Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/2016 PC MinutesMINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION April 26, 2016 Chair/Mahlke 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: 1. ROLL CALL: C/Mok led the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Commissioners Naila Barlas, Ken Mok, Vice Chair Raymond Wolfe and Chair/Jennifer Mahlke Absent: Commissioner Frank Farago Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; James Eggart, Assistant City Attorney; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie T. Espinoza, Assistant Planner; Mayuko (May) Nakjima, Associate Planner; Josue Espino, Contract 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 March 8, 2016 VC/Wolfe moved, C/Mok seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 8, 2016, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES NOES: ABSENT 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None Barlas, Mok, VC/Wolfe, Chair/Mahlke None Farago APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 7.1 Development Review No. PL2015-395 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48, the property owner and applicant requested Development Review to construct a new 5,358 square foot, two-story single family residence with an attached 700 square foot, 3 -car garage and 780 square feet of porch/loggia/balcony area on a 52,708 gross square foot (1.21 gross acre) lot. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR). PROJECT ADDRESS 24074 Falcons View Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ming Zhang 7930 Vandewater Street Eastvale, CA 92880 APPLICANT: Michael Hsiao 2063 S. Atlantic Boulevard #2D Monterey Park, CA 91754 CP/Espino presented staff's report, responded to neighboring residents' concerns during the presentation and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL2015-395, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. C/Mok commented if he understood correctly that the landscape for the north side of the property called for 18 dwarf strawberry trees that grow to a height of 8 to 12 feet. CP/Espino said that C/Mok was correct. The species is a compacta species and is an evergreen tree that will grow to a height at maturity between 8 and 12 feet. C/Mok asked if that 18 trees would afford the neighbors a bit of privacy and CP/Espino said C/Mok's assumption was correct. In addition, there was sensitivity to the root growth which is another reason this particular species was selected, not only to have a hedge from the view between neighbors but also not to encroach into the neighbor's property through root growth. There was also concern about view into the project property from the neighbor's pool area which slopes down significantly from the northerly neighbor's side. Chair/Mahlke opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Mahlke closed the public hearing. APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman responded to VC/Wolfe's question during staff's report about the frontage of the property. Staff does not know how that lot layout carne to be. It is almost like a spite strip the way it is configured. The good question that was raised was that segment of the neighbor's property that is in front of the subject property is not landscaped or maintained and it is likely because the shape of the lot would be unexpected and assumed to be part of the subject property. When this property is developed and the subject property is landscaped only within its property lines, that particular area will stand out. Staff expects that the Homeowners Association will then notice that there is something amiss and ultimately resolve the issue. Had the applicant been given permission to construct a circular drive it would have afforded the opportunity to landscape the area in question it as part of the project property. However, obviously it is a matter that will be deferred when it comes into view. Theresa, Board of Director, The Country Estates said her concern was that because she did not have the real visual of the plan and based on the schematic she wondered if it had a proper frontage of 100 feet, which is a design requirement for the HOA. Chair/Mahlke responded that the plans presented to the Commission for consideration this evening had the stamped approval from The Country Estates Architectural Committee. Typically, the Commission does not see a project unless it has the committee's approval. CP/Espino stated that the project frontage is approximately 149 feet. VC/Wolfe moved, Chair/Mahlke seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL2015-395, 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, Mok, VC/Wolfe, Chair/Mahlke NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farago 7.2 Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2015-550 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48 and 22.38, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new 5,535 square -foot single-family residence with a 686 square foot garage on a 56,628 gross square foot (1.3 gross acre) lot. A Tree Permit is also requested to develop within the protected zone of one (1) protected coast live oak tree which is proposed to be preserved on the site. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR). I W00101 a vill I fi 9 UNINT1 R "I PLANNING COMMISSION 2532 Indian Creek Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Christine Sun 2536 Blaze Trail Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Kai Chan 730 Adelyn Drive San Gabriel, CA 91775 AP/Nakjima presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PI -2015-550, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. C/Mok asked if the City or the homeowner is responsible for the display board in front of the property and AP/Nakjima responded that the applicant is responsible to post it within the proper timeframe. C/Mok said he noticed this afternoon that the display board is face down hanging from the fence. AP/Nakjima thanked C/Mok and said staff would advise the applicant. Chair/Mahlke opened the public hearing. Kai Chan, applicant and architect said that AP/Nakjima explained the project very clearly and that he was present to answer Commission questions. Chair/Mahlke felt the Arborists report was very well done. According to the report it is tree #92 that may potentially be impacted with "no greater than 14 feet." Who is in charge of making sure that happens once the project is under construction? AP/Nakjima responded that this project has a condition of approval and staff monitors the project to make sure those conditions are met during plan check. Prior to issuing permits, staff and the arborist will be onsite to make sure these conditions are met. Chair/Mahlke closed the public hearing. C/Mok moved, C/Barlas seconded, to approve Development Review No. PI -2015-550, 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: APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Mok, VC/Wolfe, Chair/Mahlke NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farago 7.3 Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-47 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.56, the applicant and property owner requested Development Review approval to construct a 1,490 square foot single story addition to an existing 1,720 square foot, one-story single-family residence with an attached 420 square -foot garage on a 9,210 gross square foot lot 0.21 gross acres. 