Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/26/2016 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIOV JANUARY 26, 2016 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chair Mahlke 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: Commission& Farago led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Frank Farago, Bob Nishimura, Raymond Wolfe, Vice Chair Jennifer."Fred" Mahl.ke Also present:. Greg Gubman, Community Development. Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Seni& Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Assistant Planner; Mayuko (May)'Nakajima, Associate Planner;and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 12, 2016. C/Wolfe moved, VC/Mahlke seconded, to approve the Minutes of the January 12, 2016, Meeting as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll.Call Vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: .3 7. COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None Farago, Wolfe, VC/Mahlke None Nishimura None NEW BUSINESS: None PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. PL2016-464 - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.48, the property owner and applicant requested a Development Review to add 4,464 square feet to the first floor of an existing single family residence on a 0.54 gross acre lot. The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL). JANUARY 26, 2016 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSIOR PROPERTY OWNER: 21458 Cold Spring Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Adam Hui Gu and Zhi Jun Mo 21458 Cold Spring Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Jason Sun 2275 Huntington Drive #347 San Marino, CA 91108 AP/Nakjima presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2015-464, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. VC/Mahlke opened the public hearing. Jason Sun, project architect, said he was available to answer Commission questions. C/Nishimura said that basically, the applicant was adding an entryway and room to the front of the house and Mr. Sun responded "yes." VC/Mahlke closed the public hearing. C/Wolfe moved, C/Nishimura seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2015-464, 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: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/Mahlke NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-98 - 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 1,249 square foot,. two-story addition, 298 square foot balcony and a 63 square foot porch to an existing 1,555 square foot, two story single family residence with an attached 438 square -foot two -car garage on a 0.35 gross acre lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a second story addition to a nonconforming structure with a pre-existing 11 -foot building JANUARY 26, 2016 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION separation to the house on the adjacent lot to the south where 15 feet is required. The subject property rty is zoned Low Medium Density Residential (RW) with an' underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. § Z 0 111W Nil -505 Bellows Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Justin Lee 505 Bellows Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AP/Espinoza presented staffs report and recommended Use Commission approval of DevelopmentReview and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015- 98, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. VC/Mahlke opened the -public hearing. Justin Lee, applicant, said he would respond to questions from Commissioners. Cynthia Smith, 500 Bellows Court (north side of the project) said she read the documents and disagrees with all of the items that refer to their privacy not being very significantly impacted. She wanted assurance of when mature landscaping would be installed because staffs report says that since this property was previously developed, landscape plans are not required for this project which she said was not true because there is no landscaping on the property currently. There are protected trees (California Chaparral Oaks) on the property directly behind the project that create the stability of the hillside and if those trees are touched their house will 'slide* down the slope. In fact, there will be beautifully arched windows overlooking her patio which will impede the privacy of her back yard. She said she talked with the neighbor (Richard) at 511 (Bellows Court) which is on the south side of the project who is sick with the flu and he is very concerned about the development being so close to his property and wanted to know if he could speak with someone about his concerns at a later date. Mrs. Smith showed photos that spoke to her concerns regarding privacy issues. Gerald Heath, 552 Topside Place said he purchased his home new in 1987 and paid a premium for a "view" lot and now comes to find that someone wants to block that view. The request before the Planning Commission cannot be approved for a number of reasons but most importantly because the application does not meet the definition of what is allowed for consideration. as a Minor Conditional Use Permit as set forth in the Diamond Bar Municipal Code and required Findings cannot be determined based on the facts at hand. In order to grant a Minor Conditional Use Permit it must be shown that the application must meet certain standards, standards which he recited from the code: 1) The JANUARY 26, 2016 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION' design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed Use are compatible with the existing and future land uses within the vicinity; 2) The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of use being proposed, including access provision of utilities and compatibility with adjoining land uses and the absence of physical constraints; ints; 3) Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to tho public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which this property is located; 4) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (SEQA).,, He stated that the proposed addition would nearly double the exterior/ihterior of the already existing non -conforming property. The design and size of this proposal are not compatible with' the *existing use and it most certainly is incompatible with the use of his property and other residential uses in the vicinity. The expansion would detrimentally impact the view from his home and the balcony addition would allow the applicant or future owner an unobstructed view into his home and backyard which -will interfere with the quiet enjoyment of his property and diminish the value of.his his property. The subject site is not suitable for the type and intensity of use because the proposed use is not compatible with adjoining land uses. It is incompatible with his property and all other properties adjacent to the subject property and adjacent to his home. An additional requirement in evaluating this application - is that the granting of the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare or be materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity in which this property is located. As he previously stated, the application cannot be granted because the expansion of the non- conforming use by nearly doubling the size and intensity of the property does significantly and detrimentally impact his welfare and convenience and welfare and public interests of h ' is neighbors. The proposed property does not meet the attempt to find it categorially exempt under 14CCRI5301 because the project does not involve a negligible environmental impact and does involve a substantial expansion of the existing residential use at a consequential environmental, impact on such elements as view, services and other environmental concerns. Any consideration of this application requires a further review in order to comply with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). For the reasons he has stated, the Commission must deny this application and it should also be mentioned that the applicant has not resided at the property for quite some time, if at all. It is highly probable that all that is intended is that he will sell the residence and the intensity of use and doubling of the square footage will likely result in more than one family inhabiting this single family residence. For the reasons *stated, please deny the application. JANUARY 26, 2016 PAGE 5' PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Heath presented to the Commission a photo that overlooked the subject property, taken from his rear yard, on which he sketched the proposed addition to demonstrate how his view would be obstructed. Mr. Lee thanked AP/Espinoza and said he could understand how concerned residents value the quality of life in Diamond Bar and as a family of four, his family values the quality of life in Diamond Bar as well and has been a resident since 1999. When the opportunity existed for him to better the quality of life for' his family by creating a better home for his family, this property came up and his family chose Diamond Bar as the place to live and retire. The picture Mr. Heath' presented is misleading and does not adequately depict the project. It is not professionally drawn to scale. The home was built in 1987 and the owner did nothing to update the property and he felt his family would be providing a service to the community by updating the property. Before the design was formulated he looked at the neighboring properties and their design in order to conform his project to the neighborhood. He worked with AP/Espinoza for a year and a half plus through many changes to get the add-on properly designed and conform to the code requirements. He feels the design will enhance the community. He understands the neighbors' concerns about the landscaping. The home has been neglected for many years and his first concern is to upgrade the home after which he will be adding landscaping and plants. He knows in his heart it will look and feel better when it is finished. This is not an improvement to sell the property, he and his family are here for life. His kids have grown up here and his family will remain here in Diamond Bar and he is 100 percent involved in the project as a property owner, not an investor. He agrees that Diamond Bar has a unique landscape and the view is what makes Diamond Bar unique and he can be in LA in 30 minutes or in the mountains in 30 minutes which is why he choseto live here. He will strive to, do everything possible to make a balanced project for everyone within the City's guidelines. VC/Mahlke closed the public hearing., CNVolfe asked staff to display the aerial and highlight the 552 Topside property. He said he believed the project's property owner was correct that the image was a rough sketch and he is not comfortable moving this project forward tonight without having more of *a scaled view of the potential impact to the 552 Topside property. He also asked that the matter of project site windows looking down into and onto the property to the north be addressed. He recommended that this item be continued to a future meeting for further review. C/Farago asked staff what the code states with respect to rights to view. AP/Espinoza responded that the Residential Design Guidelines speak to view protection and provides criteria for analyzing projects based on view protection and the Code specifically states that there may be a panoramic view as long as there is no complete loss of a view, a partially obstructed view is allowed. JANUARY 26, 2016 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman clarified that .the Residential Design Guidelines include view conservation language that requires a project to be designed to take neighboring views into account. The guidelines also state that properties do not have the right to an unobstructed panoramic view and that it is understood and accepted that there may be intervening obstructions within a viewshed and new development may encroach into what might be currently an unobstructed or panoramic view. While it is certainly appropriate for staff to come back and provide the Commission with additional photo simulations so that the Commissioners can perhaps more measurably assess the potential view impact, the answer to view protection is that property owners are not entitled to having their current view completely preserved without possibility of any encroaching into. it in the future. Further viewshed analysis will bring to bear what exactly the amount of the current vista would be obstructed to help the Commission determine whether the proposed addition is conforming with the intent of those guidelines and how they describe "view protection" and retention of certain viewsheds. C/Farago asked about the measurement from the view is within the dwelling itself through a window, in the rear yard or something else. CDD/Gubman responded that the code does not get to that granular level of detail and staff would need to review the design guidelines as the Commission continues to evaluate this question, but it does not say from "ground level" certain considerations should be taken into account, or that if the upper story views are unaffected, then everything is good, as an example. There is no sort of distinction as such. The code is more qualitatively providing the Commission with guidance to assess the impact. C/Farago said his reason for asking this question is, depending on where one is on the property whether one has put together of what the future state would be the impact could be minimized or maximized. He is think * ing aloud that if the Commission does so it has to settle on what point they are to determine what the actual impact would be. Otherwise, one could take any perspective from any of the properties and say move one foot in one direction and totally wipe out a view and move one foot in -another direction and the view is still there. As long as there is clarification on assessing it from a particular point from neighboring properties, he is not certain how beneficial such an exercise would be. SP/Lee pointed out a section in the Residential Guidelines that states that although views should be preserved as much as possible, there, are certain "ceremonial' rooms that provide, a ' little bit more importance and those would be "living, dining, kitchen and deck" as opposed to secondary rooms. C/Farago said he did not see that any of the landscaping was being removed and SP/Lee said that C/Farago was correct. The proposed addition is not within the limits of the existing natural vegetation along the slope. C/Farago asked about PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION the large tree on the north side property line within the front yard and SP/Lee said yes, it is a Pepper tree. CNVolfe said there is an oak tree behind the pool that is being removed and AP/Espinoza responded that CANolfe was correct. there is an oak tree on the slope that is being removed. VC/Mahlke asked if that was the tree Mrs. Smith talked about and AP/Espinoza said yes, it is on the site plan. SP/Loe explained that the oak tree is not considered a "protected" tree because the lot does not exceed a half acre in size. C/Nishimura asked to see the picture with the view from Mr. Heath's property at 522 Topside Place. He noted that the tree on Mrs. Smith's property that is in the middle of the proposed view restriction is a lot smaller in the photo than it normally is. This tree has been pruned back significantly and when it is in full bloom the tree canopy is a lot bigger and not as thin so there will be a. lot more view obstructed. There was talk about the scale and size of the proposed project. He believes that there are more than a few other houses on this cul-de-sac that have been improved and expanded so this is not the only house that is being added on to. The Minor Conditional Use Permit shows that this is a non -conforming piece of land in that it shows an 11 foot setback between the two. buildings which he believes to be in error and asked AP/Espinoza to explain where' the 11 feet comes from. AP/Espinoza stated that this afternoon she contacted the. property owner who spoke to the designer to ask him to verify the 11 feet between the. subject property and the property to the south and he said that the angle from which he took the measurement it was 11 feet and staff based that figure off of the plans that were submitted to the Planning Department. She further responded to C/Nishimura that the measurement she took was 15 feet but h . er measurement was not taken from corner to corner. VC/Mahlke asked staff to address the "privacy" issue. The plan calls for.frosted glass but she is not sure that the plan ensures privacy for the neighbors.* AP/Espinoza stated that based on the design guidelines there is a privacy section which includes that the second story windows facing close neigh ' boring properties are minimized to provide privacy. In this case, on the south side elevation the proposed second story window is a be . droom window and staff spoke with the property owner to let him know that there could be potential privacy *concerns. Because the property owner wanted light coming into his bedroom he opted for the frosted glass to help with the privacy issue. In addition, because of the balcony, staff recommended tall trees to be placed along the property lines to help screen for privacy issues and the applicant decided he wanted bamboo which will be maintained 'to 18 feet to address the privacy issues. AP/Espinoza said she understood the neighbor's concern about bamboo but this is a bamboo that is called "clumping bamboo" which is not as invasive as other bamboos. JANUARY 26, 2016 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION DI a SP/Lee referred the Commissioners to the site plan which proposes a number of trees along the north and south property lines to help minimize views into neighboring rear yards for possible privacy concerns. C/Wolfe said if those trees are not planted and maintained over time, what is the remedy? SP/Lee responded that the city can require the property owner to maintain them and a condition can be added that they maintain the height and number of trees along both sides of the property line. C/Wolfe moved to continue Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-98 to allow for the development of renderings depicting the loss of a view shed, in particular for the 552 Topside property. C/Farago asked how long it would take to put renderings together and bring it back to the Commission and how would the timing impact the development? SP/Lee said that staff would not want to continue to a date certain and would want to check with the applicant to see when he might be able to provide the requested information and re -notice the project to notify the neighbors. VC/Mahike seconded C/Wolfe's motion to continue the item. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Farago, Nishimura, Wolfe, VC/Mahlke NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None VC/Mahlke thanked everyone for their participation. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Mahlke welcomed AP/Nakajima and said the Commissioners looked forward to working with her. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.. CDD/Gubman reported that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for February 9 with one item on the agenda; a Conditional Use Permit request foe an educational use called "Nobel University", a post baccalaureate school located in the two-story office building at the corner of Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Roads. JANUARY 26, 2016 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further 5ujiness before the Planning commission, VC/Mahlke adjourned the regular meeting at 7P.M. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 9th day of February, 2016. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director een if eri4al k�e,VVii Vice �.