Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/26/1995MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 26, 1995 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Huff called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Fong. Present: Commissioners: Vice Chairman Huff, Commissioners Meyer, Schad and Fong. Absent: Chairman Flamenbaum Also Present: Community Development Director James p -R DeStefano; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Recording fSecretary Carol Dennis. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of June 12, 1995. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to approve the minutes as presented. The motion was approved 4-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong, VC/Huff NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS: 1. Replacement of City Entry Signs. I. CDD/DeStefano stated in accordance with Section 112B of the Sign Code, official city monument signs located at City limits shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for an advisory architectural review prior to installation. City staff requests Planning Commission review of proposals for I June 26, 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission i installation of City entrance signs at the western City limi s along Golden Springs at Calbourne and a replacement sign to be located along Grand Avenue at the SR 60. As directed by the City Council, the staff has prepared several entry sign design options. A subcommittee of the City Council has reviewed the proposals and recommends the installation of new City entrance signs at the two locations referenced and the replacement of the existing signs located at other major City entrance points. Five conceptual drawings were rendered for the City's entrance signs by a City engaged architect. In addition, the City has the option of retaining the existing design or creating an identification sign similar to the City park's identification signs reviewed by the Planning Commission in May, 1995. The City Council's subcommittee recommends sample No. 1 as the new, entrance sign. Staff recommends the installation of concept No. 1. The intent is to mount the existing entry signs diamond on a three foot rock base. The sign height would be approximately 10 to 11 feet. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the entry signage alternatives outlined within the attached report and provide the City Council with comments and recommendations on a preferred entry sign design. C/Schad stated he prefers design No. 5. He is concerned that design No. 1 might be subject to vandalism. He further stated the current diamond is a mass of rust. C/Fong indicated he prefers the banner type sign (sample No. 4). C/Meyer stated he is disappointed that the Planning Commission's role relative to the review of signs to be used for public purposes is limited to review and comment. In other cases with respect to the sign ordinance, the Planning Commission reviews, analyses, makes recommendations and concludes with a decision. He further stated the biggest disappointment is that the City, rather than leading by example, chose to violate its sign ordinance by erecting the current signs. The City has established regulations for everyone to follow except.the City. In his opinion, the City should hold itself to scrutiny with respect to the ordinances it adopts. He indicated there are a number of communities throughout California that use precast concrete signs that he believes are exemplary. He would like to see this type of sign utilized'for identifications signs for Diamond Bar. He referred the Commission to the City of Pomona signs as an example. He suggested that the Planning Commission table the item, direct staff to bring back a modification of the sign ordinance to give the Planning Commission the same authority Il June 26, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission rt _ - �1`j _„. to consider public signs as it has to consider privately owned signs, and that the signs be erected in compliance with the City's regulations. VC/Huff stated he likes the concept of a banner sign although he is disappointed with the balance of the sign. The problem with the banners is the height and restricted view. In response to VC/Huff, CDD/DeStefano indicated the current signs are approximately 20 feet high. With the exception of the park sign, the concept samples would exceed the height of the current sign ordinance. The Planning Commission could forward a recommendation to the City Council for an alternative sign and that the sign be reduced in height to conform with the sign code. VC/Huff commented that it is curious that the City has exempted itself from the process and height on its signage. He indicated he is in favor of having the Planning Commission make the final determination. Responding to VC/Huff, C/Meyer stated many communities' invoke the same criteria for public and private sectors. All Planning Commission decisions can be appealed to the City Council. In addition, the City Council can bring the item up for appeal. VC/Huff stated he would support the concept to.abide by the rules of the community. A smaller sign would be preferable due to cost and potential vehicle damage. He stated he would like to see designs that are more to the scale of 'the sign ordinance. If the City Council ignores the Planning Commission request, he recommends concept sample No. 1. As an alternate, he prefers concept sample No. 4. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to table the item. C/Fong stated his concern that a median monument sign is a potential traffic hazard. The motion was approved 4-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong, VC/Huff. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to direct staff to prepare an amendment to the sign ordinance that would provide the same discretionary review before the Planning Commission for public signs, as well as private signs and that j the restrictions currently placed on median signs be held to the current design criteria for the private sector. The motion was approved 4-0 with the following roll call: June 26, 1995 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Page 4 COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Planning Commission Meyer, Schad, VC/Huff None None Chair/Flamenbaum Fong, C/Meyer recommended that the Planning Commission advise the City Council subcommittee to research the existing monument signs utilized by other communities: throughout the southern California area. PUBLIC,HEARING: Conditional Use Permit No. 95-3. A request to operate an unmanned public utility substation for a cellular communication facility with a 60 foot monopole with antennae and microwave dishes. The radio equipment will be housed within an underground vault. Because C/Meyer's business is located at the site underr consideration for this project, he recused himself and left the dais. AP/Searcy stated the General Plan land use designation for the subject site is CO (Commercial/Office) and the site is located in Zone C -2 -BE (Neighborhood Business Zone). The current site is developed with a two story office building .and is approximately .69 acres. This project will encompass no more than 600 square feet. Surrounding the subject site to the north, south, east and west are the overpasses of the State Route 57 (Pomona Freeway) and State Route 60 (Orange Freeway). The CalTrans maintenance yard is located immediately to the southeast of the site and extends south ,along the property line. The Gateway Corporate Center overlooks the site from a distance of over 400 feet. The closest residential development lies almost 600 feet from the project site., As cellular service increases there is a need for .the expansion of the cell sites. These locations have largely focused in proximity to the SR 57 & 60 freeways to serve mobile users. The distances between sites is a function of topography and height since the transmissions are made at very low power levels to ensure that no harmful effects are produced for persons standing, working or living near the facility. Currently, the are five repeater stations operating in the City of Diamond Bar. All of these repeater stations are located adjacent to or nearby the freeways. There is a radio repeater and two cellular repeater stations currently operating at Diamond Bar High School. The applicant has, a site at Diamond Bar High School and at the corner of Golden i I June 26, 1995 Page 5,: Planning Commission E Springs Drive and Torito Lane. -The repeater station also links to a site -in the City of Industry. The provision of cellular communication in this area by the applicant, AirTouch Cellular, is conducted via transmission over the three existing sites. The purpose for the proposed site is to offload cellular traffic especially during morning and evening peak hours from the surrounding cell sites and to enhance service in the surrounding area. AirTouch has historically made efforts to find locations for repeater stations that capitalize on existing development to'construct repeater stations. This site was unable to construct the transmitting equipment on the existing infrastructures surrounding this project, such as the Radisson Hotel and the existing adjacent office building. The application requests approval to locate a cell site, including a 60 foot steel monopole with three antenna arrays (21 total antennae) and three microwave dishes, three 16 foot whip antennae and an underground equipment vault, at an existing two story office building on a .69 acre site. The proposed 60 foot height conforms with the height of other approved monopoles within the City. Because of the grade differential between the freeway, the area adjacent to the -" freeway and the area available for the project, this height is desired by the applicant to deliver the required level of service. The 60 foot monopole is proposed for the storage area located on the eastern elevation of the office building adjacent to the CalTrans maintenance yard and exposed to the south bound SR 57 freeway. The monopole will extend approximately 19 feet above the highest of the two overpasses and 45 feet above the lower overpass. Traffic generated by the proposed project will be minimal and will not exceed 24 total trips per year. This calculation is based on the presumption that maintenance of the proposed facility will not exceed one incoming and one outgoing trip per month. Based on the project number of trips generated by the existing two story mixed use office building (0,000 square feet), the project's impact to the cumulative traffic generation will not be significant. The primary concerns that the staff sought to address are health, compatibility and aesthetics. Research has not found there to be any evidence to support concerns by a few lay persons that the use of cellular phones and microwaves can cause ill health. The project does not propose the use of any technologies in a manner that exceeds or creates a situation that can cause adverse health effects. A review of the Code Enforcement complaints does not support any findings that problems have occurred. Additionally, the Federal ,Communication Commission (FCC) has established parameters of June 26, 1995 Page 6 Planning Commission service which seek to protect the integrity of different forms of communication and this use is subject to those regulations. The aesthetics and visual impacts associated with this project revolve around the 60 foot steel monopole. The monopole is the primary focal point of this project. The monopole will be visible on the project site, from the adjacent neighborhood, from the freeway overpasses and from Gateway Corporate Center. The 19 feet of exposure over the highest overpass with the proposed cover displaying the "Walnut Pools" logo would increase ,the attention to the structure. The Planning Commission has approved three previous monopoles and has found that the aesthetics are not increased when including this type of antennae array enclosure. The Commission has approved this applicant for a canopy enclosure for the facility perched atop Diamond Bar high School. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to withdraw the signage in consideration of the visual impacts and in the absence of an allowance for such signage within the Sign Ordinance. The City has approved four permanent cell sites and one temporary site. Three monopoles have been approved by the Planning Commission with an average height of approximately 60 feet. This location is situated in the center of freeway overpasses and extends 19 feet above the highest overpass. The visual impacts will be limited primarily to freeway travelers not residential neighborhoods, schools or other sensitive uses. The staff does not have adequate technical information as of the date of this report to determine that this is the optimum site for service provision. Responding to .0/Fong,, AP/Searcy-stated the existing monopoles are located at the National Self -Storage on Prospectors Road (approximately 75 feet high) and Diamond Bar High School (two monopoles approximately 60 feet high),. CDD/DeStefano stated staff's recommendation is that the item be continued. VC/Huff declared the public hearing open. Joe Richards, Richards Mueting Wilkes Planning & Engineering, 6529 Riverside Avenue 1115, Riverside stated his firm represents AirTouch Cellular on this matter. He introduced Maria Lamb, AirTouch Radio Frequency Group and Eric Mears, Real Estate and Site Development Group. He stated that the applicant has no objection to the deletion of the sign from the application. He indicated the applicantwould like resolution of this item during this meeting. He presented a supplemental report to the Planning Commission and asked that they review the document. 1. June 26, 1995 Page 7. r Planning Commission CDD/DeStefano requested the Planning Commission not comment on the document since the Commission and staff had not had an opportunity to review and comment on the material. This would be an appropriate topic for the supplemental staff report and discussion for the July 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Richards summarized the supplemental report for the Commission. He stated the proposed site will permit offloading from the three existing sites and improvement of reception. He indicated that because the motorists are preoccupied negotiating the interchange, the proposed monopole would have minimal visual impact. He further stated that the Radisson Hotel building is too high for the proposed facility. A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Fong to continue Conditional Use Permit 95-3 to July 24, 1995. C/Fong requested the applicant to provide a photograph of the proposed site and monopole simulation from the SR 57 north to the SR 60 west overpass. Mr. Mears responded that the location was too dangerous for obtaining such a photograph. - CDD/DeStefano stated staff would direct the applicant on the alternatives for meeting the request. C/Fong further requested the applicant provide locations from which the photographs were taken and that the perspectives of the proposed monopole by verified. The motion was approved 3-0 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, Fong, VC/Huff NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum C/Meyer returned to the dais. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: CDD/DeStefano, responding to C/Meyer stated the General Plan is before the City Council. The next public hearing discussion is July 11, 1995 to determine whether to adopt the General Plan that evening or put the matter to the voters. If the General Pian is put to the vote of the citizens, the Council will determine the form and fashion. f Responding to VC/Huff, CDD/DeStefano stated the Planning Commission could proceed with several of the code amendments previously discussed. A General Plan is not required to be in effect in order to enact some of the amendments. The City Council approved the fiscal 1995-1996 budget which included the Development Code project. Staff will agendize a work June 26, 1995 Page 8 Planning Commission ii program for the Planning Commission to begin the process. He encouraged the Commissioners to provide staff with any additional comments regarding their top ten list of concerns for the Development, Code. In response to C/Fong, CDD/DeStefano stated specific aspects of the General Plan could be taken to the voters. The major concern is the identification of the items of dispute. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT: Vice Chairman Huff declared the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, les&DeStef�a,,nno ` Community Development Director Attest: flRo, ert Huf Vice Chairman if,