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 six feet to the west (where 10 feet is required) and a nonconforming distance of 13' 9" to the structure on the adjacent property to the east (where 15 feet is required). The subject property is zoned Low Density Residential (RL) with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Low Medium Density Residential. APPLICANT: 1222 Calbourne Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Connie Sun 4528 Pistache Lane Rosemead, CA 91776 Twen Ma 1955 Mount Olive Drive Bradbury, CA 91008 AP/Espinoza presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015- 47, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed with the resolution. Chair/Mahlke opened the public hearing. Twen Ma, applicant architect, explained that the first version of this project was a two-story addition. Within a 500 foot radius 56 percent of the buildings are two- story. However, because all of the surrounding homes are one-story they drastically redesigned the house, reduced the size to a single story and maintain the same style and elements. One enhancement was to replace the asphalt shingles with concrete shake roof tile which is appropriate to this ranch style home. The addition will allow for better support of the four family members. APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSIO? Mr. Ma said he concurred with staff's report and were in agreement and would comply with all conditions and recommendations. VC/Wolfe said he was very impressed with how the improvements would fit on the property and still retain the side offsets. It appears to be a floor plan that will flow very well with 39.96 percent lot coverage. Mr. Ma did a great job in designing this project. C/Mok echoed VCANolfe's comments and added that he was sure the community and neighbors appreciated the applicant's flexibility in moving from the two-story plan to the single -story plan. Terry Fulner lives in the house to the north of the project and said he appreciates the applicant going from two -stories to one-story. From his perspective that is a big help. However, most of his back yard is against the neighbor's back yard and the new design shows a 10 -foot side yard between his property and the addition. He would prefer not to see RV's parked there and wanted to know if there would be landscaping or something else on the left side of the addition. AP/Espinoza responded that there is currently a concrete block wall with a gate and some landscaping in the area. She deferred to the architect and property owner. Mr. Ma responded that the design includes keeping the masonry block wall in place. Behind the wall it will be landscaped and the owner will most likely store their trash cans behind the gate. Chair/Mahlke closed the public hearing. VC/Wolfe moved, C/Mok seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. PL2015-47, 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, Mok, VC/Wolfe, Chair/Mahlke NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farago Chair/Mahlke said it was a beautiful design, echoed previous comments and told Mr. Ma she appreciated his sensitivity to the neighbors. 7.4 Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2015-03 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.38 the property owner and applicant requested Development Review to construct a new 10,853 square foot, multi -story single family residence with an attached 2,265 square foot garage on a 92,791 square foot (2.13 gross acre) lot. A Tree Permit was also requested to APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION remove three protected black walnut and 12 coast live oak trees and mitigate as required per Code: The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR). PROPERTY OWNER 22431 Ridgeline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Visanu and Radhika Chawla 22909 Lazy Trail Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Amat Tajudin EBTA Architects 17871 Mitchell North #150 Irvine, CA 92614 AP/Espinoza presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Tree Permit No. PL2015-03, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Mahlke opened the public hearing. Amat Tajudin, EBTA Architects, thanked staff for their collaboration through this arduous process. He is available to answer questions. Chair/Mahlke asked for clarification for the new Commissioners that money for the replacement trees is set aside in a special account during the plan process. AP/Espinoza explained that the Code allows for the trees to be planted onsite at a 3:1 ratio, or the applicant can pay the in lieu fees to the City's Parks and Facilities Development Fund so that trees can be planted on public property. C/Mok asked what the fees were per tree and AP/Espinoza explained that the fee per tree is based on information that the Community Services Director and the City's consultants determine for the cost of the tree and installation. The ,fee depends on what types of trees are available at that point in time, how big they are and how much they would cost from the nursery. Chair/Mahlke asked if once the money is put into the fund it is classified in a certain way or use and CDD/Gubman responded that the monies are not expressly earmarked for tree planting; however, as an ongoing process of planting vegetation and enhancing public spaces the offset is implied. The fund APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION is being infused with these monies and one can make a reasonable connection to the planting of trees along with other Community Services improvements. Cynthia Smith said she lives about a mile and one-half from the property and enjoys a very similar habitat on her property. Recently, something came to her attention that greatly concerns her. On a near acre oak woodland property, she has sighted protected and endangered birds including the California Gnatcatcher and Inyo California towhee which is on the list of endangered birds. It is nesting season and a migratory bird permit is needed. The trees that are being removed from the site are not separate trees, they are part of an oak woodland habitat. The entire oak woodland habitat that Diamond Bar is built upon is fragmented and hard to recognize. She displayed maps of the area and said that these are "contiguous habitats" where these trees depend on each other and are different from separate trees. Therefore, the entire living system of these trees is damaged when a parent tree is removed and since so many live oaks are being removed here with really no individual concern about the habitat she is very disturbed because she believes it continues to degrade the "wild" and living conditions in Diamond Bar. There is a mistake in the plan report which says that "the proposed tree permit states 8" diameter" and the actual PRC Code says 5 inches. Another consideration is the categorical exemption 15303 which does not apply when a project's in a sensitive environmental area and it impacts an environmental resource is a hazardous or critical concern - Code 15300.2c in the exemptions. This entire area is a "sensitive environmental region." In fact, it is part of the "wildlife corridor" and the various oak woodlands serpentine through Diamond Bar. These oak trees are called "communities". She suggested that the Council (Commission) consider the damaging of this habitat for the wildlife as well as, the continued degradation of oak woodlands in Diamond Bar. Mr. Tajudin responded to the speaker's comments as follows. The site is densely populated and this project speaks to less than 15 percent of the site and includes trees at the street where the only buildable pad is located. The slope exceeds 2:1 for most of the site and the pad had to be created in the buildable area. The majority of the site will be retained and the owner would be happy to plant the trees back on site. AP/Espinoza displayed a map of the site and pointed out the location of the building pad. VC/Wolfe said he is not an Arborist; however, an Arborist's report has been provided to the Commission which he believes makes it incumbent upon the Commission to take the information provided by the Arborist. The applicant is correct in the fact that they are disturbing only a very small portion that actually abuts to a street as well as two already developed properties on either side. Therefore, he will accept the word of the Arborist in this conversation. He asked if there was a further requirement that needed to be met when endangered species were found to reside on the property. APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman stated that there was no evidence presented to staff that there are endangered species present. This is an infill lot which is located along a street frontage. It is an urbanized area that is surrounded by development. What the Commission heard was the opinion of an individual about a mile and a half away from this property and no evidence was presented to support the comments made and the project is in conformance with the requirements set forth in the Code for removal of protected trees. The Code expressly identifies coast live oaks as protected trees and sets forth the mitigation requirements when a protected tree is impacted by development. More generally, development and urbanization of an area is going to involve the tradeoff of habitat value of the natural ecology and the process that is set forth through the Development Review procedures and the requirements for addressing situations involving protected trees is defined in those procedures which have been followed. Based on that and a lack of any evidence that there is habitat, staff has no basis to change its recommendation. VCANolfe said the Commission heard about a potential discrepancy between the size of the trunk diameter and whether it is 8" as recommended by the Arborist or whether it is supposed to be something less such as 5" as stated by the speaker. CDD/Gubman said what he heard was that the Public Resources Code was referenced within the context of the 5" caliper so if there is a reference to some other criteria that establishes an impact to a protected tree, that is not the Diamond Bar codified standard. Any oak tree that has an 8" caliper is considered a "protected" tree. Regardless, the mitigation is based on what the code sets forth and the Arborist's report provided the survey to provide the documentation that led to the mitigation ratios. VC/Wolfe congratulated the applicant. He felt it would be a gorgeous house and appreciated the applicant working with staff to get through the number of issues described. C/Barlas said she visited the site and considering the size of the lot, there will be a lot of trees left. It is a beautiful home and a beautiful design. Chair/Mahlke closed the public hearing. VC/Wolfe moved, C/Barlas seconded, to approve Development Review and Tree Permit No. PI -2015-03, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Barlas, Mok, VC/Wolfe, Chair/Mahlke NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Farago 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/IN FORMATIONAL ITEMS: None 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Development Review No. PL2015-201 — Notification of minor modification to previously approved project. AP/Nakjima stated that the owner would like to add square footage and balcony areas within the existing footprint and this memorandum is provided to the Commission to show that the project is still in substantial conformance with the Planning Commission's approved plans. With this item, staff is inviting feedback and concerns Commissioners might have. AP/Nakjima responded to Chair/Mahlke that this project was approved by the Planning Commission in the summer of 2015. CDD/Gubman stated that for the sake of transparency he is notifying the Commission that he has made an administrative decision to approve this modification. The applicant is essentially infilling a horseshoe in the building footprint in the back of the house. It does not appear to have any effect on the design that is visible from any public vantage points. 9.2 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that the next regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting date is May 10 for which there is no business pending so the meeting will be canceled, which means that the next Planning Commission will be on May 24, 2016. At that time, there are at least three projects slated for the agenda. Two of the projects are very close to projects in The Country that the Planning Commission reviewed this evening on Falcons View and Indian Creek directly next door or across the street. Also, there is a single-family residential addition on Morning Canyon and staff will bring its annual report on the Capital Improvement Program for upcoming Fiscal Year 2016-17. State law requires that the Planning Commission make a Finding of General Plan Consistency, finding that the Capital Improvement Program is consistent with the City's General Plan. PWD/Liu will be present that evening to address any questions the Commission may have on projects that are listed as part of the CIP bundle. APRIL 26, 2016 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman further stated that staff has gone through the RFP, interview and vetting process for a General Plan update consultant and plan to present its recommendation for a consultant to execute a consulting services agreement to the City Council at its May 17 meeting. Additional details on the selected consultant, budget, scope of work, etc. will be provided in staff's report to the City Council. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. Chair/Mahlke noted Arbor Day and Memorial Day. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Mahlke adjourned the regular meeting at 8:13 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 24th day of May, 2016. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director J AnifeM IChairpersone`' '' "...... ... .. . . .... ..