Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/23/2001MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Zirbes called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive. Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by C/Ruzicka. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners George Kuo, Steve Tye and 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Joe Ruzicka. Chairman Steve Nelson was excused. Also Present: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner; David Meyer, Planning Consultant; Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Agendized. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the January 9, 2001, Meeting. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve the minutes of January 9, 2001, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Tye, Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson OLD BUSINESS: None PUBLIC HEARING: None JANUARY 23, 2001 PAGE 2 7. .CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-02, and Development Review No. 2000-20 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.58.020, 22.42.130 G and 22.48.020) are requests to co -locate a telecommunications facility on an cxisting monopole approved on January 25, 1993, by Conditional Use Permit No. 92- 11. The request also includes an equipment cabinet, utility pedestal and concrete pad for both. (Continued from January 9, 2001) PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: Diamond Bar High School 21400 Pathfinder Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Walnut Valley Unified School District 880 South Lemon avenue Walnut, CA 91789 Metricom, Inc. 1460 East 33�d Street Signal Hill, CA 90807 David Meyer, Planning Consultant, presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission re -open the public hearing, receive testimony, and then select from the following options: 1) close the public hearing and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval or denial to be presented to the Commission at its next regularly scheduled meeting for adoption; or 2) continue the public hearing to a date certain and direct the applicant to provide staff with the appropriate information. Keyur Mistry, representing Metricom, Inc. explained that Metricom is, in fact, an Internet access provider and not a voice provider. He believes that the future of the wireless industry is the internet (data) rather than voice. With respect to landscaping, he met with PC/Meyer at the site, which resulted in the plan that is before the Commission tonight. In accordance with the Telecommunications Industry Association's standards, Spectracide, felt that it was unsafe to add any screening materials to a 60 foot monopole of this type due to the wind load factor. VC/Zirbes re -opened the public hearing. Craig Clute 21217'Fountain Springs Road, read from a letter with attached drawings dated January 16, 2001, which he presented to the Commission commenting on: 1) designed functionality and co -location alternatives, 2) Structural Engineering and Design, 3) Utilities Installation and 4) Landscape Plan. He also presented photographs of the area and reiterated his concerns about the view and the sound level readings emanating from the site. He maintains that the site has not been maintained according to the original approval. VC/Zirbes closed the public hearing. JANUARY 23, 2001 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Ruzicka said that Mr. Clute raises valid concerns about this project and offers some constructive approaches to alternative solutions. He was impressed with staff's courtesy and tact in this instance because the applicant's proposal does not address the Commission's concerns previously expressed. He asked the applicant to address Mr. Clute's concerns. Keyur Mistry said he does not have a copy of Mr. Clute's letter but he would be happy to address the concerns. C/Ruzicka reiterated -that Mr. Clute's concerns are valid and constructive, and need to be addressed. If the applicant is unable to approach the project as suggested by Mr. Clute, he would like to hear the applicant's reasons. He also wants to know why the applicant believes that seven five -gallon potted plants will take care of the Commissions' concerns. Keyur Mistry said that Metricom has a staff of site acquisition specialists who determine appropriate locations with respect to its (Metricom)-requirements for height, etc. The high school location was determined to be an ideal location. Diamond Bar High School would not allow Metricom to place its antenna on one of their buildings, only on the existing �monopole. He stated that he and PC/Meyer determined that the shrubs would be an adequate solution when they visited the site to discuss the proposed screening. Metricom is prepared to add bushes up to the monopole in order to block out the fencing to the extent possible. C/Kuo asked the applicant if he has experience with safety problems related to screening of other projects. Keyur Mistry responded that very few monopoles have screening around one array of antennas. Many installations are attached to buildings. He is not aware that this situation has confronted them in previous installations. C/Ruzicka said that this is an opportunity for Metricom to address the issue in conjunction with valid concerns and suggestions that have been made by a resident who will have to view the site on a regular basis. Keyur Mistry said that although he understands C/Ruzicka's point the applicant's primary concern is safety. Metricom has been told by the engineers who studied this tower that it would not be allowed to install screening material on the antennas. Keyur Mistry indicated to C/Tye that the first location considered was a building on the high school campus, which was refused by the school district. He does not know if w alternative sites were considered. Existing monopoles are a first choice consideration. He stated that to tear down an existing monopole and construct a $50,0004100,000 monopole JANUARY 23, 2001 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION would not work for any company and especially not for a new company like Metricom, which is in the process of spending a lot of money to build a network. Companies look for the most feasible location. To co -locate would be substantially less costly. VC/Zirbes said he believes the design of the existing monopole is inadequate and has a negative impact on the view scape for the residents who live in the area. Two months ago the Commission asked the applicant to screen the installation. The only thing the applicant has done is to ask the existing pole owner if they can handle any kind of screen and the owner has stated that the pole cannot handle screening which means that the pole cannot be shielded. He does not believe the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to indicate that they have made an earnest effort to seek an alternative site.- He does not believe that the existing monopole is the anchor to the "quilt." He does not see any substantial reason to move forward to approve the project. VC/Zirbes moved, C/Tye seconded, to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-02, and Development Review No. 2000-20 including a condition that the applicant remove the public hearing notice from the property for presentation at the next Commission meeting. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None - ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson 7.2 Development Review No. 2000-15 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020) is a request to construct a two-story, single-family residence of approximately 9,471 square feet, with a basement, balconies, porch, and a three -car, 1546 square foot garage. Additionally, the request includes an accessory gazebo structure containing approximately 400 square feet under roof. (Continued from December 12, 2000) PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 1819.Deninger Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Hardip Gill 100 Stagecoach Circle West Covina, CA 91791 Chary Dagam 1000 North Regal Canyon Drive Walnut, CA 91789 PC/Meyer presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-15, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed with the resolution. I JANUAk 23; 200I' PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Zites opened the public hearing. Chary Dagam, project architect, pointed out that the lot area is 67,000 square feet. The design included a three -car garage, However, The Country Estates Homeowners Association requested a four -car garage which the revised plans reflect. The house has been designed to be compatible with "The Country Estates" architectural styles and standards. Further, the house has been designed to provide for the minimum amount of grading possible. VC/Zirbes closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-15, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as stated in the resolution subject to amending the resolution to indicate a four -car garage instead of a three -car garage (Page 2, Item 4 (e).). Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nelson PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: VC/Zirbes asked if staff can include as a condition to require that the applicant remove the public hearing notice sign from their property within a certain number of days of completion of the public hearing process. Further, can the applicant be required to post a deposit in an amount sufficient to cover the city's cost of removal in the event that the applicant fails to comply. PC/Meyer said he would discuss the matter with ICM/DeStefano and report back to the Planning Commission at its next meeting. 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Maintenance Ordinance - Specifically, roofing requirements. VC/Zirbes asked staff to prepare a report/draft ordinance/code amendment for discussion at a future Commission meeting. C/Ruzicka suggested that the matter be considered at a future date when several f Development Code items are discussed. i - -PC/Meyer suggested that Development Code amendments be considered after the selection of .a new City Manager. JANUARY 23, 2001 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION - "I AssocP/Lungu informed the Commission that staff is currently working on the second round of Development Code amendments. 10.2 Planners Institute - Monterey, CA - March 21 through 23, 2001. C/Ruzicka, C/Tye and VC/Zirbes indicated they will attend. C/Kuo said he is unable to attend this year. VC/Zirbes asked staff to pursue alternative flights directly into Monterey because he has a conflict on the evening of March 23. He would prefer to leave around 1:00 p.m. on Friday afternoon. C/Ruzicka also asked that a direct flight from Ontario or LAX to Monterey and return be provided if possible. 10.3 Public Hearing dates for future proiects. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Vice Chairman Zirbes adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Interim City Manager Attest: a i Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes C