Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/10/2010MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 10, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Torng 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, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance_ 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Steve Nelson, Jack Shah, and Chairman Tony Torng. Absent: Vice Chairman Kathy Nolan was absent. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; David Alvarez, Assistant Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 27, 2010. C/Shah moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 27, 2010, as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Lee, Nelson, Shah, Chair/Torng None VC/Nolan 7.1 Development Review and Minor Variance No. PL 2009-96 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48 and 22.52, the AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION applicant requested approval to construct a new 15,061 square foot single family residence and 900 square foot second unit, and a Minor Variance for eight foot high retaining walls on a 57,935 square foot (1.3 acre), Rural Residential (RR) zoned parcel with an underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR) PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER 2488 Alamo Heights Dive (APN 8713-028-003) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Syed Madad & Meher Tabatabai 2452 Alamo Heights Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Bill Hanson Distinguished Homes 160 S. Old Springs Road, Suite 170 Anaheim Hills, CA 92808 AP/Alvarez presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review and Minor Variance No. PL 2009-96 based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lee asked if the north and south sides of the dwelling had a retaining wall and AP/Alvarez responded that the north side is on an upper pad and does have a retaining wall. The south side does not have a retaining wall, it slopes straight down. They will not be able to see the retaining wall from the north side because the north side is on a higher elevation. C/Lee asked if adjacent houses had retaining walls and AP/Alvarez said he was aware of properties in "The Country Estates" that were approved for eight -foot retaining walls. C/Shah noticed that the proposed project would require 5,439 cubic yards of cut to create the pad and 83 cubic yards would be used for fill while 12,617 cubic yards would be exported, which is about 185-330 truckloads. He asked if the applicant was able to balance the site because that number of trucks moving dirt out of that neighborhood would be too many and would definitely disrupt the neighborhood. AP/Alvarez responded that it would be difficult to balance the site when there is a 40 -foot elevation difference within the site. AP/Alvarez stated that the applicant could provide more detail. AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Shah said he knows the applicant on a social basis and said he did not believe it would impact his decision. CDD/Gubman said that based on what C/Shah stated about his level of interaction with those individuals and that he feels he can still make an impartial decision, he believed that it would not affect the impartial nature of his decision following deliberation. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Bill Hanson, Distinguished Homes, intends to build Mr. Madad's home as Mr. Madad intends. With respect to the amount of exported dirt because of the grade differential of 40 feet from front to back, in order to fit a house into that slope it would require quite a bit of cut. Within "The Country Estates" there are grading restrictions and within the 10 foot side yard, a property owner is not allowed to cut or fill more than two feet. This is directly related to the eight foot retaining wall. To build a house of that size on that pad, there is no other way to accomplish it. If there was another way, the applicant would not be exporting any more dirt than necessary. C/Shah asked about the back of the property and why there was such a large drop and wondered if the applicant tried to use the dirt in that area. Mr. Hanson said he left the back one-third of the lot undisturbed where an orchard will be planted. There is a drainage easement and a flood hazard in the back portion behind the guesthouse. C/Shah felt a lot of the area could be used for fill. Mr. Hanson said he was trying to stay away from that particular area due to volume, hydrology and not disturbing the flood hazard area. He had a soils engineer conduct an extensive analysis of the area and this is the only way that the house can sit on the lot and still maintain the flood hazard area as well as, stay within "The Country Estates" limits. The limit of two foot fill/cut is within the side yard setbacks which drives the eight foot retaining wall on the north side. C/Nelson said he did not have a problem with the project but philosophically he is struggling with the fact that this is a 15,000 square foot "dream home" with an eight foot retaining wall. He asked Mr. Hanson if when he approached this project, did he approach it believing he would keep the six foot maximum in mind and design a home that was the size that would fit within that or did he think to himself that he would build as big a house as he could and disregard the ordinance and put an eight foot retaining wall in. At what point does this Commission decide that somebody's "dream home" cannot be a certain size because the retaining walls are so high. He AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION understands the topography of the site but philosophically, he was trying to understand, what was the applicant thinking going into this project? Do they need the inline pool? This is quite a project and while it is a beautiful home, at some point is this anarchy and is the Commission basically approving things that do not adhere to the ordinance or should it expect people to adhere to the ordinance and the rules. If the applicant was restricted to a six foot wall on the side where he has an eight foot wall, what would that do to the design? Mr. Hanson said they would have to reduce the size of the home by narrowing it. C/Nelson said that as he understands the diagram the eight foot wall does not really parallel or fall near the house. It really has to do with the cabana and the pool and the pool equipment room. Mr. Hanson said there is a section of wall toward the back of the house that approaches the eight foot level. C/Nelson said it was a very short section. Mr. Hanson said that the way he approached this project was that his client bought this lot with the intention of building his "ultimate home" that he could live the rest of his days in and his requirement was a minimum of 14,000 square feet. So as he developed through the planning stage and with the architecture it ended up being 15,000 square feet plus and in order to fit that on the lot that is where the project ended up. Mr. Hanson said he was trying to fulfill his client's wishes and dreams on the lot that he purchased in order to build his home and he was trying to reach the client's requirements which he did and in order to do that, that is what drove the retaining walls, grading, etc. C/Nelson thanked Mr. Hanson and reiterated that he was not opposed to the project but the Commission is constantly faced with property owners pushing the bubble and he wants to understand where they are coming from and whether it is a requirement for a dream home to be this size. If the retaining wall were 20 feet, would the Commission be expected to approve it just because it is the property owner's "dream home?" Eight feet is not that big of a difference. The Commission has approved eight feet in the past and he is prepared to approve the project but wanted to understand the thinking that goes behind this type of proposal. Mr. Hanson reiterated his comments and concluded by stating that the vast majority of the 60 foot linear eight foot wall is in the back behind the house where it is not visible and does not impact the neighbors. C/Lee felt the foundation of the variance was not too harsh or impractical. He understood this was a great project but there should be more screening in the future to adhere to the ordinance. CDD/Gubman explained that there is a 10 foot distance between the property line and the retaining wall. It would be possible to terrace the AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION retaining walls along that side property line to reduce the overall height of each retaining wall and still be able to drop the grade down to that pad level. There is a solution to eliminate the need for an eight foot retaining wall if the Commission wishes to go in that direction. Staff believes there are findings that justify granting of the variance based on the fact that houses of this massive size have been a precedent that has been in place and set years ago. So the context now that new construction is being developed to relate to is within that realm of supersized houses, and what happens when staff has a request for such a large home to sit on a lot like this lot that has very narrow dimensions that do not allow the horizontal span to pick up some of that grade difference and slope, then it becomes a question of how many retaining walls should be used to build up or drop down to that pad elevation. The number of retaining walls and the height of each retaining wall are related to each other. There is an alternative that the Commission can pursue which is to require an additional retaining wall parallel to the side property line and the existing retaining wall of two feet, three feet or whatever, but the introduction of another retaining wall to step down the grades would reduce the overall height of the two separate retaining walls. C/Lee said he does not want to talk about something other than the design presented because those things should be done before the report is submitted to the Commission. If there is a hardship or impracticality, the Commission may review that, but this design should be reviewed by staff before it comes to the Commission. In the future staff should apply the ordinance more strictly. CDD/Gubman said he agreed that he wished this had been identified during the project review. For example, the next item on the agenda staff spent quite a lot of time struggling with how to get retaining walls down to the code requirement. On this one, the discussion provoked some critical analysis of the site plan and he sees that it is feasible to solve this problem and eliminate the need for a variance. He volunteered to draw what the change would look like. C/Nelson supported C/Lee's comments and said he did not believe that he or C/Lee was making an issue out of this project. The precedent has been set that the Commission has approved eight -foot retaining walls in the past. He felt the point was that if a variance for an eight foot retaining wall was a given, what the heck good is the six feet ordinance? So