Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/24/2007MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JULY 24, 2007 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson 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, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Kathleen Nolan, Osman Wei, Vice Chairman Tony Torng and Chairman Steve Nelson. Also present: Nancy Fong, Community Development; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; David Alvarez, Planning Technician; Dave Meyer, Planning Consultant; Brad Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney, and Stella Marquez, Senior Administration Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Submitted. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of Regular Meeting of July 10, 2007. VC/Torng moved, C/Lee seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Lee, Nolan, Wei, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. JULY 2412007 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No 2007-09 Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05 — In accordance with Code Sections 22.58, 2248, 2254 and 22.42, the applicant requested to install a telecommunications facility #LA73XCO17. The installation consists of antenna attached to a faux elm tree commonly referred to as a "monoelm" and an equipment building to match the existing park structures. A Conditional Use Permit approval was required in order to operate a cell site; Development Review approval was required for the design/architectural review, and the Variance approval was required for the 45 foot tall "monoelm," which exceed the 35 -foot maximum height allowed for a structure. PROJECT ADDRESS: Ronald Reagan Park 2201 Peaceful Hills Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar Sprint Nextel 310 Commerce Irvine, CA 92602 CDD/Fong stated for the record that staff received a petition signed by residents and four letters in opposition to the project. PT/Alvarez presented staffs report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-09, Development Review No. 2007-22 and Variance No. 2007-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. In response to VC/Torng, CDD/Fong confirmed that the distance of the antenna was 60 feet to the basketball court, 100 feet to the tennis court and more than 200 feet to the neighboring residential property. PT/Alvarez read the FCC guideline requirements. ACA/Wohlenberg presented an overview of the FCC health issues as follows: The Telecommunications Act forbids local governments from disapproving a wireless facility based on health concerns. Federal law mandates cities to follow only the FCC health guidelines. The FCC health guidelines are based on surface heating and the amount of energy generated by a facility. The maximum power facility with the maximum number of antennas is considered to be safe under the FCC JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION guidelines 10 meters away. Therefore, once 33 feet is reached, the most powerful cell tower possible is considered to be safe within the FCC guidelines. Generally, public protest centers on health effects and that is something that cities are not allowed to address in consideration of these types of applications. VC/Torng asked if there were cell sites in other city parks and CDD/Fong responded that other wireless antennas were approved in Pantera Park, Peterson Park and Summitridge Park: Two monoelms were approved for Summitridge Park but have not yet been constructed. C/Nolan and VC/Torng drove by the site and did not speak with anyone regarding this issue. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Ed Gala, Sprint Nextel, explained the project and potential coverage area that would extend into residential areas. Mr. Gala said that it was common practice to place these facilities in city parks. He showed an example of an installation that blended with the surrounding landscape. C/Lee asked if there was a functional or technical difference between a 35 - foot and 40 -foot antenna except for the appearance. Mr. Gala responded yes, that originally the RF Engineer was seeking a height of 55 feet. Staff informed Sprint Nextel that the height limit was 35 feet and after testing the 35 -foot antenna, the RF Engineer discovered that 35 feet was the minimum height for operation and the variance requesting an additional five feet was to provide a more realistic appearance for the monoelm. C. Stephen Davis, 20763 East Rim Lane, said his house lies directly across the street from the park's picnic structure. He reviewed staff's report and found that it did not include a copy of the lease stipulating the amount of income this installation would provide to the City. He questioned that CEQA standards would not apply to this project. Since Diamond Bar is short of parkland the idea of converting a portion of a park to commercial use should be troubling. There is no discussion about alternate locations that are available for placement of this site that would possibly have less impact on residential property and there is no discussion about the impact of the project on property values. He said it was also troubling to him that this would JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION provide service not for Diamond Bar residents but for residents of other cities and areas and felt staff's report was somewhat superficial and did not consider other impacts that affect the adjacent neighborhood. Chun Kong Chen, 20718 E. Mill Lane, felt the City should maintain the characteristics of the park and not use parkland for commercial ventures. He felt the fake tree would be a danger to kids using the park because they would be inclined to climb it. Tony Lee, 20836 Quail Run Drive, said he understood the need to provide wireless service but felt the Commission might want to consider alternatives because