to be c . ontinued to a future meeting to bring back a written resolution of denial for consideration by the Commission. In addition, CDD/Gubman asked him to advise the Commission that it could be continued to allow the applicant . an opportunity redesign which is within the purview of the Commission. C/Nishimura moved to direct staff to rewrite the resolution- to deny the applicant - based on the Findings that it does not meet the City's Design Guidelines and give the applicant a chance to come back. ACA/Eggart advised the Commission that those would be alternative options. The option to give the applicant an opportunity to come back to the Commission with a revised plan for consideration would not be a denial, it would be a continuance. Chair/Low said that Findings have not yet been made. ACA/Eggart restated C/Nishimura's motion to continue the public hearing ring to a future date certain and to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial on the basis that Findings 1 and 3 required for approval of Development Review could not be made on the basis that the design is inconsistent with the City Design Guidelines, specifically provisions on pages 32 and 33 as well as, that under Finding 3 that due to the square footage and size of the addition in comparison with the size of other existing homes in the neighborhood, this project is out of character with the other homes in the neighborhood. ACA/Eggaft asked if his reiteration of C/Nishimura's motion was consistent with his wishes. ACA/Eggart said that for a future date he is not certain whether everyone will be present for that meeting and the Commission may wish to select a different meeting date. C/Farago said his main concern is the mass toward the front and the size if it was in the back away from the sightline of the street it could pretty much be anything as long as it did not affect the look and feel of the neighborhood. If the Commission made a separate or inclusive motion to allow time for the applicant to redesign and bring that back to the Commission, is that an option at this point. ACA/Eggart responded that it would be a separate motion and it would be articulated as continue the item to a date certain to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign pursuant to direction provided by the Commission. If that is the motion he would suggest that the public hearing be reopened to ask the applicant if that is something they are willing to do. CMolfe said he would like to second the continuance motion. He obviously cast the third and deciding vote this evening but he believes that the orientation of the property allows the opportunity for some changes to the proposed project so that the mass scale at the front of the house is not so imposing. He • 13,2015 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSIOJ believes there is an opportunity to make adjustments to the design that would allow this size of a house or something close to it to fit into the neighborhood and its character without being such a dramatic imposition although, as he has repeatedly stated, it is a beautiful design. Chair/Low reopened the public hearing. Chair/Low asked Beatriz Flores if she was willing to take additional time to redesign the project to better conform to the City's Design Guidelines and Mrs. Flores responded "definitely, yes." Chair/Low asked how long it would take to complete the redesign and Katie Flores said it would depend on staff as well because it would take a bit of back and forth to make sure that they reached a favorable conclusion. She is sorry that PC/Espino would not be available to work on the project and asked if their project would be assigned to a new planner. CDD/Gubman directed his comments to Chair/Low that in response to questions about continuance dates, PC/Espino is under contract with the City. Although he has resigned as a City employee, he is on retainer as a consultant to the City and he will continue to be the project manager for this project. PC/Espino will also continue to work with the City as it moves forward to help with the General Plan update and other important tasks. With the continuity and momentum that staff has set for this project he would suggest it be continued approximately one month to the November 10 agenda. If the item is continued to a specific date it does not require that the project be re -noticed. Should November 10 pass without all of the issues being resolved it can be continued to a future date. Chair/Low asked if November 10, 2015, was a suitable date for Ms. Flores she responded "yes." CDD/Gubman advised the applicant that state law requires that a decision to approve or deny a project be made within 180 days of an application being deemed complete. ACA/Eggart said that continuing the project to November 10 was sufficient and that he would address the matter with staff after that. Chair/Low again closed the public hearing. Chair/Low asked for a second on C/Nishimura's motion. C/Nishimura's motion died for lack of a second. OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Farago moved, CMolfe seconded to reopen the public hearing and continue Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-242 to November 10, 2015, to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project pursuant to direction provided by the Commission. C/Nishimura made a substitution motion to include notices be sent to the property owners within 1000 feet of the project to advise them of the continuation. C/Farago seconded the motion. PC/Espino stated that should the Commission wish to continue the matter, the best way to handle it may be to continue the matter to a date uncertain in which case staff would automatically re -notify the project and it would not place a burden on the applicant and staff to conclude the project on November 10. In addition, those who have attended tonight's meeting would not be under the impression that the matter might be concluded on November 10. ACA/Eggart explained that there cannot be two motions on the floor; however, the maker of the motion could, with the consent of the second motion maker, amend his motion if so inclined. C/Nishimura agreed to substitute his motion to continue Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-242 to a date uncertain to allow the applicant the opportunity to redesign the project pursuant to direction provided by the Commission. C/Farago seconded C/Nl;S'himura's substitute motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/Mahlke, Chair/Low NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nishimura commended CDD/Gubman and his staff. He noticed a couple of weeks ago that the little street signs on north Diamond Bar Boulevard were getting out of hand. He drove out one day and noticed that the Code Enforcement Officer had cleaned up the street after which it looked 100 percent better. He became aware of another situation where CDD/Gubman went way beyond the call of duty and were doing specialized things. There is an abandoned house in North Diamond Bar'and they went to the extraordinary le * ngth of declaring it a public nuisance, getting an inspection warrant and they will abate the property and lien it for abatement costs as well as attorney fees. These procedures are technical and involved and he thanked CDD/Gubman and his staff for doing such a great job. OCTOBER 13,2015 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSIOJ Chair/Low thanked CDD/Gubman and his staff for a great job as usual. She asked CDD/Gubman to introduce his new staff member. CDD/Gubman introduced Associate Planner Mayuko (May) Nakajima whose first day was Wednesday, September 30. May comes to Diamond Bar from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. She began her career as a student aid while attending CalPoly Pomona. Upon graduation she was promoted to Assistant Planner. May brings to Diamond Bar some really valuable experience that the City will capitalize on as it moves forward on the General Plan Update as well as, saving the. City from certain doom because Josue had to leave his post as a full time employee. As mentioned at the City Council meeting last week there were over 150 applicants and through two screen processes, the number was reduced from 153 to 59 and after he personally reviewed each of the applications he selected 8 to move forward 'through the panel interview process. During the panel review, May was rated first among each of the three panelists. He is very happy and excited to bring May on board as a member of the Diamond Bar team. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 PublicHearingdates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that on October 27 the agenda will consist of an addition to a single family residence on Timberline Road south of Pathfinder Road. Chair/Low asked the current status of Haggen's market. CDD/Gubman reported that Haggen's has filed for bankruptcy and are pulling out of the southwest. They are liquidating all of their acquisitions in those markets from the Von's/Albertson's required sale. At present he does not know what will happen at the Haggen's store. The City has major retail grocery chains that are interested in locating in Diamond Bar and staff hopes that the down time is ataminimum. The unfortunate discouraging news is that the City had a viable supermarket before the mandated transfer to Haggen's. Haggen's obviously underestimated the task of growing from a chain*of about 17 stores to 160 stores. It is unfortunate for employees at that store Who thought they would keep their jobs. He hopes it plays out well that a new supermarket reoccupies the location and that the regulators that placed a prohibition on Von's/Albertsons's from hiring former Haggen's employees is lifted to help with the situation. As soon as he learns what is likely to happen and he is at liberty to share the information with the Commission he will certainly do so. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. OCTOBER 13, 2015 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Low adjourned the regular meeting at 9:10 P.M. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 27th day of October, 2015. Attest: Respectfully Submitted', Greg Gubman Community Development Director -gxrv'X- Ruth Low, Chairperson