Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/13/2007MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 13, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Jack Shah, Vice Chairman Tony Torng and Chairman Steve Nelson. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development Director; Greg Gubman, Planning Manager; David Meyer, Planning Consultant and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 23, 2007. VC/Torng moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve the October 23, 2007, Minutes as amended. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None. R1 NEW BUSINESS: None. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Development Review No. 2007-29 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a two- story addition of 1,151 square feet and to remodel the existing dwelling to NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION create a 7 -bedroom, 4 -bathroom, single-family dwelling unit. The subject property is zoned R-1 (8,000) and contains 14,466 gross square feet (.33 acres) of land area. (Continued from October 23, 2007) PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 1510 Kiowa Crest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Martha and Paul Gonzales 1510 Kiowa Crest Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Roofing Plus Construction 18 N. Central Avenue Upland, CA 91786 PC/Meyer presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2007-29, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing. Paul Gonzales, 1510 Kiowa Crest Drive, thanked staff for presenting a thorough report and indicating that it was not his intention to offend anyone with this project. John Hoffner, 1504 Kiowa Crest, adjacent and upslope from the project, said he appreciated the property owner's concern about not offending anyone with this project. However, he wished that there had been discussions prior to the plans being submitted to the City because it came as a shock to him. Mr. Gonzales is a good family man and a great neighbor and is faced with a number of challenges at home. Mr. Hoffner said he wanted to support Mr. Gonzales in his effort to keep his family comfortable, safe and intact. He and his wife purchased their home because of the spectacular views and this project is a major impact on the view from their ceremonial rooms. In addition, trees have been planted on Mr. Gonzales' slope, which have not been maintained. Once the addition goes up he and his wife will lose their view from the main part of the house and be looking into the neighbor's bedroom window. He felt there were alternatives that had not been explored in terms of where else to place the second story addition. He asked what area would need to be excavated and was surprised the small landscaped area near the driveway approach would remain intact. He said he also had NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION concerns about safety to make sure there would be no vehicle collision with the gas meter and electric meter. He reiterated that over several years erosion has occurred on the westerly slope, which has exposed the foundation wall on his property line. What is the City requiring the applicant to do to assure no further erosion and alleviate erosion that has occurred? What kind of landscaping is required? Currently, there are a number of noxious weeds on the slope. He noticed that the report indicated that staff observed up to six vehicles parked at the site. Often there are seven cars. He was still concerned about a one -car garage being built near the front of the existing garage and how it would impact the home and put more vehicles on the street. There is a board and care home across the street from his residence and a lot of staff come and go. Parking is an issue on their block and he asked the Planning Commission to reconsider placement of the garage addition. He felt any project that came before the Planning Commission should be considered the same as new construction to preserve views. He cited a second -story addition that did not impact views and felt Mr. Gonzales could do the same. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. Discussion and clarification ensued. PC/Meyer said staff understood the issue of view impairment. From staff's perspective, the property owner cannot be required to go through a lot of design options absent design regulations prohibiting such designs. Staff tries to encourage the designerto maximize the site constraints and minimize the impact on the neighborhood, which staff believes the designer did in exercising reasonable design alternatives. Staff felt the project offered a minimum impact on the view and neighborhood. Chair/Nelson reopened the public hearing. Mr. Gonzales responded to C/Shah that he considered placing the second story closer to the rear of the house. However, he chose to use the weight bearing walls of the garage to support the second story. The decision had nothing to do with blocking views. CDD/Fong stated that for construction cost efficiency it is better to place the second story above the garage. C/Lee asked if Mr. Gonzales were willing to discuss this addition with his neighbor and Mr. Gonzales responded no. C/Lee commented that the NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION neighbor's comment regarding the fact that he had not spoken to the applicant indicated to C/Lee that the neighbor lacked communication skills. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, VC/Torng seconded to approve Development Review 2007-29, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. C/Lee felt it would be prudent to continue the matter for two weeks to allow the applicant and his neighbor time to discuss the project. Chair/Nelson said that every issue brought up by Mr. Hoffner has been heard and reviewed by the Planning Commission on other project proposals. In those cases the projects were being constructed to the City's development standards and codes and the Commission approved the projects. They met the codes and standards as do this project. If there are flaws, it is not in the logic of this Commission, it may be within the Development Code. PC/Meyer confirmed that as indicated there is nothing the applicant proposes that is outside of the City's Development Code. It is unfortunate that these projects affect neighbors but it is part of the suburban environment. He said he was not prepared to not support the motion for approval and would rather be consistent with what the Commission has done in the past. Motion approved by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 8. PULIC HEARINGS: 8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-02 — In accordance with Development Code Sections 22.42, 22.48, 22.54 and 22.58, the applicant requested approval to establish a wireless communications facility (cell site) at Pantera Park. The purpose of the proposed cell site was to receive and transmit wireless communication data via the Royal Street Communications network. Improvements associated with the proposed cell site include: Replacement of an existing 92 -foot high field light pole sign with a panel antenna array and microwave dish; and construction of an unmanned 240 square -foot, 10.5 foot NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION tall equipment building to match existing park structures. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required to establish a cell site and Development Review approval is required for the architectural design of the proposed improvements. PROJECT ADDRESS: 738 Pantera Drive (Pantera Park) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Diamond Bar APPLICANT: Royal Street Communications, LLC 2913 El Camino Real #561 Tustin, CA 92782 PM/Gubman recommended that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-02 to its November 27, 2007, meeting. C/Lee moved, C/Shah seconded, to continue the Public Hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-02 to November 27, 2007. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT COMMISSIONERS Lee, Nolan, Shah, VC/Torng, Chair/Nelson None None 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Torng noticed that the Sprint matter was going to the City Council for consideration and wondered whether he should watch the proceedings from his home rather than attend the meeting. CDD/Fong said she expected residents to appear before the Council. The City Council is the final authority and if the Council denies the appeal there could be the threat of a legal challenge to the City. C/Lee said he concurred with Chair/Nelson's comments during deliberation of Item 7.1. However, all government agencies work for the people and the Commission must consider their concerns. Today he does not feel good because the neighbor has rights and he suffers psychologically because his view was taken away by a neighbor who is supposed to be a best friend. Asa public employee we should have extended more time to make it easierforthem. Thatwas his comment. Can the Commission do that? CDD/Fong responded that the City was not in a NOVEMBER 13, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION position to regulate human behavior. Staff always recommends that applicants talk with their neighbors but staff cannot regulate them to do so under threat of not accepting an application. C/Lee felt it was sad that residents don't communicate. CDD/Fong stated that every property owner has a right to develop his property within the guidelines of the City's requirements, which are broad-based and serve everyone equally. There is no special interest given to any one person or group; the laws and codes are applied universally to every Diamond Bar property owner. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Fong stated that staff continues to investigate and collect data from other cities regarding the number of bedrooms versus the parking ratio. Staff hopes to bring information to the Planning Commission for its decision as to whether to recommend a Code amendment. CDD/Fong updated the Commission on the Country Hills Towne Center. The center will likely propose a name change; the opening date for H -Mart is November 30. Once H -Mart opens the remaining new tenants will likely open about the same time. Staff is hopeful that the center will be a good usable center for the community once completed. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair/Nelson adjourned the regular meeting at 7:59 p.m. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman, Planning Manager Steve elson, Chairman