Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/26/2000MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Zirbes called the meeting to order at 7:08 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 Commissioner Tye. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners George Kuo, Steve Tye and Joe Ruzicka. Chairman Nelson 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. 4. r,, APPROVAL OF AGENDA: VC/Zirbes recommended that Public Hearing Item 8.1 be moved forward to immediately following the Consent Calendar. The Commission concurred. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the September 12, 2000, meeting. VC/Zirbes asked that the sixth sentence in page 7, paragraph 1, be corrected to read as follows: "If 20 to 30 sites exist on this property,..., etc." C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of September 12, 2000, as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, Kuo, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Tye ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 4.2 Minutes of the August 15, 2000, Joint Study Session Meeting with the City Council. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve the Minutes of the August 15, 2000, Joint Study Session Meeting with the City Council as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, Tye, Kuo, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 Development Review No. 2000-13 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a two-story single family residence with a three -car garage, balconies, deck and patio cover for a total of approximately 11,729 square feet. Additionally, this request includes a side yard retaining wall not to exceed six feet in height. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 2818 Water Court Drive (Lot 7, Tract 47850) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar West, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90503 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-13, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Richard Gould, Diamond Bar West, LLC, responded to C/Tye that the square footage indicated on the plan includes liveable area only and does not include the garage or volume in the two story entry which staff included in their square footage calculation. With respect to C/Ruzicka's concern regarding garage spacelbay calculations that the Commission has reviewed since the current Development Code became effective. Prior to that time, 40 houses were built under the prior Code. Most of the four car garages that have been constructed measure 36 feet wide by 20 feet deep which is the industry standard for a four- F I„ car garage. A one car garage requires 10 foot width by 20 foot depth. However, a two car garage does not need to be 20 feet wide because the space between the two cars has double use. Likewise, a three car garage diminishes the required space between the vehicles. Diamond Bar's code is interpreted to require that parking spaces must be 10'x 20'. If he is L, — SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION 5. required to comply with the code, the garages will be too wide and the liveable area of the house will be narrowed. As a result, the curb appeal will diminish. Therefore, he would like to keep the four -car garage width to a minimum of 36 feet. Many 36'x 20' garages have been approved in the City of Diamond Bar in the two tracts that he has constructed. Richard Gould responded to VC/Zirbes that he read staff's report and concurs with the conditions of approval. VC/Zirbes opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this item, VC/Zirbes closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-13, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: OLD BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, Tye, Kuo, VC/Zirbes COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 5.1 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. (Public Hearing closed and continued from September 12, 2000.) PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 24401 Darrin Drive (Lot 51 of Tract No. 42584) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Eric Stone 24401 Darrin Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Nextel Communications 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION r DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Lynn Van Aken, Nextel Communications, stated that his company's architect did not draw the original plans to scale and he apologized for the error. A second edition of the plan was submitted to staff showing the antennas to be placed still above grade. Nextel's intent was that the antennas would not be visible even with the height of the antennas being above grade. He referred the Commission to a photograph and indicated that the trees would obscure the view of "anything" that was that height. After discussing the matter with DCM/DeStefano, Nextel dropped the antenna height to approximately 1 '/2 feet to 2 feet below the pad level. With that and the existing landscaping, whether from the street level or from the second floor level of any of the houses in the area, the antennae will not be visible. He further referred the Commission to a Nextel RF Engineer's statement that in moving or lowering the antennas it would diminish the value to Nextel. C/Ruzicka said that the project was to be placed below the street level and the fact that the applicant did not comply with staff's recommendation left a poor impression with the Commission. The latest information indicates that the project is still about seven feet (T) above street level. Lynn Van Aken responded that there is no way that there is any visibility from the street. Due to untimely delivery by the post office, staff's report was not received in time to clear up the issue. C/Ruzicka pointed out that because of the controversy surrounding the original project at this site, he would prefer that the applicant reconsider this proposal and propose a project that takes the neighborhood into account. The property owner has a right to develop his property to the full extent of the code and the law. However, the property owner has a responsibility to the neighborhood. He pointed out that Armitos Place appears to be at the 935 foot level and the top of the tower appears to be at the 942 foot level. Lynn Van Aken responded that "he did once." By the way, if the Commission would take staff's original recommendation, it was for approval. C/Ruzicka indicated that tonight's recommendation is for denial unless the Commission can determine something different. Lynn Van Aken stated he does not know what more he can do for the Commission. The intent is that it not be visible from the surrounding homes. This property is situated so that the with the rise in the hill the antennas are below the top of the hill and vegetation extends about 10 to 15 feet above that. SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Ruzicka asked if the top of the antenna is below street level to which Lynn Van Aken responded that the top of one of the antenna is right at street level and the other antenna is a hair over that. If you would like for Nextel to drop it more, be my guest. I'm tired. I'd like to go home. C/Tye said that although he was not present two weeks ago for the public hearing he reviewed the packages. He is thoroughly confused and he is trying to make sense of the drawings. Either the antennas are below street level or they are not below street level. The speaker commented that this is not an optimum location. Lynn Van Aken responded that it is not an optimum location because when the antennas are lowered Nextel loses the coverage it needs. However, it is far better than what presently exists and Nextel is trying to fill a hole. The antennas may not be exactly at street level. Nextel has done its best to try to find a blend of concealing the antennas so that they are not visible and still have the necessary coverage. VC/Zirbes stated that staff's report presented to the Commission on September 12 outlined the parameters of the project. Nextel's first presentation did not indicate elevations of the existing monopoles and/or the proposed monopoles, nor did those diagrams provide the Planning Commission the exact locations of those poles in relationship to the existing poles which were issues that the Commission addressed with the applicant. Because the Commission did not receive an answer regarding these concerns, the Planning Commission continued the matter and directed Nextel to return to tonight's meeting and to provide the Commission with information as to the exact heights in relation to existing monopoles and where those monopoles would be placed in relation to existing monopoles. On Friday, he reviewed the set of Nextel plans as well as, staff's recommendation to deny the project. Upon review of the information regarding elevations and Sheet C-1 which indicates the different grade elevations which still does not provide him with the exact placement of the monopoles on the project site in relation to the existing poles. Staff and the Planning Commission had always indicated that this was below street level project. On Friday, the Commission received a set of drawings that clearly indicates that this is not below street level proposal. Tonight, the Commission was presented with a set of drawings which indicate that the proposed monopoles exceed the elevation of the street level and still do not provide the Commission with the requested information of monopole placement. The Commission needs to be able to not only provide the property owner with the best project possible, it also needs to be certain that the property owner will not be caused any undue grief. Nextel's proposal is to triple the amount of antennas located on the site. The Commission wants to make certain that the residents on Armitos Place and that the surrounding area will not be impacted in any form or fashion - that this will be an invisible project. The elevations do not make sense. He further pointed out his concern about the untimely dates of the documents submitted to the Commission. Based on his request to Nextel and F , the fact that he has not received answers to his requests that the applicant provide information -J L,-_1 SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMNIISSION regarding the exact height and location of the antennas he cannot find information that leads him to trust the numbers supplied to the Commission. He does not understand how a project that is so important to Nextel can be delivered to staff and the Commission in this manner. Lynn Van Aken placed responsibility on the architect for not supplying accurate drawings and apologized to the Commission. He did not have time to review the plans before they were forwarded to the City's staff and Planning Commission. The elevation is below the pad and a few feet above the street. The project is not visible and it meets the intent of staff's requirements. C/Ruzicka said that based on the fact that Mr. Van Aken states that he was so upset by what the architect did with the plans and that the architect will no longer be employed by him, he does not trust the information received from the applicant. C/Tye pointed out that staff's report of September 12, 2000, clearly states in summary that Nextel Communications has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for an unmanned wireless telecommunications facility to be placed below the street level. Nothing in the report confirms Mr. Van Aken's statements about a "pad." Staff's report for tonight's meeting clearly states "to be placed below street level." The Minutes of September 12, 2000, Public Hearing meeting, indicate that the Planning Commission "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." Clearly, the applicant has not responded to the Commission and he has no confidence in the materials that the Commission has been asked to review. Lynn Van Aken recommended that the Planning Commission continue the matter to allow the applicant an opportunity to provide drawings in accordance with the Commission's request. VC/Zirbes that the information delivered tonight is dated July 6, 2000, and it indicates that existing antennas are mounted on eight foot (8') tall pipe mounts. Those monopoles are 22-24 feet high. Therefore, he has no comfort with the submission and he does not need any additional time to look at the proposal that was submitted. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Tye, Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Parks/Trails Master Plan - Verbal Status Report. DCM/DeStefano reported that the originally scheduled joint meeting between the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Traffic and Transportation Commission has been rescheduled for Thursday, September 28. The Planning Commission is invited to attend as audience members. The Planning Commission will be receiving this project later this year for its recommendation to the City Council. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None Offered. 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. DCM/DeStefano asked the Commission to reschedule the Parks Master Plan for October 10 or Y October 24. The Housing Element will be moved to November 14 as a public hearing item. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: C/Tye moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Zirbes adjourned the meeting at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully Sub -ted, Ja es DeStefano Deputy City Manage Attest: Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes �—