Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/24/2004MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR STUDY SESSION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 STUDY SESSION: City Hall Conference Room B - 6:00 p.m., 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Staff Presentation: Diamond Bar Village Residential Development (Lewis Operation Corporation and Brookfield Homes). CALL TO ORDER: VC/Tanaka called the Study Session to order at 6:02 p.m. in City Hall Conference Room B, 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka and Commissioners Ruth Low, Joe McManus and Steve Tye. Chairman Dan Nolan was excused. Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. 2. Staff Presentation Regarding Diamond Bar Village Residential Development John O'Brien explained that the site near the Grand Avenue/Golden Springs Drive intersection is proposed to be a Home Depot/Lowe's use features view oriented Townhomes along the edge of the upper slope with additional Townhomes behind that area. The ingress/egress is essentially the same that it was in the Diamond Bar Village site plan permitted with the Specific Plan off Grand Avenue toward Golden Springs. The entry would traverse up the hill to a gated entry that would be the center of the spine permitting equal ingress/egress for other portions of the community. A secondary gated entry right-in/right-out would be located at the upper portion of Grand Avenue. All guest parking for the community is included on the main spine road with a handful of stalls located in a pullout lot. All Townhomes include two -car garages. Adrian Foley responded to C/Low that there would be 538 total parking spaces. Nancy Keenan stated that the 538 number included 138 guest parking spaces. Mr. Foley indicated to C/Tye that there were about 2.7 parking spaces per Townhome. Mr. O'Brien stated that the Specific Plan called for one guest space per three residential stalls. AUGUST 24, 2004 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION Mr. O'Brien pointed out that the package sent to the Commissioners over the weekend was part of the current design development drawings that had not yet been presented to staff. Nancy Keenan stated that the clusters consist of 10 units each for Cluster A and Cluster B, the only difference being the way in which the auto court is entered. Each of the 10 plans surrounds an auto court with entries for each cluster off of the main street spine. There is no parking within the auto court except within the private garages. The entries to the units are not off the court, but instead off of the building perimeter. She referred to the plan drawing. Garages are buried 1/2 level below surface and are defined as a basement allowing the entry to walk up Y2 level. Thus, entry from the parking garage to the unit is up y/2 level and entry to the unit from the outside perimeter is up Y2 level. Once inside the unit the first floor level is up y/2 level. In some plans the first floor is at entry level and in one plan one bedroom is at parking level. The garages drain to a central area drain and the runoff is captured and drained out of the central courtyard. Mr. Foley explained that there would be a dual stone drain system in the courtyard for blockage. Ms. Keenan further stated that all units stack over themselves. They are Townhomes and do not overlap anyone else's unit with the exception of one plan in the B cluster that overlaps Y2 of the adjacent garage. There is living space over the driveway that enters the auto court. The unit plans range in size from about 1300 square feet to a little over 2000 square feet. One-half of the units are two-bedroom, two and one-half baths; half of the units are three bedrooms and three baths. The unit with the bedroom downstairs is three and one-half baths in a 2000 square foot unit. The architectural style is Spanish Revival stucco with deep-set windows, curved S -style roofs with tile and wrought iron accents. There are two elevation styles that relate to both cluster types. Each unit has two levels of living deck space outside, one at the main living level and repeated at master bedroom on the upper level. Mr. Foley explained that the target -market for two -bed and three bed Townhomes is either young family/younger professional couple or move -down buyers and the product type fits well for those who do not hold maintenance as a primary objective. C/McManus asked if the plan provided facilities for children. Mr. Foley responded that there were a couple of opportunities on the common area site. Rather than child -oriented they would more likely be passive open space oriented, with plan did not necessarily contemplate pools and Jacuzzis. Using the plan drabarbecues, gazebos and gathering areas. Mr. Foley indicated to VC/Tanaka that the wing, Mr. O'Brien explained how the pedestrian walkway and open space areas were AUGUST 24, 2004 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION pedestrian -friendly inside the community with access down to the retail area and the church. Mr. Foley offered a possible change to the circulation pattern. Mr. O'Brien responded to C/McManus that there would be lighting from the building and from light bollards to illuminate the pathways. C/Low asked if the front of the units were landscaped to which Mr. Foley responded "yes." C/Low asked if there were another path of egress from the westerly units and Mr. Foley pointed out that the units would have an option of the primary ingress/egress or the secondary right -out egress after reaching a certain point in the interior area. C/Low asked if there would be a flight of stairs to access the retail/church area below. Mr. Foley said there were physical constraints that made it more accessible by vehicle. However, he acknowledged that C/Low made a good point. If someone wished to walk to the church, for instance, stairs could be one solution but it would not provide handicap accessibility. C/McManus felt there could be a problem with multi-level church parking. DCM/DeStefano suggested that a switchback could resolve the issue. Darren McClevand explained to C/McManus that the further one moves to the rear and side slopes the steeper it becomes and for that reason there was no development contemplated in those areas. Mr. O'Brien explained that when one enters the first living level in the Townhome unit there is a second level of living and for every floor plan both of those levels include an exterior deck for an outdoor private space within each Townhome. Mr. Foley responded to C/McManus that the plan presented this evening was fairly close to the final plan. However, it was likely that there Would be less home sites overall for a total of 190-195. He presented the proposed plan again indicating that staff had not yet had an opportunity to study the plan. Side yard clearance between the units range from 10 feet in some areas down to seven feet in others. Elevations are fairly traditional allowing the Townhomes to look like detached houses from the street. Private alleyways access the garages and the public would never be able to access those alleyways. Guests walk to front doors in the garden court. Mr. Foley responded to DCM/DeStefano that the units were intended to be condo type sales rather than lot sales. C/Low asked if sound studies were conducted, especially with respect to the view units. Mr. Foley responded that his firm had a construction assembly for the multi- family units that put the noise level at about 64-65 decibels. Code is in the mid 50's. AUGUST 24, 2004 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION The units are not soundproof but they are built to greater code than specified in the building code. Mr. Foley responded to C/McManus that all of the units have dual pane vinyl windows. VC/Tanaka asked the difference in the builders cost for these units. Mr. Foley responded that the units ranged in price from the mid 400,000's to the low 500,000's for the detached. C/McManus asked if the market research supported individual's preference for detached units. Mr. Foley said the detached units provided more of a private patio area and external areas (decks and barbecue areas). The units would be fenced in and provide more access areas for kids, for instance. He felt there was a tendency for some people to prefer a detached environment. Living in a cluster is less dense. AssocP/Lungu asked Mr. Foley if he had projects in the area that were similar to what he proposed for Diamond Bar that the Planning Commission could visit. Mr. Foley referred AssocP/Lungu to a development where there were two-story cottages that ranged in size from 1150 up to 1700 square feet. Mr. O'Brien confirmed to DCM/DeStefano that similar units were scheduled for construction in Long Beach in November. Mr. Foley said that he could show the Commission buildings they had built that were similar in cluster near the coast. DCM/DeStefano said staff needed that type of information so that they could view the units and provide the information to the Commissioners should they choose to view the units in person. Mr. Foley asked if he could take staff on a tour and DCM/DeStefano said he would prefer staff to have the information so that they could set their own schedules. C/Tye asked if the coastal site included cluster and detached. Mr. Foley said it was cluster only. However, his firm had built a couple of attached communities that could be viewed. DCM/DeStefano asked if Mr. Foley was familiar with a competitor who detached component in the same association. Mr. Foley said that had recently constructed a product like Scheme 2 that had an attached and were building an attached and detached community in Anaheim but ncurrently they ota building such as was proposed for Diamond Bar. Ms. Keenan said that there were a couple of similar communities in San Jose and South Bay in Northern California. C/Tye asked how this type of community could accommodate households with more than two drivers. Mr. Foley said it was a concern but typically, units that AUGUST 24, 2004 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION accommodated multiple drivers were typically in the 2500 to 2600 square foot units. In addition, some couples have as many as four cars. These units have very strict CC&R's with designated guest parking stalls. In this instance, the person would have to place additional vehicles off-site. If a couple had three kids that all drove this community was probably not the best choice for that family. In response to C/McManus Mr. Foley said he felt that Scheme 2 would be more marketable although he was quite happy with Scheme 1. He believed the project would require buttressing of the slope. C/Tye asked if the attached homes were closer to the parking lot. Mr. Foley believed both schemes were the same dimension. The difference was that they pushed to include the recreation center/community facility area and took out the larger circle. However, they could revisit the potential for the circle. Mr. Foley responded to CILow that both schemes complied with the open space requirements and that his firm was working with Kleinfelder regarding the soils requirements. DCM/DeStefano asked for a project time schedule. Mr. Foley stated that he would like to submit the Tentative Map in late September. DCM/DeStefano said in that case, it would most likely be November before the Planning Commission public hearing. Mr. Foley said he would like to be on-site early to mid 2005. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, VC/Tanaka adjourned the study session at 6.45 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, "I 1 _J �k / Deputy City Attest: � t S Jack Tanaka, Vice Chairman MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 24, 2004 STUDY SESSION: City Hall Conference Room B - 6:00 p.m., 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. Staff Presentation: Diamond Bar Village Residential Development; Lewis Operation Corporation and Brookfield Homes. CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Tanaka called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Tye led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka and Commissioners Ruth Low, Joe McManus and Steve Tye. Chairman Dan Nolan was excused. Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 10, 2004. C/Tye moved, C/McManus seconded to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 10, 2004, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AUGUST 24, 2004 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: NOES: ABSENT 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS: COMMISSIONERS; COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: None None 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): None Low, McManus, None Chair/Nolan Tye, VC/Tanaka 7.1 Development Review No. 2004-26 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48, 22.56 and 22.68) was a request to remodel and construct an approximate 942 square foot second story addition to an existing 2,280 gross square foot one story single-family residence with a two -car garage and covered patio. A Minor Conditional Use Permit approval was required to allow the continuation of legal nonconforming distances of the side setbacks and between structures on adjoining parcels. PROJECT ADDRESS: 624 Hoss Street (Lot 63, Tract 31139) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Stephen and Christina Goode 624 Hoss Street Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: ProBuilding — Kenn Coble 449 W. Allen Avenue #109 San Dimas, CA 91773 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-26 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-07, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. The applicant indicated that he read staffs report and concurred with the conditions of approval. VC/Tanaka opened the public hearing. With no one present to speak on this item, VC/Tanaka closed the public hearing. AUGUST 24, 2004 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Tye said he visited the site on Sunday and found it to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. C/Tye moved, C/Low seconded to approve Development Review No. 2004-26 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-07, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Low, McManus, Tye, VC/Tanaka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nolan 7.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-03 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.10.030 and 22.58) was a request to establish a wellness spa and massage therapy personal services use identified as Lalique in an existing shopping center. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 1160 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Barco Real Estate Management and Adriana Herrera 1545 N. Verdugo Road #115 Glendale, CA 91208 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Tye asked if the applicant had obtained the necessary Los Angeles County Health Department approvals. DSA/Smith responded not at this time. When the business was licensed as a medical facility the approval was not needed. C/Tye said he visited the site on Sunday and was impressed with the appearance of the facility. DSA/Smith explained to C/Tye that the applicant proposed one restroom. However, the conditions of approval called for two facilities with the remodel. C/Tye asked if one restroom would accommodate no more than four on-site employees. DSA/Smith responded that because it was a building and safety matter she would have to check with that department. C/Tye said that Condition 6 called for windows in each door and he did not recall that there were windows in the doors. DSA/Smith responded to C/Tye that conditions required windows in the doors and that the joint AUGUST 24, 2004 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION application required either the property owner or the applicant to provide tree mitigation. Andres Gavieres, applicant, stated that there were six employees including two massage therapists. Only four were present at any one time. He said he intended the business hours to be 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and that he did not understand the comments about the windows in the doors and the comments about the trees. DSA/Smith explained that Condition (g) could be changed to reflect the hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. She further explained that a retrofit of the spa would be required to provide windows in the doors. DCM/DeStefano confirmed to VC/Tanaka that staff was working with the property owner to ensure proper trimming of the trees. VC/Tanaka opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, VC/Tanaka closed the public hearing. VC/Tanaka acknowledged a handwritten note from a property owner on Cieghorn Drive who opposed the project. VC/Tanaka said he visited the spa today and felt the facility was aesthetically pleasing and would be a good project for the City. C/Tye asked that the record reflect the fact that the property owner on Cleghorn sent a handwritten note from their home in Saratoga and that the note contained no information about what they disliked about the project. DCM/DeStefano stated that with respect to the need for a second bathroom he suggested that Condition (h) on page 5 be amended to read: "The applicant shall provide a second restroom as required by the Building Official." The applicant concurred with a nod. C/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2004-22, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution subject to staff's proposed revision to Condition (h) on page 5; amending of the hours of business from 10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and tree trimming to be completed by the property owner. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AUGUST 24, 2004 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Low, McManus, Tye, VC/Tanaka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nolan 7.3 Development Review 2004-28 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020.A.) was a request to construct a two story, single family residence of approximately 7,899 gross square feet including balconies, porch, attached four car garage and two retaining walls with a maximum exposed height of five feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNERS/ APPLICANT: 3038 Windmill Drive (Lot 3 of Tract No. 48487) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Windmill Estates, LLC/Richard Gould 3480 Torrance Boulevard #300 Torrance, CA 90503 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No, 2004-28, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Tye felt that a 7900 square foot home would occupy the majority of the pad. AssocP/Lungu explained that lot coverage was based on the entirety of the lot and that the applicant met the required setbacks per the tract map. Richard Gould, applicant, pointed out that the four garage doors were moved to the side of the house to provide more landscaping at the front of the lot. He felt that the varying plan in the front yard setback area created additional interest. VC/Tanaka opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, VC/Tanaka closed the public hearing. C/Tye moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2004-28, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AUGUST 24, 2004 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Low, McManus, Tye, VC/Tanaka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nolan 7.4 Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-16 and Tree Permit No. 2004-08 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020(a)(1) and 22.38) was a request to demolish an existing two story single-family residence of approximately 4,000 square feet and construct a three story single-family residence with a four car garage, patio cover, veranda and balcony totaling to approximately 11,500 square feet. The request also included a series of retaining walls within the rear/rear side yards with a maximum exposed height of eight feet for each wall and a retaining wall within the front yard with a maximum exposed height of two feet. The Tree Permit was related to the removal/replacement/ preservation of oak and walnut trees. PROJECT ADDRESS: 22807 Lary Trail Drive (Tract 30091, Lot 149) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Rita Medirata 22807 Lazy Trail Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 615 N. Benson Avenue Unit C Upland, CA 91764 C/Tye recused himself from consideration of this item and left the dais. AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-16 and Tree Permit No. 2004-08, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Low asked whether the front yard retaining wall was in compliance with the maximum exposure. AssocP/Lungu responded that it was approximately 2 feet of exposed height and complied with the City's Code. C/Low asked whether drainage was an issue for this property. AssocP/i_ungu responded that drainage was an issue and there were conditions within the resolution related to drainage and NPDES and SUSMP requirements. AUGUST 24, 2004 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Tanaka asked if the plan included concealing the height of the rear wall with trees. AssocP/Lungu explained that the landscaping was to assist with screening of the wall. Accordingly, staff asked for a revised landscape plan with a greater density of landscape materials. Pete Volbeda, applicant, explained that this was the third attempt at providing a plan that was acceptable to all parties and hoped that the design met with the Commission's approval. Mr. Volbeda confirmed to C/McManus that the project now had the full approval of "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association. VC/Tanaka opened the public hearing. Paul Horcher, 22803 Lazy Trail, asked the Commission if they received his August 19 letter to which VC/Tanaka responded affirmatively. He presented a document to each Commissioner entitled "staff report errors and omissions." Mr. -Horcher stated that although C/McManus recommended the applicant and property owner meet with adjacent neighbors to resolve differences he was never contacted. Further, he was not notified about the architectural committee's meeting and was not afforded an opportunity to provide input about the project. Mr. Horcher said the Diamond Bar Municipal Code required notification to all property owners within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the project lot and in this case, at least five people were not notified of this hearing. Mr. Horcher said that staff should verify the identity of the property owner, spell her name correctly and make sure she actually owned the property. He said that according to his findings the property was owned by a trust created by the applicant and was not represented as such in any documents filed with the City nor was the City provided a copy of the document verifying her authority to make the proposed application. He said there was no indication in the staff report that the City was concerned about the nature trail running behind the property even though he pointed it out to AssocP/Lungu in March 2004. The law is 35 feet on building height. The front of the proposed structure is 35 1/2 feet and in his opinion, the four garages were unsightly, a point he made when the application was last presented. He said the architect did not point out that the rear building height was 35'/2 feet exceeding Diamond Bar's limitation of 35 feet. The plan indicated a laundry room on the top and bottom floors. Last March the applicant attempted to include a kitchenette on the top floor and he believed that one laundry room was a Trojan horse intended to be a kitchenette now or at some point in the future. He further stated that the title AUGUST 24, 2004 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION report indicated the square footage of the property was 3187 and not the 4,000 square feet indicated in staff's report. This is a 34 -degree slope that is, in his opinion, totally inappropriate for this structure. The lot is too steep and the house is too big. With no one else wishing to speak on this item, VC/Tanaka closed the public hearing. DCM/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that `The Country Estates" Homeowners Association is a private