Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/12/2000-- -- �_ L _r —, L-. -_ _ - ..— _ _ _ mss'—, MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Headquarters Building Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chairman Zirbes. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners George Kuo, and Joe Ruzicka. Commissioner Steve Tye was excused. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the August 8, 2000, meeting. Without objection, the Commission concurred to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 8, 2000, as presented. 5. OLD BUSINESS: - None. 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Review of Discussion on Joint Study Session of City Council and Planning Commission on August 15, 2000. DCM/DeStefano asked Commissioners to comment on the joint meeting. In particular, the Commission expressed a desire to conduct a site visit of projects that have been approved within the last two years, and periodic review of Conditional Use Permits. As a staff SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSIP4 I policy, the Commission will see a periodic review condition within all future Conditional Use Permits. Staff has schedule the one-year anniversary review of the Platinum Restaurant on October 10, 2000, at which time the Planning Commission will review its operation and conditions set forth in the approval. VC/Zirbes stated he found the joint session to be very helpful and informative and believes that periodic joint sessions would be useful, once or twice a year. - C/Ruzicka concurred with VC/Zirbes. Certain items, that were raised with staff were matters of concern from constituents and he has not yet received a response on those matters. He expects responses will be forthcoming. DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Nelson that minutes of the joint session were _ produced by the City Clerk's office and they will be forwarded to the Commissioners in advance of the September 26, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Development Review No. 2000-14 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a two story, single family residence of approximately 10,349 square feet with a four -car garage. The request also includes a five-foot high retaining wall. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2813_ Watercourse Drive (Lot 48, Tract 47850) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Bar West, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90503 APPLICANT: Richard Gould 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90503 DSA/Joe presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Kurt Nelson, -Diamond Bar West, LLC, thanked staff for their thorough presentation and Assistance with the design. C/Ruzicka asked why there is a difference between the garage parking bay sizes. Kurt Nelson responded to C/Ruzicka that the code is written to accommodate two car garages containing 10 foot side by side bays. Once you get beyond two vehicles to three, four and five, the same amount of width is not needed between each vehicle. The slight differential in this design has to do with the particulars of the garage design. VC/Zirbes asked if there are accessory structures (swimming pool, gazebo, etc) planned for the rear yard. Kurt Nelson said that almost certainly the buyer will contract with the landscape architect and landscape contractor for accessory structures. The plans must be submitted to the city as well as, the Crystal Ridge Estates Homeowners Association architectural committee of (r which he is one of the five board members. .. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes, Kuo, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tye 8.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04 and Development Review No. 2000-10 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.58 and 22.48) is a request to install two (2) additional 25 foot high camouflaged monopoles with a total of six (6) antennas, equipment cabinets, and block equipment enclosure on an approximately seven acre site that currently contains co -located, unmanned, wireless telecommunication facilities. �— PROJECT ADDRESS: 24401 Darrin Drive (Lot 51, Tract No. 425 84) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSI P PROPERTY OWNER: Eric Stone 24401 Darrin Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Nextel Communications 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-04 and Development Review No. 2000-10, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. In response to Commission questions, DCM/DeStefano indicated that the project was originally approved in mid 1997. Due to the concerns regarding the potential effects of this type of project, it was, at the time, a very controversial project because it was the proposed to be located close to single family residential properties. This was the 18th such project in the City of Diamond Bar and it generated more concern than all other projects combined. Due to the issues involved, the City Council dcemcd it appropriate to condition the project for a one-year termination. In mid 1998, the' Planning Commission determined that the applicants had complied with all of the conditions set forth in the original approval and approved a one-year extension with a sunset clause to August 2001. The grant did not prohibit future applications on the site. The Telecommunications Ordinance identifies this site as an opportunity for providers of these types of services. However, it does not identify how many sites are available at any one location. On the heels of the Planning Commissions concerns regarding periodic review, staff has added a condition that specifically talks about periodic review (see Condition 5 (e), page 5). Should there not be compliance, the Planning Commission has the ability to either modify or revoke the permit. While this project is immediately adjacent to the previously approved project, it is a separate and free-standing application. If one provider were not in compliance it should not have an effect upon a second provider in obtaining compliance. If the Commission wishes, it may also provide for a sunset clause. DCM/DeStefano noted that staff received one letter of objection from an anonymous individual. Lynn Van Aken, Nextel Communications, stated that whether or not the approval contains a sunset clause, in the case of non-compliance, anyone in the city may petition that the matter come back to the Commission for review. The more sites that are on the property, the more likely that they are to be in compliance. Except for the maintenance of the - monopole itself and their equipment and equipment area, all users are responsible to assure that the vegetation hides the project and remains approved. This site is provided.for the rr T „ SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION freeway and dropped calls in the area. This site provides service to individuals as well as, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department and the City of Diamond Bar as- an emergency backup system. VC/Zirbes asked the applicant to address the height difference in their proposed monopole and the existing monopoles. Lynn Van Aken responded that heights are determined "by the RF Engineers, and the proposal is site specific due to the coverage that is necessary. In lowering the height, Nextel would be reducing the amount of coverage to the public, which would likely necessitate another cell site in the future. The monopoles are approximately 20 to 23 feet tall. Jim McBride, Nextel, responded to VC/Zirbes that there is about an eight foot difference in height from the other carriers' antennas. In response to VC/Zirbes, Lynn Van Aken indicated that the proposed monopoles should not be visible to residents living on Armitos Place. There will be landscaping behind and �_,.. to the sides of the monopole. The monopole will not be visible from Armitos Place. The only area that would remain landscape trim would be in the line of site of the actual signal. Nextel has worked with staff to mitigate any possible impacts that the installation would have upon the community. C/Kuo asked if the increased number of cell sites would affect the health and safety of the surrounding residents. Lynn Van Aken responded that Federal regulations require the site to comply with emission standards from their antennas. Prior to the site being on air and receiving its FCC license, it must comply with total emissions for the sites, which includes all cell sites in the area. Chair/Nelson suggested that it would help the Commission to have a cross-section showing the streets, different pole heights, freeway and height of the vegetation. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Roland Morris, 24317 Darrin Drive, asked if the neighborhood CC&R's were rewritten to allow for multiple use. He feels that there is a big difference between residential property in commercial areas and back yards. He believes this project warrants an Environmental Impact Report. Numerous sites are available such as Diamond Bar High School, fire station, etc. He believes the Commission needs to be prepared to receive requests from residents for a similar type of setup. He does not disagree that the proposed facility is well SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION planned. However, he is concerned that the city is adequately protected with this type of facility in a residential back yard Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka asked if staff would respond to Roland Morris. He asked his fellow Commissioners to consider a sunset clause for this project. DCM/DeStefano responded to statements by Roland Morris that there are private Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this property and several hundred surrounding properties. This use is in compliance with those CC&R's. The City does not review nor enforce private CC&R's. Therefore, it is incumbent upon that, homeowner's association to ensure that its members are in compliance with their CC&R's. The issue that Mr. Stone required an amendment to a couple of years ago is not an issue for this project. With respect to environmental impact, staff looked at this specific application for the criteria that is generally required for an Environmental Impact Report and Negative Declaration and the variety of exempt projects for xvhich a categorical exemption would be appropriate. Staff felt that this project fell into one of the ninny categories of categorical exempt projects like the adjacent project. Further, staff feels that, this project has followed the requirements of the Telecommunications Ordinance including the site that has been chosen. Chair/Nelson encouraged the Commission to focus its discussion on land use and physical structure. C/Ruzicka felt that in order to be consistent, it would not be unreasonable to place the same date on this project so that this and the prior projects could be reviewed at the same time. At the request of Chair/Nelson, Roland Morris returned to the podium to express his concern that there are a number of places in the City where this type of development could occur and he is opposed to the fact that city residents can put any type of development in their yard because of this precedent. Perhaps the property in question should be re -zoned. VC/Zirbes said that while the project is well laid out, he is not comfortable in looking at the conceptual plan where the antennas are proposed to be placed and he would like a document that clearly indicates where the antennas will be placed and what the heights will be in relationship to the site line from Armitos Place and in relationship to the monopoles that currently exist.- He would also like to see a better landscape plan. If the Commission requested that the monopoles be no higher than the current monopoles, could the monopoles be moved or replaced and how would it impact that structure. He would like to have a more definitive description of where the equipment will be placed. He would tike SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION to have an answer from staff prior to the Commission's next meeting as to the possibility of some of Roland Morris's concerns. By increasing the number of cell sites in residential neighborhoods, is the City opening up a Pandora's Box? Should the Commission consider limiting the number of cell sites on a particular piece of property? He understands the ideal location of the property. How many more sites could exist in that location and how will it affect the neighborhood. If 20 to 30 sites exist on this property, how many visits of service trucks are coming in and out of the neighborhood. Specifically, he would like to have more definite information on the heights and locations of antennas in relationship to the existing monopoles and how those effect the view scape off of Armitos Place. C/Ruzicka reiterated his request to have the Commissioners consider adding a sunset clause to the conditions for this project. Chair/Nelson said he is okay with the project as presented with or without the sunset clause. As long as this remains a discretionary action in the future and as long as the Commission continues to focus on the issues of land use and structure, there is a myriad of reasons why the use of these facilities would not be appropriate in 99 percent of the residential lots in this City. He believes this is a unique site and a unique opportunity. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to continue Development Review No. 2000-04 and Development Review No. 2000-10 to the September 26, 2000, meeting in order to grant staff and the applicant an opportunity to prepare answers to VC/Zirbes's questions and concerns and to give the Commission the opportunity to consider a sunset clause. VC/Zirbes said he feels about the project as does Chair/Nelson. However, he would like to have the facts before him in order to make an informed decision. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes, Kuo, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tye 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Kuo thanked the Commission for their concerns regarding his daughter's recovery. He apologized for not being able to attend the joint session with the City Council due to his family emergency. Everything is going well. SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSI04T 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. DCM/DeStefano indicated the matrix identifies the Platinum Restaurant review as September 26, 2000, which should be October 10, 2000. Additionally, a review of a proposed 128,000 square foot 'office building within the Gateway Corporate Center on Bridge Gate Drive is scheduled to take place in October. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, f� James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Phaintnan Steve Nelson