Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/08/2016 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 8, 2016 CDD/Gubman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: CDD/Gubman led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS — Administered by Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Naila Barlas, Frank Farago, Jennifer "Fred" Mahlke, Ken Mok, and Raymond Wolfe Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Assistant Planner; Josue Espino, Contract Planner; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 3. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: Selection of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson. CDD/Gubman asked for nominations for Chairperson. CANolfe nominated C/Mahlke to serve as Chairperson of the Planning Commission. C/Farago seconded the nomination. With no other nominations offered, C/Mahlke was unanimously elected to serve as Chairperson of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: C/Wolfe Yes C/Farago Yes C/Barlas Yes C/Mahlke Yes C/Mok Yes MARCH 8, 2016 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Mahlke asked for nominations for Vice Chairman. Chair/Mahlke nominated C/Wolfe to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. C/Mok seconded the nomination. With no other nominations offered, C/Wolfe was unanimously elected to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission by the following Roll Call vote: Chair/Mahlke Yes C/Mok Yes C/Barlas Yes C/Farago Yes C/Wolfe Yes 4. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 23, 2016. VC/Wolfe moved, Chair/Mahlke seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 23, 2016 as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: 7. OLD BUSINESS: 8. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 1WZ REM Farago, VC/Wolfe, Chair/Mahlke None Barlas, Mok Chair/Mahlke asked C/Barlas and C/Mok to verify that they had listened to the October 13, 2015, Regular Meeting recording on Item 9.1 and were prepared to participate in the discussion of Item 9.1. C/Barlas and C/Mok confirmed their participation. Tdffll�� PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 9.1 Dev !10 ament Review No. PL",,', V ')A) - Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a two-story addition consisting of 2,091 square feet of floor area to an existing 1,904 square foot, one-staryldasssinge family 9square foot, three -car gage on a 0.7 gross acre (11730 grosquare foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow a second story addition to an existing nonconforming structure with a 16' 11" rear setback (where 20 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. (Continued from October 13, 2015) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1606 Ano Nuevo Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Beatriz Flores APPLICANT: Diamond Bar, CA 91765 CP/Espino presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-242, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the. conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Chair/Mahlke opened the public hearing. Katie Flores, AMK Studio, 2152 Dupont Drive, Suite 240, Irvine, CA 92612, stated her firm prepared the project design. As CP/Espino mentioned, the mass was significantly reduced from the previous presentation heard by the Commission on October 13, 2015, in response to concerns voiced by C/Farago and VC/Wolfe. The cul-de-sac lot allowed for flexibility to push the home to the back of the lot. The second floor was pushed back over the garage 9'4" from the face of the garage, 13 feet from the left side and 11 feet from the right side of the existing first floor. The design was pushed tight as possible within the scope of the property owner's requests. While the average size of homes in the neighborhood is likely smaller than the proposed project, there is a larger home in the neighborhood on p Court (4300 square feet) as well as a number of homes in the 3000 sqare foot range in the vicinity of the project. She reiterated that every attempt was made to be sensitive to the commission's concerns and this project is MARCH 8, 2016 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION at the end of a cul-de-sac and is most likely comparable to some of the larger homes closer to the park that capitalize on views. Noted in the Design Guidelines (Page 32) was that lot size, unit size and unit price in Diamond Bar generally increase with the degree of slope. Since there are million dollar homes in this neighborhood, the design team attempted to capitalize on the desirable nature of this view lot and maximize views wherever possible, while still being sensitive to the neighboring homes. After the previous meeting, she reached out to the residents who spoke, none of whom were willing to meet at the time of the redesign process. Also, none of the speakers who complained about previous illegal activities had any complaints about her client, the current resident. Mrs. Flores would like to remain in her home and by completing this expansion she and her family will be able to do so for many years to come. They have no plans to rent out this property. She reached out to previous Commissioner Nishimura who was most vocal about the proposal and presented the redesign to him. He said he was very appreciative and liked what he saw. Chair/Mahlke closed the public hearing. VCNVolfe felt that there had been a significant change, particularly in the scale of the addition from the street which he appreciates. He said it was a very nice redesign. Chair/Mahlke recalled that the neighbors really liked the homeowners and their only objection was about the scale of the house. VCNVolfe moved, Chair/Mahlke seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-242, 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: Barlas, Farago, Mok, VCNVolfe, Chair/Mahlke NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None MARCH 8, 2016 PAGE'5 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 10.1 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015- 498 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48, 22.56 and 22.68, the applicant/property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a 1,425 square foot single -story addition to an existing 1,288 square foot, one-story single family residence with an attached 348 square foot garage on a 0.18 gross acre (7,820 gross square foot) lot. A Minor Conditional Use Permit was requested to allow an addition over 50 percent of the existing square footage to an existing nonconforming structure with a side setback of 8' 2" to the west (where 10 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: 21618 Lost River Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Wei Chan Hwang and Jennifer Nguyen APPLICANT 21618 Lost River Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AP/Espinoza presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-498, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Chair/Mahlke opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Mahlke closed the public hearing. C/Farago moved, VC/Wolfe seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2015-101, 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: Barlas, Farago, Mok, VC/Wolfe, Chair/Mahlke NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None MARCH 8, 2016 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 10.2 Development Review No. PL2015-101 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the property owner and applicant requested Development Review approval to 'construct a new 6,269 square foot, multi-level, single family residencd with an attached 819 square foot, 3 -car garage on a 50,094 gross square foot (1.15 gross acre) lot. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR). PROPERTY ADDRESS' 2651 Braided Mane Drive DiamQnd Bar, CA 91765 . i PROPERTY OWNER: Harry, Ou 13768 Rosewall Avenue I Chino, CA 91710 APPLICANT: Jay S. Crawford 470 Wald Irvine, CA 92618 CP/Espino presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development � eview No. PL2015-101, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to. the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Chair/Mahlke opened the public hearing. Jay Crawford, Architect, thanked CP/'spino for his thorough report. The reason the building is at an angle rath6r than parallel to the street is that often this is good planning to break up the streetscape, however, in this case, it was more utilitarian because the contours are at about a 30 degree angle from the street so if the house weTe parallel to the street, the side that is on the uphill side would be hanging�-way out over where the other side might be at floor level and it would exaggerate the amount of retaining walls that would be required on the side. So the contours were paralleled to minimize the amount of retaining walls., C/Mok said he visited the site this afterhoon and was pleased the applicant mentioned the reason for designing the house at an angle. Did the owner request that design based on the view from the back of the house? He noticed that if the structure were to be placed as most homes are configured the back view would be facing the slopes on the other side of the hill. The MARCH 8, 2016 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION view at an angle is much nicer because it looks out over the valley with homes to the right and the left. Mr. Crawford said that the owner really did not have any input on the placement. Mr. Crawford suggested it be turned for the view and the contour. On a clear day one can see the ocean and there is no direct view of the neighbors across the street. In addition, there is additional privacy afforded in that people are not looking directly in. The main reason was the City's requirement for a 25 -foot pad behind the rear of the house which, if the building was squared up with the street, there would be a lot of retaining walls. Frankly, even without the 25 -foot pad requirement he probably would have turned it just for the views. Chair/Mahlke closed the public hearing. C/Farago moved, C/Mok seconded, to approve Development Review No. PI -2015-101, 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 NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS Barlas, Farago, Mok, VC/Wolfe, Chair/Mahlke None None 11. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Mok thanked the Commission for their warm welcome. He asked that the Commissioners and staff bear with him and be patient as he learns. Traffic and Transportation is similar but this commission will be a challenge for him. C/Farago welcomed new commissioners and said he looked forward to everyone working together. VC/Wolfe welcomed C/Barlas and C/Mok. He reminded staff that he would not be present for the April 12 meeting. C/Barlas thanked everyone for their warm welcome and said she looked forward to working with everyone. She has been a resident for many years and is a Real Estate Broker and Mortgage Broker. Please bear with her during this learning curve. MARCH 8, 2016 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Mahlke welcomed both new Commissioners and said they both did very well tonight. She worked briefly with C/Mok on the Traffic and. Transportation Commission and invited both to feel free to ask questions. Even if it is in the middle of deliberation staff is ridiculously helpful and knowledgeable. 12. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 12.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman congratulated Chair/Mahlke on her appointment and VC/Wolfe on his appointment. He welcomed incoming Commissioners Ken Mok and Naila Barlas. He thanked Chair/Mahlke for talking staff up about their knowledge; however, he apologized to confessing to having given the Commission some incorrect information. The Commissioners that were not at a prior meeting are actually eligible to vote on the minutes of that meeting. CDD/Gubman stated that the project plans by Jay Crawford were drafted by hand and not done on a CAD which is pretty old school and very impressive. CDD/Gubman said that the regularly scheduled March 22 meeting was canceled because three members of the City Council will be in Washington DC next week and voted to hold its March 15 meeting on March 22. As a result, the Planning Commission will go dark until April 12. The City Clerk asked if the Planning Commission could schedule the AB 1234 training on Tuesday, April 12. He said he would follow up with the Commissioners on that but at this point he believes there is business scheduled for the April 12 meeting and another date will have to be determined. CDD/Gubman pointed out that the Arbor Day event at Pantera Elementary School is actually Friday, April 29 instead of April 24 as indicated on the Calendar of Events. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. MARCH 8, 2016 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Mahlke adjourned the regular meeting at 7:50 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 26th day of April, 2016. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director e nife a I e, Chairperson