what C/Lee is asking is that when staff reviews these plans the assumption should not be made that the Commission is just going to continue to ignore the fact that there is an ordinance requiring a six foot maximum. The Commission would like for staff to work with the applicant to try to get it down to six feet to comply with the ordinance. The Commission is not planning to oppose this project but just simply bringing this up at this time because the Commission continues to set a precedent wherein it is AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION completely subverting the City's ordinance and the Commission does not want that to happen. CDD/Gubman said he appreciated the Commissioner's input. C/Nelson said that CDD/Gubman is correct that the Commission is faced with another agenda item wherein the variance is pushed more than eight feet. CDD/Gubman said he appreciated the Commissioner's input and said that staff would bring future projects to the Commission for consideration with a more detailed analysis so that the Commission's confidence in their decision is higher. C/Shah said he supported his colleagues in their comments and suggested that if the retaining walls could be stepped down in order to stay with the six- foot retaining walls there would be nothing wrong with that and he highly recommends the Commission should consider that. Mr. Hanson said he could have his engineer look at the possibility of a six- foot stepped down retaining wall. He said that part of the reason behind the eight foot retaining wall was that he made every effort to stay within the six foot limit by moving the house front to back while trying to remain within the driveway grade limitation so that the driveway is not so steep. Sliding the house back had an impact on how high the retaining walls would be at any given point. It was not just the size of the house, it was the placement of the house on the lot and the lot has a 40 -foot elevation difference from front to back which requires the grading as discussed as well as, the retaining walls. There is less than sixty feet at the back portion of the lot that does occasionally step into the eight foot retaining situation. Chair/Torng asked if Mr. Hanson read and concurred with the balance of the conditions of approval and whether he intended to comply with those conditions and Mr. Hanson responded "absolutely." A speaker said he owned the property on the south side of the project. He could discern anarchy or disobedience and non-compliance with the development of the new house. His property is exactly adjacent to this project and when it rains, all of the water from the project site invades his back yard and flows into his living room. He spent $15,000 to develop garden walls and retaining walls four feet, six feet and two feet along his property because the project site is that much higher than his property. He appreciates that the property owner is building a beautiful house but he did not give any consideration how the water (from the project property) is damaging his property. He suggested that Mr. Madad please come over to his house so he can show Mr. Madad how the land should be leveled and graded and how he believes there should be two ground water AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 7 - PLANNING COMMISSION swales, one on his side and one on the project side to create the flow of water down to the street and not to his house. Mangal Goshan, 21401 Bella Pine Drive, said he appreciated that the City was kept neat and clean. He asked the Commission to please listen to the concerns of the neighbors and try to make everyone happy. CDD/Gubman explained that approval of this project is approval of the project in concept. The project is not at the point of construction documents (geotechnical, grading, construction plans, building permits, drainage, onsite improvement plans, etc.) With this approval there are conditions of approval that state that prior to issuance of any permits, all of these final technical reports and construction documents need to be prepared and submitted to the City for review by the licensed civil engineers and building official ON staff to review the plans. Issues regarding drainage, slope stability, soil compaction, etc., are code requirements that need to be addressed through the plan check process. So any drainage issues will be addressed prior to the issuance of permits. This project cannot create more offsite drainage than what the natural conditions are and if warranted, drainage facilities need to be constructed to direct all of the water runoff into approved drainage facilities whether they are in drainage easements or into the roadway system. Mr. Hanson concurred with CDD/Gubman's comments and said that the drainage issue is being addressed on the grading plan. The reason the rear one third of the lot is left in its current state is Mr. Madad would like to plant an orchard of citrus fruit trees in that area. C/Nelson said the neighbor to the south is complaining that water is flowing off of the subject property across his property. Mr. Hanson said that is what he understands. C/Nelson asked if there is any plan to mitigate the discharge of water from the applicant's property across the neighbor's property? Mr. Hanson said the civil engineer is addressing the grading plan to meet all of the code requirements and to take care of the drainage. C/Nelson said that if the Commission specifies no drainage from the subject property, and will flow across the neighbor's property, does Mr. Hanson anticipate that to be a problem and even though this is conceptual and it will supposedly be handled. Mr. Hanson said he would have to consult with his civil engineer as far as the rear third of the property. CDD/Gubman said he needed to repeat that if there is cross lot drainage as a natural condition the requirement is that the project does not increase the volume of cross lot drainage. C/Nelson said he would agree with that and that is fair. AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION The speaker (neighbor to the south of the project) asked staff to send him information on what is required of the property owner so that he can have an opportunity to explain to the builder what he has in mind to mitigate the storm water problem. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Development Review and Minor Variance No PL 2009-96 as proposed by staff. C/Nelson asked that the approval be amended to include a condition that during discussions of the final grading and drainage, that the neighbor to the south of the project site should be invited to participate in those discussions. C/Lee concurred with the amendment. C/Shah asked that prior to voting on the motion the Commission revisit the issue of six foot stepped down retaining walls. C/Lee was not in favor of revisiting the retaining wall issue and concurred with staff's original proposal for the eight foot retaining wall. C/Nelson concurred with C/Lee to have the motion remain as originally amended. Chair/Torng said he agreed with C/Nelson regarding the amendment to have the neighbor included in the discussion regarding the drainage issue. C/Shah asked staff if he was correct in assuming that stepping down a six foot wall would allow the property owner and architect to retain the design. CDD/Gubman said C/Shah was correct. The introduction of the retaining wall would allow all of the existing grades to be preserved. The only change would be that the individual retaining wall heights would be brought down below eight feet. C/Shah said that under those circumstances he would request C/Lee to amend his motion accordingly. C/Lee said he felt the engineers knew what they were doing and if no one can see the wall it is a very minor issue and would be more cost effective to build it as proposed. C/Belson said he would stay with the original amended motion and concurred with C/Lee that it would not be fair to require this applicant to pay more money and lose time redesigning a six foot wall in place of approving the original plan. C/Shah did not believe there was a cost or inconvenience issue. In this case, if there is no variance needed and staff says it can be done without the variance then he feels compelled to ask his colleagues to reconsider. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nelson, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Shah ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.2 Development Review No. 2009-05, Variance No. 2009-02, and Tree Permit No. 2009-02 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Sections 22.48 and 22.54, the applicant requested approval to construct an 11,073 square foot new single family residence on a 44,317 square foot (1.02 acre), Rural Residential (RR) zoned parcel with an underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential (RR). A Variance is requested to allow wall heights to be increased from six feet to varying heights up to 12.8 feet. A tree permit was requested to allow the removal of five southern California Black Walnut trees and replacing them with 15 indigenous trees. PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER APPLIICANT: 2845 Shadow Canyon Road (APN 8713-018-036) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chengliang Tang and Xin Ji 470 Wald Irvine, CA 92618 Alex Wu 470 Wald Irvine, CA 92618 PT/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2009-05, Variance No. 2009-02, and Tree Permit No. 2009-02 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Shah asked if the south side wall could be stepped down or must the height be maintained. PT/Tobon said she spoke with staff's engineers and because of the topography, the walls cannot be lowered any more than they are because the grading would extend into the next property. There were no ex parte disclosures. Chair/Torng opened the public hearing. Alex Wu, applicant, thanked PT/Tobon for an excellent presentation. He has been working on this project for over one year and has conducted a lot of studies in an attempt to reduce the size of the house and step down the house as much as possible. He cares about the owner, the neighborhood and the community. AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Shah asked if the applicant intended to cut and fill or export or import. Mr. Wu said there would be cut and fill for the tennis court and he has minimized the cut and fill to every extent possible. He would have to consult his civil engineer to determine whether there will be any import or export of dirt. Chair/Torng referred the applicant to staff's report that indicated 2,143 cubic yards of fill (page 4). Mr. Wu said the fill was needed because the site is so steep and challenging. Mr. Wu responded to Chair/Torng that neighbors would not be able to see the retaining wall - 12.8 feet is the highest point and the neighbors will not be able to see the retaining wall. Chair/Torng asked PT/Tobon to show the retaining wall and the view from the south end of the house. PT/Tobon said that the street is on the right side and looking at the side, the 12.8 foot retaining wall is located behind the garage and out of view from the street. The retaining walls are inward facing walls and will not be seen from either of the adjacent properties. In addition, there is landscaping in the area to mitigate the exposed height. C/Nelson said he wanted to be convinced that the applicant could not step down the wall. Mr. Wu responded that the referenced wall was the wall for the stairs that can only be seen from the inside of the pool deck. C/Nelson asked why stairs were necessary in that area. Mr. Wu responded that they are outdoor stairs for the gardeners to access the area below. C/Nelson asked if Mr. Wu designed this house with the City's ordinance in mind. Mr. Wu said he followed the ordinance from the beginning of the process. C/Nelson said this was his earlier point that this speaks to doubling what the ordinance calls out. C/Nelson again asked Mr. Wu if he was stating that he could not redesign this house to not double the retaining wall height requirement because this project needs a staircase for the gardeners. PT/Tobon responded that because the site is so steep, the stairs are needed to get down to the back yard (a 29 percent slope). C/Nelson asked staff why the City has a six foot restriction on retaining walls and CDD/Gubman responded that that was the standard deemed appropriate for retaining walls due to the aesthetic impacts of the walls. In this instance, this application has been with the Cityforwell over a year and staff has been working closely with the applicant to deal with the difficult topography. This project came in with higher walls proposed and staff has consulted with its engineering staff to determine how those retaining walls could be terraced to get them down to the height limits established by the code. It took a lot of time and effort in dealing with the site constraints to reach the solution staff reached. Ultimately, because of the lateral grade and the front to back grade, staff found itself painted into a corner where there was no additional solution to these three locations where the variance is proposed to increase the height. Staff looked at ways to deal with the site conditions and building AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION configuration to reduce the retaining wall height and this is the ultimate result which is the limit to which staff could go with this project. C/Nelson concluded that the variance is justified as long as the retaining walls are not in view and CDD/Gubman said he would venture to speculate that the issue was aesthetics from offsite. He doubted if the retaining wall faced the interior of the property that it would bean "aesthetics" issue. He speculated that the intent was to mitigate the aesthetic effects from street view and from the view of other properties. C/Nelson asked that going forward staff members please speak to why the ordinance is in place and why the variance is recommended in view of what the ordinance is intended to do. He gets the feeling tonight that people are coming in with designs that ignore the City's ordinances. He trusts staff but wants justification because he believes property owners will continue to push the envelope. C/Shah said he concurred with C/Nelson's points. He is in the business and is looking at cross sections which he understands very clearly and he is not convinced that it is not doable but he is not going to design it forthe applicant either. He is really struggling today to approve any project that is so far outside of the boundaries of the City's ordinances. Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. CDD/Gubman said that the Commission's point that staff should do a better job of explaining the intent of development standards and how the alternatives in the design address what may be the intent is well taken. When considering a variance, the Commission is supposed to be focusing on what the standard is and the intent may provide some context to help the Commission reach its decision but the technical requirement for a variance determination would be the findings that have to be made. What is unusual about the property justifies the deviation from the standard, so if the standard is six feet and the variance is requesting 12 feet, then the consideration is what is unusual about the site that necessitates that height increase. He would say that aesthetics may be one of the factors in the Commission's decision-making process to reach a wise decision but when making a variance determination, the Commission is really looking at what are the physical characteristics of the site that make compliance with that standard a hardship or unfeasible. In this case, the fundamental findings staff is proposing the Commission to make are that the site does have a very steep grade that is a compound slope that goes not only front to back but also side to side and there is very little, if any, pad area on the site to begin with. So the whole project is an effort to create a building pad and given the AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION steepness and difficulty of the site, the question ultimately is, are the locations where the additional height is proposed, warranted given all of these considerations. He said he would agree that Diamond Bar will continue to see this issue come up as The Country Estates gets built out. The easier lots have been developed. And now what is left are steep and very difficult properties with very little pad. And this ultimately goes back to when The Country Estates was subdivided. A road system was designed along the ridgelines and property lines were drawn perpendicular to the street without any design preliminarily to create building pads for future consideration. There have been subdivisions within The Country Estates that have been recorded in recent years where pad design was a component of the recordation. However, historically, that was not the case in The Country Estates and the consequences appear as the City deals with the few remaining custom lots. These lots are those that buyers passed on before but now that land values have appreciated, those individuals are willing to spend the money it takes to shoehorn these very large homes onto those lots. C/Lee asked if the trees could be moved to another site and C/Nelson said that the California Walnut tree is on the California Native Plant Society's list for monitoring only and it is the accumulation of these trees in a woodland composition that is considered "sensitive" and individual trees are not considered sensitive. Based on years of research it is his understanding that one will not likely have success in transplanting or relocating them because they grow at different slope angles and have different compositions under them. Therefore, one is better off starting with smaller trees. The landscape architect for the project confirmed C/Nelson's statement. C/Nelson moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2009-05, Variance No. 2009-02, and Tree Permit No. 2009-02 based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nelson Shah, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan 7.3 Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2008-01 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.36.060, the applicant requested approval for a Comprehensive Sign Program for an approximately 16,000 square foot existing commercial building on a 140,263 square foot (3.2 acre), AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Community Commercial (C-2) zoned parcel with a consistent underlying General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial (C). PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER: 23525-23555 Palomino Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 The Abbey Company 1940 Inland Empire Boulevard #125 Ontario, CA 91764 APPLICANT: Nancy K. Parker Quiel Bros Sign Company 272 S. "I" Street San Bernardino, CA 92410 SP/Lee presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2008-01, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lee felt the color of the sign was very important and that the owner should decide on the color for better visibility. Chair/Torng opened the Public hearing. Nancy Parker, Quiel Bros Sign Company, said the building owner planned to change the building color to a more natural color and that her firm would prefer to go with Option 1 which has brown shades in it. She said that SP/Lee was unaware the building was being updated and that she was also unaware of the change until this evening. Chair/Torng asked if Ms. Parker read the resolution and concurred with the conditions of approval and Ms. Parker responded "yes." Chair/Torng closed the public hearing. C/Shah moved, C/Lee seconded, to approve Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2008-01, based on the Findings of Fact and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION 0 141 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Nelson Shah, Chair/Torng NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nelson said today is his birthday and he was delighted to spend it with his colleagues. C/Shah wished C/Nelson a happy birthday. Tonight's discussion was healthy and informative. He thanked everyone. Chair/Torng wished C/Nelson a happy birthday. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman wished C/Nelson a happy birthday. The WVUSD is in the process of coordinating neighborhood meetings to discuss the Site D Specific Plan and neighborhood issues. He recently heard that the first series of neighborhood meetings will probably be held at the end of August, possibly on Thursday, August 28 followed by a Saturday meeting on October 2. He will keep the Commission posted as dates are finalized. CDD/Gubman stated that staff interviewed the three finalists for the architectural proposal for the library component of the new city hall and has made a provisional selection. Staff is still in discussions with the County Supervisor as to the level of commitment by the County Library. Staff believes it is moving closer to ensuring the library will be the City's partner in this very exciting project and when staff is able to publicly announce the architect selection it will do so. CDD/Gubman announced that a Study Session is the only item scheduled for the regular meeting date of August 24 for discussion of a proposed three- story office building at the H -Mart Center. The two-story office building at the Fountain Springs end of the Center is now proposed to be a three-story office building and staff has some concerns about the height and the visual impact of a three-story building at that end of the center. The Study Session will commence at 7:00 p.m. in Conference Room CC -8. AUGUST 10, 2010 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Torng adjourned the regular meeting at 8A6 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 28ty day of September, 2010. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubm Community Development Director le5i ' �orng, Chairm