other cell service providers have been able to provide quality service without the need for this tower. Rejay Butah, 20793 East Rim Lane, hoped the Commission would consider all of the points made by Mr. Davis and other residents. He said the tower would be in his line of site and wondered if anyone had considered what would happen to the property values in the adjacent neighborhoods if this project were constructed. Mr. Gala responded to speakers that in terms of alternative sites, his company typically explores at least six sites before making a selection. The reason for locating the site in the proposed spot is to connect other sites and eliminate dead spots. Co -location is preferred. However, in this case that option was not available for a site that would provide the necessary coverage. Second, this site was chosen because it lies at the crest of the hill and better coverage will be provided toward the northwest and southerly areas. With respect to park space, the building is 10x20 (200 square feet) and the monoelm has a 10x10 footprint for a total of 300 square feet in a two -acre park. The antenna generates no noise and the only noise would be from the building air conditioners. If there were no roof the air conditioner would not be necessary and there would be no noise generated. However, the City's parks department asked that the building mimic the restroom structure. Residents will have the benefit of increased service. In addition, this antenna provides in-home Wi-Fi coverage. Mr. Gala referred to articles indicating cell sites have no effect on property values and entered the article into the public record. VC/Torng asked Mr. Gala to elaborate on the necessity of this tower since Verizon provides coverage in the area. Mr. Gala responded that the data indicates the particular area of the park has marginal coverage at best and JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION the RF Engineers identify areas lacking coverage and direct Sprint Nextel to find a location within the coverage gap. It is very expensive for Sprint to build cell sites and if it was not needed it would not be built. VC/Torng asked if kids could climb the monoelm. Mr. Gala responded that it could be fenced with security fencing. In addition, there is nothing for kids to grab onto to facilitate climbing. CDD/Fong said she believed no one would visit the area because the trees were very close to the edge of the slope. VC/Torng agreed with speakers that there would be kids in the area because it was only 60 feet to the basketball court. He felt the site would be too close to people in a park with heavy use. Mr. Gala indicated to VC/Torng that Sprint Nextel could provide a security fence. VC/Torng wanted to make certain that this was the optimal site and that residents and park users would be fully protected. CDD/Fong indicated to VC/Torng that staff looked at the site to make certain it was away from the residential area and would have a minimal impact to users of the park. CSD/Rose, CM/DeStefano and CDD/Fong personally walked the site to determine the best location for the monoelm and staff believes the selected location provides the least impact upon usage of the park. As far as preventing children or adults from climbing the tree there could be fencing around the base. However, staff would prefer to see more decorative material such as wrought iron rather than chain-link fencing with green mesh. In addition, the equipment building area is not a heavily used area of the park. VC/Torng referred to a picture showing the basketball court and picnic area close to the tower. He felt the tower should be another 20 feet from that area in accordance with the 68 feet required distance from residences and if there is some other possible location it should be considered. Mr. Gala said the tower could be moved closer to the residences and away from the basketball court. The equipment building was placed in an area to provide a shorter run to the transformer so that the trenching would be on the backside of the tennis courts. CDD/Fong reiterated that the location is away from the residential area; it is not impeding on any picnic structures, and is within a growth of trees to render it nearly invisible. Staff believes the area selected is the least intrusive on the adjacent residential and park areas. VC/Torng asked if the antenna could be moved further west into the trees to make it more invisible and further away from the residences. Mr. Gala said JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION that one reason for choosing the particular location was because there was a gap in the trees and the trees would not have to be trimmed to provide line of site. Building, trees and other structures degrade the signal. C/Nolan asked if there was a difference in safety concerns with kids trying to climb on monoelms as opposed to regular trees and what percentage of use would be available to Diamond Bar as opposed to surrounding communities. She also asked if additional growth of the natural trees would provide more cover for the monoelm. CDD/Fong said that the surrounding pine trees would grow to 50 or 60 feet at maturity and the monoelm would be shielded and shaded by the pine trees. Mr. Gala said that the tree growth could minimize and degrade the service. The reason this particular spot was selected because there was a gap allowing for direct line of site west and east and due south. He said he did not know the percentage of use by D.B. as opposed to other areas. CDD/Fong stated that in accordance with the coverage map the majority of the service area would be in Diamond Bar. CDD/Fong said the attraction of the monoelm to climbers would be .no different from any other trees. Mr. Gala responded to Chair/Nelson that typically these projects take about three months to construct including about a week of heavy construction. C/Wei said he did not believe anyone would be able to climb a tree with a three-foot diameter unless they had climbing equipment. Also, the center of the post is 16 feet away from the top of the slope so there would be plenty of room to move the post seven or eight feet further from the basketball court and picnic tables. Ye Jung, 20777 Missionary Ridge felt the majority of the coverage would benefit Rowland Heights and not Diamond Bar. Mr. Lee said he did not believe Sprint had adequately addressed the Verizon partnership and asked the Commission to focus on that issue as it deliberated. He asked if the distance between the equipment building and the tower would preclude the City from redesign of the park in the future and if the City had conducted decibel studies on the air conditioning system and were there considerations for micro towers for the areas left uncovered. And would the increase in power mean that other carriers could use the site as constructed or would the power output have to be increased with additional usage. JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson asked why Sprint Nextel did not consider co -location with Verizon to which Mr. Gala said he was not sure about the location of the Verizon facility to which speakers referred. Mr. Gala offered to bring the RF Engineer to meet with the Commission at its next meeting. A speaker suggested two other possible locations that involved water tanks and not parks. A speaker took exception to placement of the antenna in the proposed location because there was no benefit to the City. C/Lee asked what consequences the City could expect if this project were approved. ACA/Wohlenberg responded that the Telecommunications Act requires denial of a wireless facility to be in writing and it must be based on substantial evidence in the public record. Therefore, the evidence would need to be reviewed to see if the project had reached that level of substantial evidence. Reaching that level can be difficult when a facility meets the code and does not appear to violate any of the City's requirements for development projects. Sprint would have to bring court action and seek to have the Commission and Council's decision overturned. A number of cities have been involved in such litigation and it tends to be long and difficult. If there is evidence in the record to support the denial it can be supported. At the request of Chair/Nelson, ACA/Wohlenberg stated that the project was brought forward to the Commission based on the recommendation that the project falls within one of the categorical exemptions within CEQA. When companies go before the California Public Utilities Commission to get permission to begin offering telecommunications services, they go through the CEQA process at that time. Therefore, permission to offer the services and build the system has undergone a CEQA review at the state level and when individual projects come forward to cities such as Diamond Bar the City is required to review the project to determine whether there are substantial impacts that would require additional CEQA review. In this case, staff felt that this project fit within the categorical exemption for minor new construction Section 15303(d). ACA/Wohlenberg responded to Chair/Nelson that he was comfortable that the City was on solid ground with its findings. There are a number of uses that could be considered commercial use. However, these types of uses are public utility uses such as cable television use within parks and residential areas, electrical systems and other various telecommunication companies, telephone companies and so forth. JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nolan asked about the question of AC noise. CDD/Fong stated that AC units in residential zones are required to be five feet away from the property line. This facility has a residential type of air conditioning unit because it is a small structure. It is climate controlled inside and the noise generated would be very minimal and at considerable distance from the residential area. A speaker spoke about noise generating from the basketball and tennis court areas, which does not relate to this application. Those considerations relate to park use only and would be appropriately discussed in front of the Parks and Recreation Commission. VC/Torng moved, C/Wei seconded, to continue this matter to August 14, 2007, to allow the applicant an opportunity to consider other locations including co -location sites; direct staff to consider mitigation measures such as moving the picnic tables further from the facility and/or moving the facility further from the basketball and tennis courts, and receive a report from the applicant and/or staff regarding other sites that were considered and eliminated; direct staff or the applicant to provide a picture from the park side, and direct staff to make reference to the CEQA exemption. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torng, Wei, Lee, Nolan Chair/Nelson None None RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 8:34 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 8:41 p. m. 7.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-17 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of plans to demolish an existing dwelling unit and construct a new three-story 11,818 square foot single-family residence with an attached 3,180 square foot garage. The subject property is zoned R-1 (40,000) and contains 57,934 gross square feet of land area. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2488 Alamo Heights Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION PROPERTY OWNER: Wei An Wu 22110 Roundup Drive Walnut, CA 91789 APPLICANT: Ming K. Lan, Architect 2791 N. Saturn Street, Unit "C" Brea, CA 92821 PC/Meyer presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 207-17, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Wei questioned whether the photo accurately depicted the project area. CDD/Fong showed the correct photograph to replace the incorrect photograph contained in the packet. VC/Torng said he drove by the site. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Ming Lan said he was present to address any questions the Commission might have. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded to approve Development Review No. 2007-17, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nolan, Wei, VC/Torng Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 7.3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2007-10 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of plans to demolish an existing dwelling unit and construct a new three-story 11,158 square foot single-family residence with an attached 2,093 square foot garage. The subject property is zoned R-1 (40,00) and contains 49,429 gross square feet of land area. JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER 2695 Shady Ridge Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. and Mrs. Rustom 23505 Grand Rim Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Sergio Antadze XIArt Group, Inc. 17037 Chatsworth Street, Suite 207 Granada Hills, CA 91344 PC/Meyer presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2007-10, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Wei said he understood that there was a septic tank disposal system and that there was a limitation on the size depending on the number of bedrooms. CDD/Fong pointed out that staff included a number of conditions that addressed the matter of the expansion or replacement of the septic tank and presented the list of conditions to the Planning Commissioners. C/Wei said he believed there was a typo or mistake on the basement plan A-1.03. He wanted to know why within the so-called "mechanical room" there was a closet and full bathroom. PC/Meyer stated that there was another mechanical room adjacent to the area and it could have been a common auto cad error. The architects are present and can clarify the matter. The area is obviously a bedroom and would be considered thus by the concerned agencies. PC/Meyer responded to C/Wei that basement bedrooms are permitted as long as they have light and air and contain an emergency exit. VC/Torng asked that the agenda be corrected to show the property address as 2695 Shady Ridge Lane and that the square footage on page 2 be corrected to 11,158. VC/Torng said he visited the site. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION The Project Manager said the "mechanical room" was a typo. It has an emergency egress and she has been working with staff to determine the proper usage of the room. VC/Torng asked if the applicant understood the septic tank conditions and she said she understood and that the applicant would of course comply with all of the requirements. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved, VC/Torng seconded to approve Development Review No. 2007-10, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, VC/Torng, Lee, Wei Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 7.4 Development Review No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 — In accordance with Development Code 22.48 the applicant is requesting approval of plans to construct a new three-story 11,321 square foot single- family residence with an attached 1,350 square foot garage. The subject property is zoned R-1 (40,000) and contains 50,767 gross square feet of land area. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 22909 Ridgeline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Paul Ghotra 24251 Delta Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Sam Ghogal United Land Development Corp. 23415 Pleasant Meadow Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION PC/Meyer presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Wei asked for explanation of the front yard setback, eight foot retaining wall height and landscaping. PC/Meyer explained that he has been working with the architect on this project for a little over a year, reviewed the plans eight different times, provided the architect with direction from the Planning Commission and pleaded with the architect to comply and has therefore submitted the plans as they were presented to staff. If the Commission finds circumstances that the design of the project is appropriate for reducing the front yard setback to achieve community goals it is within the Commission's purview to do so. With respect to landscaping, the applicant has declined to provide staff with that information although basic observation and by measuring to scale indicates the project would comply, the landscape plan would be required on the final construction plans before the plans were moved forward to the building department. Since time has passed and staff has reviewed the same set of plans eight times the plans now before the Commission are as good as staff will be able to obtain and staff is seeking the Commission's direction. CDD/Fong stated that a condition of approval has been added to the project to drop the second story balcony and eliminate the roof deck in order to reduce the building bulk in conformance with the intent of the Hillside Ordinance. C/Lee said he drove by the project area. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Sam Bhogal, applicant and chief engineer, said he did not understand why staff did not have a complete set of drawings including a landscape plan. Sheet #3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are landscape plans and show the curvature of the rear walls. CDD/Fong said the issue regarding the landscape plan is that the applicant has not provided a percentage of landscaping, which is information required of all applicants. JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Bhogal said he was never informed that he needed calculations on the landscape plan. The landscape architect will be glad to provide the information. He referred to the drawings depicting the landscape plan. The most important factor involved in building this home was that the house is located on the west side of the ridgeline. This is a steep slope and homes built on this street have a shorter front yard and every neighbor to this property has a minor variance for the steep slope and he expected PC/Meyer would have explained this to the Commission. Since this is a steep slope the applicant is asking for only a two -foot minor variance on the retaining wall. Every single house built on the west side of the street has enjoyed that variance. The applicant has met all of the other conditions and needs the Commission's approval tonight. C/Lee wanted to know if the applicant could tell the Commission how much of a rear yard setback would be needed according to what other homeowners in the area had been granted. Mr. Bhogal responded that there is a house next door to the project that has only a 10 -foot front yard and other houses have only a 12- foot front yard. The applicant is requesting an additional six feet and his statement was that more than 90 percent of the homes on this street received the minor setback approval. CDD/Fong clarified that C/Lee's request was about the rear yard setback from the edge of the building. There is an average of more than 25 feet of setback and the closest point is about 10 feet. The majority of the rear yard is more than 25 feet. She indicated to C/Lee that the house could not be pushed back any further because of the slopes; its restricted use in the rear yard. Mr. Bhogal said the applicant has done everything to meet all of the requirements and is asking for only a two -foot minor variance for the retaining wall in the back and four feet in the front, which is something everyone is enjoying on Ridge Lane. C/Nolan asked if the adjacent homes were built prior to the current standard to which CDD/Fong responded that some homes were built prior to incorporation. Chair/Nelson acknowledged the topographical challenges of the site. Looking at the front yard area if the standard code is for 50 percent of the front yard area to be landscaped did the applicant consider not putting in the loop driveway. Most neighbors do not have a looped driveway but rather a JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION driveway into their garages. Mr. Bhogal responded that there is a huge front lot and he could work within the standards to make sure that it did not exceed the percentage allowed for the hardscape and landscape. CDD/Fong stated that the 50 percent front yard landscape requirements are based on the current development standards of a 30 -foot setback and not on the reduced amount of front yard setback with the variance. Therefore, the applicant must meet the 50 percent landscape requirement based on that standard. VC/Torng asked the applicant to show the Commission how much of the second story deck and roof would be cut. CDD/Fong used an overhead to depict the requirement. VC/Torng asked for concurrence from the applicant. Mr. Bhogal said it was a balcony for the upper level and the applicant gladly accepts the condition and make the necessary adjustments. C/Wei asked if it was correct that shortly after the City incorporated the setbacks in "The Country Estates" were set at 30 feet. Any houses built prior to that time were 20 or 22 feet and CDD/Fong confirmed that it was correct and indicated that all of tonight's projects were approved based on a 30 -foot setback requirement. VC/Torng asked if the retaining wall height could be reduced. CDD/Fong said it was possible to reduce the height by building a third retaining wall in order to achieve the proposed grading pad design. Staff would like to stay within the six-foot height requirement to be consistent with the Hillside Ordinance. At the same time it would require more grading to reduce the retaining wall to six feet and build another four -foot retaining wall further out from the property. Mr. Bhogal said the objective could be achieved without the minor variance. However, the applicant is already building four walls behind the house, which he felt was enough. CDD/Fong said that the length of the majority distance of the retaining wall is eight feet. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Nolan moved to approve Development Review No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06, subject to the 50 percent requirement for landscaping be based on the 30 -foot regular front yard setback, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. The motion died for lack of a second. JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Fong acknowledged that some of the Commissioners were concerned about the retaining wall height. One option was to make a motion to direct the applicant to redesign the project to meet the 30 -foot setback and exclude the request for a Minor Variance for the retaining wall height. A second option was that the Commission could grant the Minor Variance for the front yard setback and direct the applicant to redesign the retaining walls so there would be no Minor Variance Chair/Nelson seconded C/Nolan's motion. Chair/Nelson said he did not see this as setting a bad precedent but rather as recognizing the constraints of the project site and he would rather have a higher retaining wall than an additional four to six feet of area disturbance. C/Lee was concerned about whether "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association would approve this project because if the HOA approved this project the Commission's approval would be more meaningful. ACA/Wohlenberg stated that the Commission renders its approvals based on compliance with City codes. If there is an HOA matter, it is entirely private and outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. CDD/Fong responded to C/Lee that if the applicant is required to modify the plans he would have to process the revised application with the City. ACA/Wohlenberg pointed out that if the Commissioner were to attempt to trigger its approval based on an HOA approval, it would probably be an unlawful delegation of the Commission's authority. CNVei said his concern was how much variance between the applicant's request and the City's codes should be allowed for this particular project Mr. Bhogal stated "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association approved the project with the minor variance in the front and the back. Chair/Nelson indicated to Mr. Bhogal that the Commission was not concerned about the HOA approval, thanked the applicant for pointing it out and reminded the Commissioners that the revelation should not be a consideration during deliberation. JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan, Chair/Nelson, Lee, VC/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Wei ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None 7.5 Development Review No 2006-25 and Variance No. 2006-01 — In accordance with Development Code Section 22.48, the applicant requested approval of plans to construct a new three-story 7,780 square foot single- family residence with an attached 1,069 square foot garage. The subject property is zoned R-1 (40,000) and contains 195,149 gross square feet of land area (4.48 acres). PROJECT ADDRESS: 1948 Flint Rock Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: Christopher and Heidi Leu 2354 Arcdale Avenue Rowland Heights, CA 91748 Pete Volbeda, Architect 615 N. Benson Avenue, Unit "C" Upland, CA 91786 PC/Meyer presented staff's report and recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive public input and consider the project as proposed. C/Wei pointed out a typo on the blueprints. He said he was troubled about the floor area calculation for the so-called "second" unit in the R-1 zone and about the setback and building height variance. PC/Meyer said that staff had considered the same questions and offered that the architect could address those issues. He referred to the City's Development Code with a definition of second dwelling units and "guesthouses." VC/Torng said he could not find the second unit on the plans and that he also had questions about the numbers indicated on the plans. PC/Meyer responded that staff had difficulty with the inconsistency in the figures as well and that there was no second unit because the second dwelling unit was on the first (basement) floor. JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Torng said he drove to the site and viewed the property. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Pete Volbeda, Applicant, said this project was previously approved. However, the soils engineer indicated the homeowner could not build on the buttress fill as proposed. The reason the owner proposed the current design was because they did not want three stories. Mr. Volbeda said his reason for changing the design was to move the house away from the buttress fill. The new design incorporates one eight -foot retaining wall instead of two and reduces the size of the house. He admitted there was a discrepancy with respect to height of the house and said he would meet with staff to get the height to 35 feet eliminating the need for a variance. Neither proposal has any usable rear yard beyond the rear slope. The new proposal also asks for three stories instead of two stories. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. Chair/Nelson asked if the applicant could reduce the size of the house down and Mr. Volbeda responded that this size was not unusual for "The Country Estates" and that if the dwelling were reduced to a smaller size the owners would probably not build the home. C/Lee moved, C/Wei seconded to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for Development Review No. 2006-25 and Variance No. 2006-01. CDD/Fong responded to VC/Torng that the Planning Commission could direct staff that the maximum variance the Commission would consider is a 20 percent reduction — a Minor Variance. VC/Torng asked the maker of the motion to amend his motion to include the clarification. CDD/Fong clarified that the motion was to accept the option to deny the proposed project and to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for the August 14, 2007 meeting. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Wei, Nolan, VC/Torng Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT COMMISSIONERS: None JULY 24, 2007 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None 9. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: VC/Torng re-emphasized that he wanted consideration of the 20 percent reduction. C/Lee acknowledged that several individuals attended tonight's meeting and said they believed the Sprint Nextel project was beneficial for Rowland Heights and not Diamond Bar. In his opinion, all individuals should be treated the same no matter where they live. C/Wei felt there were many variances requested and the most important part of the code is, in his opinion, the setbacks. If the City gives different variances to different projects it might cause some consternation in the future. Chair/Nelson agreed with C/Wei because if people felt so narrow minded it would be likened to Diamond Bar putting a gate back across Grand Avenue. The world is a small place and everyone needs to pull together for the benefit of all. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS. 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 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 10:27 p.m. Attest: Respectfuµy Su Nancy Fo teve Nelson, Chairman nit)Oevelopment Director