Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/2001MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 11, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nelson led in the pledge of allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice Chairman Joe Ruzicka, and Commissioners George Kuo, Steve Nelson, and Steve Tye. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. REORGANIZATION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION — Selection of Chairman. Secretary/DCM/DeStefano opened nominations for Chairman. Commissioner Ruzicka nominated Commissioner Nelson. The nomination was seconded by Commissioner Tye. There being no further nominations, upon roll call vote and without objection, Commissioner Nelson was unanimously selected to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 27, 2001. VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 27, 2001, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Tye, VC/Ruzicka, C/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 6. OLD BUSINESS: None 7. NEW BUSINESS: 7.1 Conditional Use Permit 2001-04, Variance No. 2001-07. and Development Review No. 2001-12, Code Amendment No. 2001-02 and Negative Declaration No. 2001-05 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.42.130.G.4, 22.58, 22.54 and 22.45) is a request to install a wireless telecommunications facility that includes a pole with antennas and equipment cabinet. The Variance relates to the antenna pole that exceeds the maximum allowable 35 -foot height. The Development Review relates to architectural/design review. PROJECT ADDRESS: St, Denis Roman Catholic Church 2151 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Roman Catholic Abp 3424 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90010 APPLICANT: Cingular 2521 Michelle Drive Tustin, CA 92780 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional use permit 2001-04, Variance No. 2001-07, Development Review No. 2001-12 and Negative Declaration No. 2001-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Jereme Brixee, The Consulting Group, addressed concerns of residents in the area of the proposed project. The project proposes a stealth design to camouflage the view. FCC regulates environmental concerns and this project operates at about one-tenth of what the FCC regulates as a healthy exposure. He cited a study conducted by a real estate agency in Mann County wherein they looked at two separate facilities and determined that there was no effect to property values based upon the installation of the wireless facility. He offered to submit the study as a condition of approval. VC/Ruzicka wants the site camouflaged and felt that not enough effort was made to place the site within the church's bell tower. He is not convinced that it is technically impossible to relocate the site within the parish building. What has Cingular done to mitigate the neighbors concerns about this site with respect to view? He believes that if the antenna is placed at the end of the parking lot 1 DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION next to the steps rather than in the middle of the parking lot it would be much more camouflaged by foliage. In addition, he believes the facility could be painted a shade of green to blend into the background. However, his initial concern is that the antenna should be placed in the church bell tower or moved to the hillside behind the condominium complex on the opposite side of Diamond Bar Boulevard. Mr. Brixee agreed that the steeple is a good location but based upon the signal needed in this location and the amount of twists in the building the signal would not reach the antenna in any valuable sense. He explained that placement of the antenna within the bell tower would require larger electrical cable which is not feasible in the structure. The optimal location and separation from adjacent residences is the center of the parking lot. Relocation of the antenna to the end of the parking lot would minimize the distance between the structure and the residences on that side. The signal will lose all of its strength as it travels down into the valley if it is located on the hillside behind the condominium complex, which would necessitate an additional site in the same location in order to pick up the signal. Typically, sites have smaller poles with a 36 inch canister on top. The proposed design minimizes the canister on top and increases the pole size at the base so that the antenna is uniform in width from top to bottom. By replacing the light standards at the 32 foot line, as currently exists, will minimize the impact. Placing the antennas inside the canister further reduces the visual impact. The pole can be painted a color to blend with the surrounding landscape. VC/Ruzicka said he would take the consultant at his word regarding the impossibility of stringing electrical cable in the building. As an alternative, he recommended that the pole be painted an appropriate color and that a 60 foot high tree be planted close to the pole to minimize the visual impact of the pole. Mr. Brixee indicated to C/Tye that the larger cable would be required in the building because the electrical equipment box would be located a greater distance away from the antenna, which requires larger cable. C/Tye thought the cable could be brought up to the bell tower on the outside of the building from the electrical equipment cabinet located in the courtyard. Mr. Brixee explained that staff would not allow the equipment cabinet to be visible from the street. The project architect stated that it would not be feasible to pull the cable up through the building to the bell tower. Mr. Brixee responded to VC/Ruzicka that the equipment cannot be placed on the church roof. Mr. Brixee indicated to Chair/Nelson that the tower diameter ranges from 24 inches to 36 inches. Based on the proposed location of the equipment the cable will be 24 inches in diameter. Based upon the distance of the equipment, the cable from the equipment cabinet to the bell tower would range from 7/8 inch to 2 inches. DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson requested a copy of the architect's report. The consultant said he would provide a copy to staff. AssocP/Lungu responded to Chair/Nelson that she did not speak to an architect about this proposed project. Dennis Anderson, 1950 Silver Hawk Drive, thanked the Commission for their questions to the consultant. He is the first house on the periphery of the property and felt that a 49 foot tower in his back yard will definitely have an effect on the quality of his life. Further, he believed that this project would be detrimental to the property values in the immediate area. The City of Diamond Bar is opposed to locating a tower on Diamond Bar Boulevard due to its visibility and as a single homeowner, he does not wish to encumber that which the city finds inappropriate. How do you hide a 40 foot pole in plain site? He has lived in his home for nearly 25 years and his back yard overlooks St. Denis Church. He asked the Commissioners to consider how they would feel having a 49 foot pole in their back yard. Kay Hand, 1936 Silver Hawk Drive, lives directly above Mr. Anderson's home and the church parking lot. Currently, she enjoys a beautiful view, and a large pole in the middle of the parking lot would destroy that view and it would be an interruption that she feels would definitely affect the value of her home and her ability to enjoy her property. She believes there is a better solution to camouflaging the pole. Perhaps the location of the cross could be reconsidered. All of the residents directly behind St. Denis Church are in attendance tonight because they are all concerned about the effect of this project on their lives and property. In response to C/Tye, Mrs. Hand said she does not believe palm tree or windmill sites are camouflaged very well. A cross is a natural occurrence in a church parking lot and she likes that proposal better because it would fit in with the location. The lights that remain on all night in the parking lot are a disturbance. Therefore, she would not favor a light pole. A better location for the cross would be favorable and could perhaps be located in the side parking lot. Fatima Partunavi said she bought her house for its beautiful view and the pole will be in the middle of that view. She does not want to look at a pole and pleads with the Commission to not approve the project. VC/Ruzicka asked Mr. Brixee to expound on his discussions with the parish priests at St. Denis, his relationship to them and what their demands or requests amount to, and what they will allow and disallow with respect to this project. DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION I Mr. Brixee said he has not personally had any interaction with the church. His firm deals with the parish through a leasing agent. Usually, when his firm finds a candidate that is open to such a project, their design influence is minimal. 1 f' L VC/Ruzicka reiterated that Nextel and Cingular have ajoint venture on the north end of Diamond Bar. Although the city was told that certain things could not be done to mitigate the effects of the project on the surrounding neighborhood, in fact, those things were accomplished because the city pushed to have them done. Even though these circumstances are different, he feels there are things that can be done to mitigate the impact of this project. He likes the cross design. VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to keep the public hearing open and continue the matter to February 12, 2002, to allow staff the opportunity to work with the applicant to satisfactorily address the concerns voiced during this evening's session. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Ruzicka, Tyc, Kuo, C/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review No. 2001-20 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020.A.) is a request to construct a two-story single family residence with a basement, two two -car garages and patios/balconies for a total of approximately 11,410 square feet. Additionally, the request includes retaining walls within the rear/side and front yards with a maximum exposed height of six feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNERI APPLICANT: 22883 Canyon View Drive (Lot 4 of Tract No. 51169) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Horizon Pacific 2707 Diamond Bar Boulevard #202 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2001-20, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Jerry Yeh, Horizon Pacific, said he read staff's report and concurs with the conditions of approval. ClTye asked the applicant how this project has been designed to prevent the appearance of a "wall of houses." DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano said that projects such as the one located at the Grand Avenue Country Estates entrance would require the review of the Planning Commission. As a result of comments received by the city about that particular project, staff does everything possible to ensure that no similar structures are built. The proposed subdivision is unique because of what is currently in vogue in "The Country Estates." Each lot in this project is unique. Each lot is not rectangular and has some significant topography. The characteristic of this project will not be the same as inmost other areas of "The Country Estates." As a result of the topography, separations between houses are fairly substantial. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Nelson that this project has been undergoing mitigation monitoring review since construction began and has been re -hydro -seeded three times in three or four years. The project has large slopes, is in a somewhat isolated area and receives a seed mix from the surrounding area that is unsatisfactory to the city's biologist. VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2001-20, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Ruzicka, Tye, Kuo, C/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None offered. 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: DCM/DeStefano stated that presently, the Development Code Amendment is scheduled before the City Council at its December 17 meeting. Staff requested that this matter be continued to January 8, 2002, because the sign approval granted by the Commission at its last meeting has been appealed. C/Tye asked if the appeal could be held over to the January 29 City Council meeting so that he could be present. DECEMBER 11, 2001 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano said that the City Council may choose to appoint a new Planning Commissioner as soon as December 17. Last week staff received the application to building upon the 80 vacant acres consisting of about 49 lots adjacent to Mr. Yeh's property. This application will be the last major subdivision within "The Country Estates" which will be situated between the Horizon Pacific and JCC Tract 47851. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. to January 8, 2002. Attest: Dl:�� , "— Ch 'r nan Steve Nelson ��1 Respectfully JaAles DeSt( Deputy City