Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/23/2016 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 23, 2016 Acting Chair/Wolfe called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Farrago led the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Commissioners Naila Barlas, Frank Farago, Ken Mok and Vice Chairperson Raymond Wolfe Absent: Chairperson Jennifer Mahlke was excused. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Mayuko Nakajima, Associate Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. . 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: Cindy Smith asked what the designation of Low Medium Residential (RLM) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL) means. She believes that in accordance with the current General Plan (1995) it means that the neighborhood or residence is currently at the RL zoning but that a project such as the one being considered this evening would change the zoning to RLM. CDD/Gubman responded to the speaker that the General Plan has a land use map that is a broad depiction of where various land uses will be arranged. There are residential land use designations and within the residential land use designations there are the RL/RR and other sub -designations that would specify the density ranges. The Zoning provides more specific development standards within those General Plan categories. In the case of tonight's public hearing the General Plan designation is RL and the Zoning is RLM which means that in this situation the Zoning designation is not consistent with the underlying General Plan designation but the subdivision is developed and the density is what it is and it will not change. So the Zoning is what is looked at to determine what this specific development's standards would be, such as what the setback is, how far from property lines the structure can be, what percentage of the lot can be covered within that Zoning District, which will establish the development parameters for construction or modifications to existing developments. As Ms. Smith pointed out, the General Plan designation is inconsistent with the zoning which occasionally happens. Fortunately, the City is in the process of doing a General Plan Update which will tune- up these inconsistencies. In the meantime, for the purpose of looking at existing development within an existing subdivision the Commission is focused on the Zoning Development Standards. 93 H PAGE 2 Ms. Smith said it sounds like what is happening in neighborhoods such as the one she lives in were zoned RL and over the years there have been many projects occurring in the neighborhood and as these projects continue it increases the density of the neighborhood and after a time, the City is out of consistency with the General Plan. Will the General Plan be updated to match the incremental density the City has been adding all of these years? AC/\/VoIfe said that for the most part the City is already built out and the density is what it is. In some communities such as "The Country Estates" for example, there were zoning requirements for what the land use was going to be and what Ms. Smith is experiencing is parcels being built on that that had not previously been built on. Ms. Smith said it would be better to call it a "densification" — a fattening of all of the existing houses and that is what she is seeing in different neighborhoods. She has looked at the zoning map and she has noticed in her property that it is RL but now it has an RLM designation. Her concern is how to intervene and stop "mansion ization" because she believes good planning is supposed to be a proper engagement of that question and guidance of that project to something consistent with the General Plan. CDD/Gubman clarified that density as it is defined within the lexicon of planning terminology is the number of dwelling units per acre. Adding onto a house, tearing down and rebuilding a house does not change the density. If an applicant proposed to subdivide land, in that situation there would be a potential conflict between the zoning and the General Plan and either the Zoning would have to be amended to conform to the General Plan designation or vice versa. But it should not be misunderstood that anybody adding onto an existing house is increasing the density because that is not the case. As presented C/Farago moved, C/Barlas seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 26, 2016, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS COMMISSIONERS 5. OLD BUSINESS: None Barlas, Farago, VC/Wolfe, None Mok Chair/Mahlke AUGUST 23, 2016 PAGE 3 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2016-76 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicants requested Development Review approval to construct an 894 square -foot second story addition to an existing 2,316 square foot, one-story, single-family residence on a 0.27 (11,900 gross square foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a second story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with an existing west side setback of 9 feet 2 inches (9' 2") where 10 feet is required. The subject property is zoned Low Medium Residential (RLM)-with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential (RL). PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 1456 Indian Well Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ayubur and Dil R. Rahman 1456 Indian Well Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AP/Nakajima presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2016- 76, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. AC/Wolfe opened the public hearing. Mr. Rahman, property owner and applicant, stated that he and his family have been living in Diamond Bar for the past 20 years and based upon their knowledge of the community and the City and his knowledge and experience as a Civil Structural Engineer teaching at Cal Poly and USC for many years he and his wife developed this plan. Over the past couple of months they have worked with the Planning staff and especially AP/Nakajima in an effort to meet the City's requirements and they very much appreciate the help and cooperation from staff. Throughout this process several changes have been made. However, they forgot to include one item which was a window in the bathroom and asked for consideration of a standard horizontal small glazed window toward the ceiling. AC/Wolfe asked the applicant to come to the screen to show the location of the proposed window on the plan. PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Mok pointed out that Exhibit A3 calls out the new bathroom window (Item 5). The applicant said he inadvertently left it off of the plan drawing. Mr. Rahman further stated that in the package he received in the mail there is one Condition of Approval that requests him to sign an agreement with the City indicating that none of the rooms in the house will be rented out which they would never do and which is clearly stated in the Conditions of Approval. However, this home is in a residential area and zoned as Single -Family Residential and the zoning prohibits all citizens living in that area from renting any portion of the house. In addition, there are several houses in his community which have the similar development. He requested the City to remove that Condition of Approval but if other residents have signed the same kind of agreement, they will do so as well because there is no issue. As far as he knows, there is no kind of regulation or rule that requires this kind of agreement for this type of development. And they were wondering why the City would be imposing this kind of condition on them. AC/Wolfe asked Mr. Rahman if it helped him to know that when he added on to his house eight or nine years ago, he too had to sign that very same agreement. Mr. Rahman said, oh, perfect. C/Barlas also added that she too had to sign such an agreement regarding her property. Mr. Rahman said they are so happy that they are not being singled out. He agreed to the Condition saying it was so easy for them to sign the agreement. He again said he appreciated all of the help they had received from the City. AC/\Nolfe thanked the Rahman's for being long-time residents of the City. ACANolfe asked staff if the Minor Conditional Use Permit was addressed in 2010 when there was an addition to this house. AP/ Nakajima pointed out that the 2010 MCUP was limited to the ground floor and there is an exception in the Code that states that whenever there is an addition limited to the ground floor and it continues the same building line they do not need a new MCUP. However, in this case, they are building up. VCANolfe closed the public hearing. VC/Wolfe moved, C/Mok seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2016-76, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution with the requested change to add a frosted window on the second floor in the bathroom. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: Barlas, Farago, VC/Wolfe, Mok None Chair/Mahlke COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: AUGUST 23, 2016 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Mok said that during the joint City Council and Planning Commission General Plan Kickoff meeting, he was extremely impressed by the professionalism of everyone on the General Plan Update committee and he looks forward to working with the City Council and staff in pursuing this three year project. AC/Wolfe offered that he too was impressed with the consultant team and that he was also looking forward to working with the City Council and staff on the three year General Plan Update. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman noted that at this time there was one item scheduled for the September 13 Planning Commission agenda, which was the Massage Ordinance requiring massage businesses to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, AC/Wolfe adjourned the regular meeting at 7:30 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 13th day of September, 2016. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Raymo Wolfe, Acting Chairperson