entity and the City of Diamond Bar is not subject to nor is it aware of their rules of notification. In his opinion, the speaker's comment is more of a complaint against the homeowner's association for whatever omissions they may have had in notifying him of their decision-making process. City of Diamond Bar is not obliged to follow any homeowner association rules and regulations. At the request of C/Low, DCM/DeStefano responded to the speaker's concerns about the City's lack of proper notification stating that staff complied with the City's Code. Notice for this application was published in the local newspapers and was posted on the private property in a timely and appropriate manner by the private developer according to the applicant and as verified by staff. In addition, mail notices were provided to all property owners within 500 feet of the site and the notice was also posted at community bulletin boards throughout the City. C/McManus asked if the City had an issue with the property being held in Trust. DCM/DeStefano responded that the applicant's application to the City represented that Rita Medirata, an individual, owned the property. Based on the most recent Los Angeles County Assessor's records the owner is Rita Medirata. There is a difference in spelling between the Assessor's records (two t's) and the application. C/Low asked if it mattered whether the property was held in trust for purposes of approving this project. DCM/DeStefano explained that staff verified the owner's information based on the assessor's records. If the property were under some other name in trust staff would not be aware of that condition. The Planning Commission was making a land use decision this evening, a decision that was not predicated by ownership. Ownership of this property could change and the land use decision the Commission makes remains with the land for many years. AUGUST 24, 2004 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION C/McManus asked if the additional six inches on the height would require a variance. AssocP/Lungu responded that staff scaled the height to be 35 feet. Further, on page 7 of the Resolution it states: "The residential structure shall not exceed a height of 35 feet from the natural or finished grade. At the rough framing stage the height of the residential structure shall be certified by a licensed engineer approved by the City at the applicant's expense." The same thing is done for a setback verification prior to the pouring of the foundation. DCM/DeStefano reported to the Commission that Mr. Horcher handed staff a document regarding ownership of the property. VC/Tanaka said he visited the site on two occasions and upon visiting the site today he noticed that the public hearing notice was not posted on the board at the property. He found it next to the mailbox and re -attached it to the board. He also saw the notice at the Ralph's shopping center. During the site visit a couple of months ago he noticed what appeared to be a wildlife trail but it appeared many feet away from the project area down at the base of the property and accordingly, he felt the trail would not be affected by the project. C/Low asked if there were any relevance to the ratio of the building size to the property size. DCM/DeStefano said the speaker's reference was to staff's report indicating the size of the residence was 4000 square feet and the documentation indicating the size of the residence was 3187 square feet. The residence is 3187 plus the garage and any other appurtenances to the residence. Staff rounded the number to 4000 square feet. This was an application to demolish the existing residence and replace it with a new structure. C/McManus felt that Mr. Horcher's letter had to do with procedural matters and differences of opinion with staff and was not directly related to the project itself. C/Low believed that staff had complied with the public notice requirements. In fact, it seemed to her that that staff went beyond the legal requirement. With respect to property ownership she was satisfied with staff's response and she was also satisfied that the height requirement would be properly monitored by City officials. She found nothing to support the idea of a `Trojan horse" concept regarding the third story laundry. Also, the speaker's complaint about the size of the property was irrelevant given the facts of the AUGUST 24, 2004 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION matter. She felt that it was unfortunate that Mr. Horcher continued to have a longstanding disagreement with the property owner since 1988. At this point, C/Low asked that the record reflect that Mr. Horcher had an outburst during her comment period. She went on to state that she was satisfied that conditions of approval had been met for this project. C/McManus moved, C/Low seconded to approve Development Review No. 2004-16 and Tree Permit No. 2004-08, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Low, McManus, VC/Tanaka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Tye ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nolan 8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMM ENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None Offered. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano reported that the Sakla appeal to the Commission's denial would be considered by the City Council on September 7. The City received the Draft EIR for the Stanley Chung project (Tract 53430) located inside "The Country Estates" and documents would soon be forwarded to the Commissioners for review. The public review period for the EIR would close mid-October with the Planning Commission taking action mid to late October. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: C/Tye moved, C/McManus seconded to adjourn the meeting. With no further business before the Planning Commission, VC/Tanaka adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Afully Submitted, L. uty City Manager AUGUST 24, 2004 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION Attest: Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka