Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/23/2007MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 23, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Wei led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei, Vice Chairman Tony Torng and Chairman Steve Nelson. Absent: Commissioner Kwang Ho Lee was excused. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Gregg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney; Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Associate; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 3 APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Submitted 4 A CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 9, 2007. VC/Torng moved, C/Wei seconded to approve the Minutes of January 9, 2007, as corrected by Chair/Nelson. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None VC/Torng Wei, Nolan, Chair/Nelson None Lee JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 2 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-17 — in accordance with Chapters 22.84 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code the applicant requested approval of plans to co -locate an additional wireless communications antenna on the existing light standard located at the southwest corner of the Diamond Bar High School football stadium. The site is fully developed as a public high school and the existing antenna is located on the athletic field. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: 21400 Pathfinder Road Diamond Bar High School Walnut Valley Unified School District 880 S. Lemon Avenue Walnut, CA 91789 APPLICANT: Maree Hoeger, Project Manager Royal Street Communications 2923-A Saturn Street Brea, CA 92821 AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and 'recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-17, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Maree Hoeger, Project Manager, explained the project and said that the applicant agreed with the conditions of approval. Craig Clute, 21217 Fountain Springs Road said this site was previously denied co -location and wanted to know why this project was recommended for approval. He opposed the project because he did not like the proliferation of sites already existing in his area. Further, it was his understanding that there were no funds available to maintain the area. However, the school district is benefiting from these sites and should be required to maintain the landscaping that is in poor condition. If the Commission were to allow an additional co -location site it should impose additional screening. JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION Maree Hoeger said she could not speak to the other carriers. However, the applicant intends to fully comply with the City's Development Code provisions. In addition, the applicant is not proposing to increase the height of the pole or expand the existing lease area and the new site will be located entirely within the current footprint. The applicant has agreed to fully screen its equipment and add landscaping and irrigation on the slope. CDD/Fong responded to Mr. Clute that several years ago the City dealt with the influx of several cell sites in the City. As a result, the City studied the matter in detail and amended the Development Code to include new regulations for installation of wireless cell sites/antennas. At the same time a map was included that identified pre -approved locations for installation of wireless antenna and co -location. The state, not the City regulates the school district. However, during the approval process a condition could be added to require the applicant to provide follow-up maintenance of the newly installed landscaping. CDD/Fong reiterated to Chair/Nelson that the school district is exempt from City regulations. Chair/Nelson suggested writing to the school district about the poor condition of the area. VC/Torng agreed and suggested Mr. Clute register his complaint with the school board. CDD/Fong confirmed to C/Wei that this site is a permitted site under the City's code. VC/Torng moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 2006-17, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the addition of a condition that the applicant be required to maintain their landscaping. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee 7.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-18, Development Review No. 2006-44 and Variance No. 2006-06 — In accordance with Chapter 21 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested the following approvals: Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-18 for on-site sale of general alcohol at a bona fide eating establishment; Development Review No. 2006-44 for construction of a new approximately 6372 square foot JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION restaurant; and, Variance No. 2006-06 to reduce the required parking lot setback. The project is consistent with the implementation of the approved Diamond Bar Village Specific Plan. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 707 Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Target Corporation 1000 Nicollet Mall Minneapolis, MN 55403 Rachael Miller RHL Design 3001 Douglas Boulevard No. 210 Roseville, CA 95661 CSP/Campbell presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-18, Development Review No. 2006-44 and Variance No. 2006-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. CDD/Fong responded to C/Wei's concerns about what hours other restaurants in Diamond Bar are allowed to serve alcohol stating that hours are generally coordinated with the establishment's usual business hours. VC/Torng felt that landscaping of the area was very important because the project was located at one the City's foremost gateways. In response to Chair/Nelson CSP/Campbell pointed out on the map the line of the proposed variance that affected a small corner of the parking lot area. Rachael Miller, RHL Design, asked for reconsideration of the condition to reduce the "to go" sign from 11 feet to six feet along and concurred with elimination of Condition 8 and agreed to all other conditions. CDD/Fong responded that since the City has no regulations involving the type of sign proposed, staff must consider it to be a directional sign which allows a maximum sign size of six square feet. Ms. Miller asked if a compromised could be reached on the sign and CDD/Fong responded affirmatively if the applicant were willing to replace it with a low -profile directional sign in accordance with the City's Sign Ordinance. Ms. Miller confirmed that the applicant would redesign the sign accordingly. JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 5 Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. PLANNING COMMISSION With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Wei moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-18, Development Review No. 2006-44 and Variance No. 2006-06 with the elimination of Condition 8 and modification of Condition 10 to have the applicant work with staff to provide a more low profile directional sign subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Wei, Nolan, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee 7.3 Development Review No. 2006-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11 — In accordance with Code Sections 22.48,22.56 and 22.68, this was a request to remodel and construct a first and second story addition and view deck for a total of approximately 2,234 square feet to an existing one story single family residence of approximately 1,896 square feet including the existing two -car garage. The Development Review was a design/architectural review and the Minor Conditional Use Permit was required due to the existing legal non -conforming front yard setback. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: 526 Bellows Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Evangeline S. Gunn 526 Bellows Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Jeff and Vangio Gunn 526 Bellows Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-21 and Minor JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the draft resolution. AssocP/Lungu responded to VC/Torng that the lot size was apportioned underthe County's code and that a fireplace can encroach into the side yard up to 30 inches. She explained how staff arrives'at lot coverage ratios. C/Wei asked what the architect's opinion was about removing the third level observation deck. AssocP/Lungu responded to questions included in letters received by the Commission as follows: The construction will not reduce or eliminate the front or backyard area. CDD/Fong responded that the City's ordinance requires that vehicles be parked on paved areas. AssocP/Lungu stated that the driveway would be widened during construction to accommodate parking of cars in the area adjacent to the current parking pad as depicted in the photograph. CDD/Fong responded that the applicant has six months from date of inspection to complete construction and can request one extension only. C/Nolan asked if staff's recommendation was to not approve the third floor landing and AssocP/Lungu responded yes because the deck would have an adverse affect on all of the other elevations. Evangeline Gunn, property owner, asked for Commission approval for the addition to accommodate their large family. She pointed out that the letters addressed to the Commission indicate that the authors approve of the project because the neighbors believe it would enhance the neighborhood. David Parker, architect, explained the project and responded to questions and concerns by showing a photograph and rendering overlay of the proposed project and made a case for including the deck that would be rendered unobtrusive and away from sight from the front and side view areas. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Marilyn Walker, 578 Topside Place (behind Bellows Court), said her only concern was that they too may not be able to continue enjoying the views after the applicant added a deck to their home. She was concerned about JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION whether the applicant's third floor deck would obscure her view of the mountains and the cities. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. Chair/Nelson asked if there were prohibitions against more than one family per household. CDD/Fong responded that staff requires the applicantto sign a Covenant and Agreement to maintain the structure as a single-family residence. Chair/Nelson asked the applicant if she parked her vehicle in the neighbor's driveway and Mrs. Gunn responded that she did not. She saw the photograph. Chair/Nelson asked if it could have been a visitor and Mrs. Gunn responded that it could have been during the holidays but she did not recall such an occurrence. C/Nolan asked if the applicant's home-based music business infringed on the neighbors parking and Mrs. Gunn responded that her business was internet- based only. CDD/Fong responded to VC/Torng that staff is concerned about the third level deck that is out of the ordinary and incompatible with the neighborhood. Chair/Nelson said the architect commented that the deck would not be visible to most residents in the adjacent areas. On one hand, what was wrong with applicants doing something unique with their homes as long as they conformed to the City's codes? On the other hand, if the proposal was highly visible and an obvious intrusion into the character of the neighborhood it would be understandable that staff would want to disallow the deck. C/Nolan asked if staff was concerned about the view of the rear yard and AssocP/Lungu explained that staff had allowed a great deal of latitude forthe applicant to design something different. It fits into the neighborhood, it is very different from what is found with other properties in the area, it is massive and it is very attractive. She was not certain how much increased view a third floor deck would allow. C/Nolan asked if staff was concerned about the home-based business and AssocP/Lungu responded that in accordance with the City's home-based business ordinance anyone doing business out of their home is required to register their business with the City. Mrs. Gunn said she was not creating revenue from her home, she said they were writing music and recording it for their personal use. If someone likes JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION their music they are invited to a recording study for production at which point they are paid. Therefore, she believed it was a home office with recording equipment. C/Wei felt there was no reason to limit the third level deck as long as the project conformed to the City's code. However, in viewing it from the right elevation it appeared to be too massive for the structure and he shared staffs concerns that the depth of the deck should be reduced slightly. Mr. Parker said he did not recall how deep the deck was proposed but that it could be reduced somewhat to fit with the horizontal of the house as indicated by Chair/Nelson. Mr. Parker said that if the project were so conditioned and approved this evening the applicant would be happy. If the deck were pulled back it would be behind the roofline and afford privacy to the neighbors. In response to staff and Commissioners concerns Mr. Parker drew in what the reduced deck would look like on the plans. ACA/Kovacevich asked the architect to provide the hand drawn copy of the redesigned plan to staff to be used if the Commission approves the redraw. C/Nolan moved, C/Wei seconded to approve Development Review No. 2006-21 and Minor. Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution in accordance with the reduction redesign of the third level deck presented during deliberation by the project's architect. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee 7.4 Comprehensive Sign Program No 2006-04, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-01 and Variance No. 2006-04— In accordance with Chapter 22 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code, the applicant requested the following approvals: Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2006-04 for development of a new comprehensive sign program for an existing shopping center, Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-01 for renovation of an existing JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION nonconforming pylon sign, and Variance No 2006-04 to reduce the required setback from the public right-of-way for monument signs (Development Code Section 22.36.130.) PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 2825 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Country Hills DB, LLC 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 214 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 CSP/Campbell presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission recommend City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-01, Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2006-04 and Variance No. 2006-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Michael McCarthy, applicant, said he was very excited about the sign program which he believed turned out especially well. With respect to the Fountain Springs/Cold Springs variance he was okay with the Planning Commission not approving that portion of the variance relating to the setback from the public right-of-way relative to the number of signs on Diamond Bar Boulevard. The two antiquated signs for Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken will be replaced by one new sign that includes a four -panel sign for the other position. Mr. McCarthy explained to VC/Torng that all of the businesses were separately addressed. Usually in shopping centers addresses are very discretely placed above the door of the business primarily for verifying package deliveries. He felt that VC/Torng's personal experience of locating shops by address was a rarity. CDD/Fong stated that VC/Torng's concerns were valid and perhaps the street numbers could be put at the bottom of the Pylon sign i.e.: 2700-2800 in place of the "City of Diamond Bar." Mr. McCarthy felt that "City of Diamond Bar" was important to have on the sign. C/Nolan said she was not concerned about the anchors but about the smaller stores. Mr. McCarthy suggested making more room for the numbers and leaving in the "City of Diamond Bar." CDD/Fong pointed out where the numbers could be placed. Chair/Nelson felt it was a good suggestion but that the numbers did not need to be huge because the center was not on a major thoroughfare that travels JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 10 1.3 9 PLANNING COMMISSION for several miles with people searching along the way for particular address numbers. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Torng moved, C/Wei seconded to recommend City Council approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-01, Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2006-04 and Variance No. 2006-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution with the addition of a condition to add 8 -inch address numbers to the Pylon sign for the entire center and to eliminate Condition 1(c). Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: Lee PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Torng said he was still concerned about third story decks and recommended that staff take the current code under advisement for possible amendment or change. Chair/Nelson said he concurred with VC/Torng's concerns about a third story deck and suggested that if applicants approach staff for this type of project that they be advised the Planning Commission would tend to look closely at the adverse impacts. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. VC/Torng advised SAA/Marquez that he planned to attend the March Planner's Institute. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. JANUARY 23, 2007 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 9:14 p.m. Attest: ly Su NancTFftgkv J Communityelop nt Director St ve Nelson, Chairman