Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/23/1992Next ReSoMen No. 92-10 AGENDA MY OF DLAMOND BAR MANNING COAMILWO] SOUTH COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT , AUDITORIUM 21865 E. COPLEY DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 March 23, 1992 STUDY SESSION: 6:00 p.m. Discussion of the upcoming General Plan and the public hearing process for its adoption. CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 pm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Grothe, Vice Chairman MacBride, Flamenbaum, Li and Meyer MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. MINUTES: 1. Minutes of March 9, 1992 OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSINESS: .2. General discussion regarding Planning Commission standards of operation 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 51079/Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 89-551 A request for approval to subdivide a 4.5 acre site into one (1) lot and 54 condominium units. currently the project is under construction in compliance with Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 89-551.- The density of-theiproject is 12 units per acre and will not change as a part of this application. As a part of this request, the applicant is applying to amend the CUP to upgrade the interior materials and exterior elevations. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to add additional on-site parking on the southern portion of the site. The project is located at 800 S. Grand Ave., north of the Grand Ave. and Montefino Ave. intersection and south of the intersection of Grand Ave. and Golden Springs. The project site overlooks a day care center and office building located in a commercial center to the north. The project is zoned R-4 (40U), (Unlimited Residence Zone, Maximum 40 units per acre density). Applicant: Diamond Brothers One Partnership, 18645 E. Gale Ave., Suite 205, City of Industry, CA 91748 Environmental Determination: Mitigated Negative Declaration Recommended Action: Approve TTM 51079 and CUP No. 89-551 with conditions. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING 4. Tentative Parcel Map No. 22986/Development Review 92-1 A request for approval to subdivide a 2.76 acre site into two (2) lots of 1.88 and .88 acres and to construct a two story office building of approximately 6,000 sq. ft. The proposed office building will provide on-site parking on the bottom floor of the structure and offices on the top floor. Currently, an office building known as Sunset Plaza is located on the northern portion of the site at 556 No. Diamond Bar Blvd. The' location of the proposed office building, is the north side of Sunset Crossing at the intersection of Navajo Springs Rd. on a vacant 'slope located east of L.A. Fitness Health Club, north of a condominium development and a racquet and swim club, and east of a single family residence. The project is in the C M Zone and will not change as a part of this application. Applicant: Fred Janz, 556 N. Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar.. Environmental Determination: Mitigated Negative Declaration Recommended Action: Deny TPM No. 11986 and DR 92-1. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 5. Tentative Tract Map 31977. A request for an extension of time. TTM 31977 was approved by the City Council on February 6, 1990. The request is for a two. (2) year extension of time in order for the conditions of approval on the tentative map to be incorporated into the final.map. The project is for the subdivision of 16 acres into 22 lots, ranging from approximately 20,000 sq. ft. to 2.8 acres in size. The project site is located generally along Highcrest Drive at Goldrush Drive. The site is zoned RPD -20,000. Applicant: W. R. Lind, Inc., 44 S. -Chester Ave., Pasadena Environmental Determination: Reviewed as a part of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for Tract No. 36730. Recommended Action: Deny TTM 31977 INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: ANNOUNCEMENTS: Staff Planning Commissioners 01111118101110y, "JR 7. April 7, 1992 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 9, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Board Meeting Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Li, Commissioner Flamenbaum, vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe. Commissioner Meyer was absent. Also present were Community Director James .DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, City Engineer Sid Mousavi, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star Dr., THE AUDIENCE: stated that he had misunderstood, at the February loth public hearing, that the SpeeDee lube project had been approved by the Planning Commission, and that therewasnot *to be further public comments received in the following Planning Commission meeting. He stated his concerns regarding the project: the traffic pattern; the monument sign; the increase in noise; the inadequate parking; and pedestrian safety. Chair/Grothe, reiterating the information relayed to Mr. Anderson at the February 24th meeting, explained that an appeal may be filed to the City Council, at the City Clerk's Office, within 14 days of the date of the Planning Commission's decision. Chair/Grothe welcomed C/Li to the Commission, as well as C/Meyer. MINUTES: Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of Feb. 24, 1992 February 24, 1992. C/Li abstained. Meyer Absent. CONTINUED AP/Searcy reported that, at the last Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Commission public hearing meeting of February 24, 1992, the Commission stated the following concerns: Administrative the maintenance and replacement of the oak trees; Development and the massive unobstructed design of the Review 92-1/ residence side elevations. Staff has determined Oak Tree Permit that the single trunk oak tree does fall into the 92-1 purview of the current oak tree ordinance permitting procedure, however, the multi trunk tree does not because the combined circumference of the tree Is 33 inches, and the required total circumference is 38 inches. The applicant has acquired a licensed arborist to assist in the relocation of the single oak tree, and desires to March 9, 1992 relocate the tree to his private residence within the Country. The applicant has also 'submitted a revised_ plan that identifies the -use of bay window and wrap around trim to break up the massiveness of the wall. Staff has prepared a revised Resolution for approval of the project. VC/MacBride suggested section 81 paragraph 3, page 3, of the revised Resolution, indicate that the architectural plans are 11revised". The architectural plans should also bear a later date so that there would be no problem identifying it in the future. CD/DeStefano suggested that, if the Commission is of the mind to approve the project, section 5.3, page 3, can be amended to indicate, 10 ... that the revised plot plan and architectural elevations identified as sheets #14 and #15, with the date of March 9, 1992., presented at public hearing of March 9, 1992, and marked as Exhibit "All ... It. VC/MacBride concurred. The Public Hearing was declared open. Paul Kaitz, residing at 23608 Falcon View, owner of the property located at 2638 Blaze Trail, presented photos of the proposed site to the Commission. He stated that after reading the current code, he would prefer to replace the tree, with the appropriate sizes, at a 2:1 ratio, as opposed to relocating the tree. All other approvals for this job are in order and construction is ready to begin upon approval of this Commission. The Public Hearing was declared closed. AP/Searcy, in response to C/Flamenbaum, stated that the revised Resolution indicates that the oak tree should be relocated. Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/MacBride to approve the Resolution, with the modifications requested by VC/MacBride. Chair/Grothe, believing that the matter should be continued, stated that the applicant needs to address the relief of the massing of the one solid wall, which is 20 feet high and the full length of the house, before the project is approved. There should be an ordinance that addresses this issue. C/Flamenbaum, though in concurrence with the concept of reducing massiveness, stated that, in March 9, 1992 Page 3 this particular case, the project should be approved because the applicant did not receive adequate notice, regarding the Commission's feelings on massiveness, prior to his submittal of the plans. In future projects, staff will notify all applicants of the Commission's viewpoint. DCA/Curlie advised C/Li that, unless he feels adequately familiar with all the issues and prior testimony, he should not participate in the vote. C/Li stated that he will not participate in the vote. However, he did comment that the important key issue is that there are no clear guidelines for the Commission to follow on this particular issue. The Commission voted on AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: The. Motion CARRIED. C/Flamenbaum's Motion. Flamenbaum and MacBride. Chair/Grothe. Li. Meyer. TT 51079 & AP/Searcy reported that the Commission, at the Amendment to February 24, 1992 meeting, directed the applicant CUP 89551 to provide staff with information related to landscape plans and a draft of the conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's). The applicant has provided the requested information. Upon reviewing the landscape pallet, staff would concur with the landscape plan as approved. AP/Searcy then reviewed the information, as indicated in the staff report. He further stated that staff supports the addition of garages at the project, or a security gate at the entrance of the site, in accordance with the comments forwarded from the Los Angeles County Sheriff Department. However, constructing garages would require a lot of architectural work so that it would not be massive. The use of the proposed carports would drastically reduce that massiveness. Staff could make either issue, garages or a security gate, a condition of approval upon the Commission's recommendation. Staff has prepared Resolutions of Approval and Conditions of Approval. Chair/Grothe requested that the City Engineer rewrite section 5.11 of the Resolution to include a Reimbursement Agreement, instead of naming all the entities for consideration by the commission. C/Li suggested that the lot number be given instead of naming the Diamond Bar Medical Plaza. He March 9® 1992 Page 4 11 inquired how the park contribution amount was derived. CD/DeStefano explained the Quimby Fee process, within the Subdivision Code of the Los Angeles County, to C/Li. Subsequent to the adoption of the County's code and ordinances in April of 1989, the City Council adopted an ordinance, in mid 1990, which changed the amount per acre in terms of ,formulating the total Quimby Fee. The price inserted in the County Code formula will change depending upon where the property is located, and what the value of the land is. AP/Searcy, in response to C/Flamenbaum, stated that the existing structure has been approved with carports. Constructing garages would decrease the availability of parking area, and reduce the availability of landscaping. The gate can be located where it does not directly impact the availability of open space. CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Flamenbaum's inquiry regarding the location of the gate, stated that the gate should be located at least 60 feet from the pavement in. order to stack 3 cars from the curb. There needs to be at least 3 parking spaces for guests, as well. There is adequate space to accommodate different alternative gate designs. AP/Searcy confirmed that the gate could be located at the end of the.first building by the entrance. C/Flamenbaum recommended that section 4.9 of the CC&RIs be amended to include a mediation arbitration clause so that alternate dispute resolutions are provided. The Public Hearing was declared open Ricky Chang, applicant, residing at 24250 Barker Dr., made the following comments: they intend to increase their recreation area, and request that the area be deducted from the park contribution formula; if the parking structure is increased, then the parking area is decreased, therefore, only 54 parking spaces can be implemented; he requested that they just pay their share of the signal, or perhaps not use a signal until the others start development; and he requested that the gate be omitted if the 54 garages are implemented. March 9, 1992 Chair/Grothe pointed out that the existing condition states that the signal be installed prior to the completion of the project. C/Flamenbaum, noting that garages are often used for storage rather than parking, suggested that a security gate be installed and that carports be implemented. CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Li, stated that, to his understanding, a traffic signal was a condition for the approval of the apartment building. since the number of units remain the same, and the traffic generation for apartments and condominiums are very similar, then the need for the signal would remain. C/Li asked the applicant which would be better for the project, garages or carports. Ricky Chang stated that they would be satisfied with implementing the garages, if they are allowed to construct -only 54 garages. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Chair/Grothe called a recess at 8:36 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:45 p.m. Chair/Grothe stated that since most garages are used for storage rather than parking, he would recommend the use of carports with a security gate. However, the project should also incorporate a minimal size storage facility, and a lockable bike rake. The Commission concurred. CD/DeStefano, in response to the Commissionfs inquiry regarding the appropriate location for the gate, stated that, subject to review by the City Engineer, it would appear that the gate would be 80 to 90 feet from the street right-of-way. If the project is approved, it should be conditioned to incorporate as many guest parking spaces on the "public side" of the gate, as possible. Chair/Grothe suggested that the Resolution be amended to include the following: items 1-8 of interior additions, and item 1 of exterior additions from the staff report from the February 24th meeting; carports; a security gate; and omit garages. CE/Mousavi read the revision to the second portion of condition #20 of the traffic section: "When the A March 9, 1992 Page 6 lot, located at 887 Grand Ave., becomes approved, a fair share cost will be developed for said signal based upon confirmation of .-the generated traffic data, in proportion to each projects traffic share at such time the property owner of Boo S. Grand would receive refunds in accordance with the City approved reimbursement agreement.". CD/DeStefano stated ' that, based upon the Commission's discussion, it would appear the following changes to the CUP Resolution would be appropriate for consideration: page 2, subsection B.2should be reworded, to indicate, "...that the environmental analysis conducted previously, specifically the Negative Declaration prepared for CUP 89-551, and previously certified, does not require supplementation, amendment, or subsequent analysis in compliance with the ...10; page 3, subsection 5, be amended to indicate, "...subject to the following restrictions as to use, subject to the conditions set forth in section 6, hereafter; page 4, subsection 5.11 should be reworded as outlined by the City Engineer; condition 16 should be restated to indicate, 11 ... CUP 89-551, not superseded by this Resolution, shall be 'incorporated herein by reference."; condition 17 should be amended to read, 11 ... or the in -lieu fee of $164,333 prior to the recordation of the final map."; add condition 19 to state, "The applicant shall prepare and provide a new site plan reflecting a vehicular and pedestrian gate at the front entrance to the site, and approximately 8 parking spaces located near said front gate."; condition 20, "The applicant shall provide draft CC&RIs to the City for review and approval by the City Attorney prior recordation of the map."; condition 21, ".The applicant shall incorporate the interior and exterior improvements as listed in the February 24, 1992 staff report." (those issues will be specifically listed if the Commission concurs with the additional conditions); subsection 6 should be renumbered subsection 7; the new subsection 6 should read, "This Resolution shall be null, void, and of no effect, if the Council of the City of Diamond Bar fails to approve Tentative Tract Map 51079, as described in the Resolution of the City Of Diamond Bar Planning Commission and Resolution 89-551 shall remain in full force and effect.". C/Flamenbaum requested that the Planning Director also review the CC&RIs for a consistency with the draft, as presented tonight. He would also like to March 9, 1992 6 see the inclusion of some alternative resolution dispute in subsection 4.9 of the CC&Rfs. Chair/Grothe requested that the Resolution also include a condition requesting some planting of ivy along the walls. C/Flamenbaum requested that the Resolution be drafted and returned to the Commission, at the next meeting, without public comment. Motion was made by Chair/Grothe, seconded by VC/M&cBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to prepare a Resolution incorporating the changes, as outlined, for the Commission's consideration, for the next meeting. CD/DeStefano indicated that Tentative Tract Map 51079 has similar changes needing to be made within the Resolution: subsection 6 should be renumbered to subsection 7; subsection 6 should read, "The recommendation of this Commission is conditioned on the approval and existence of Planning Commission Resolution No. XX, which amended CUP 89551, converting an apartment complex to a condominium subdivision."; and change condition # 11, of the Planning staff condition, and condition #20, from the Director of Public Works, to reflect the language as previously outlined by the Director of Public.Works regarding said condition #11 and #20. Motion was made by Chair/Grothe, seconded by C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to and direct staff to redraft the resolution and recommendation to the City Council for approval of Tract Map 51079, as directed and bring the matter to the commission on March 23, 1992. Tentative Parcel AP/Searcy reported that the applicant has requested Map 22986/Devel. an additional continuance to the March 23, 1992 review 92-1 Planning Commission meeting in order that the -previously requested information can be provided to staff in a timely fashion for review and comments prior to the hearing. DCA/Curley, in response to Chair/Grothe, * stated that the Commission may either consent to the request of the applicant, or alternatively take an action on the application The Public Hearing was declared open. Fred Janz, residing at 2486 Shady Ridge, applicant, stated that the.proposed building is lower than the March 9, 1992 neighboring house. If necessary, plants and shrubs could be planted to hide the building, though there are no windows on that side of the house. He indicated that he has no objection to a continuance. Elizabeth Mejia, residing at 23513 Sunset Crossing, requested that the applicant be required to provide photos indicating how it would look in the proposed slope area. Roger. Mejia, residing at 23513, Sunset Crossing, stated that though there are no windows on that side of the house, the proposed building will block the view from the front of the house. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:25 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 9:31 p.m. The Public hearing was declared open. Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by Chair/Grothe and CARRIED to continue the matter to the March 23, 1992 meeting, to allow the applicant time to submit the requested renderings. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: F 1 a m e n b a u m, a n d Chair/Grothe. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Li a n d MacBride. INFORMATIONAL CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that the ITEMS: "White Paper" has been finalized and forwarded to the City Council in preparation for the joint study session scheduled for March 24, 1992. CD/DeStefano distributed a copy of the plan for Resource Management, a component of the General Plan, which outlines the style that will be utilized for the development of the final General Plan. The document has been approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission, but not, as yet, by GPAC. CD/DeStefano recommended that the meeting be adjourned to March 23, 1992 at 6:00 p.m. for the purpose of conducting a study session on the General Plan. March 9, 1992 9 VC/MacBride stated that he will be unable to attend the March 23rd meeting due to a scheduling conf lict . Chair/Grothe requested that staff place, on the next agenda, a discussion on the procedure and policy of the Planning Commission. The Commission concurred. Chair/Grothe further requested that there also be discussion, on the next agenda, addressing the issue of massing on the side of properties and architectural style. CD/DeStefano recommended that the item be agendized, within the next two meetings, for specific discussion in terms of direction, which would then lead to staff amending the existing Design Review Ordinance and/or the creation of a Commission subcommittee to deal with the issue. CD/DeStefano stated that the City Council will be reviewing the Tree Ordinance tomorrow. He further stated that the dry cleaning project, approved by the Commission, was appealed and will be reviewed by the City Council to decide upon the merits of that appeal. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 p.m. to March 23, 1992, at 6:00 p.m., for a study session on the General Plan. Respectively, James DeStefano Secretary/Planning Commission Attest: Jack Grothe Chairman AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: 3 March 17, 1992 March 23, 1992 Tentative Tract No. 51079 and Amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 89551 APPLICATION REQUEST: A request to convert a 54 unit apartment complex to condominiums for the purpose of ownership of individual units and common open space. An amendment to CUP 89-551 to revise the .. site plan and exterior materials.,- PROPERTY aterials.' PROPERTY LOCATION: 800 S. Grand Ave. APPLICANT: Ricky Chang 18645 E. Gale Ave. #205 City of Industry, CA 91748 PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Brothers One Ownership 18645 E. Gale Ave. #205 City of Industry, CA 91748 BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this project on February 24, 1992 and continued the hearing to March 9,'1992. The project was conditionally approved and staff was directed to prepare the attached amended Resolutions. +_4' �B Approve attached Planning Commission Resolutions 92-07 and 92-08, approving an Amendment to CUP 89-551 and recommending approval of Tentative Tract 51079 to the City Council. Prepared By: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner Attachments: PC Resolution 92-07 PC Resolution 92-08 RESOLUTION NO. 92-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89551 LOCATED ON A 4.5 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT 800 SOUTH GRAND AVE., DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) Diamond Brothers One, Ownership, City of Industry, California, has heretofore filed an application for approval of a Conditional Use Permit 89551 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Condit- ional Use Permit shall be referred to as "the Application". (ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, in- cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar. (iii) Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency to the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360. (iv) On February 24, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on March 23, 1992. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Plan- ning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, 1 Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Planning Commission hereby certifies that the environmental analysis conducted previously; specifically, the Negative Declaration prepared for Conditional Use Permit 89551, and previously certified, does .-not require supplementation' amendment, or subsequent analysis, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, based upon the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on February 24, 1992, and concluded on March 23, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with the terms and provisions of Cali- fornia Government Code Sections 65360, this Com- mission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at Boo South Grand Ave., Diamond Bar with a gross area of 4.5 acres and is zoned R-4-40 U. (b) Properties to the east and south are devel- oped with multiple and single family resi- dences, to the north the site is commercially developed and the sites to the west are developed by an unoccupied office building and also undeveloped portions. (c) The applicant's request is for an amendment to the conditional use permit to construct a 54 unit condominium complex. (d) The subject property is graded and currently under construction under the provisions of conditional use permit 89551, and (e) The site is sufficient in size and can pro- vide adequate ingress and egress to allow multiple family development in character with K surrounding---current-land-use (f) Granting the proposed amendment to the condi- tional use permit with conditions and re- strictions hereinafter mentioned will be in substantial compliance with all State laws related to the proposed General Plan; The location of the proposed land use does not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area, and will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, and will not jeopardize, endanger, or other- wise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to the following restrictions as to use (subject to the conditions set forth in section 6 hereinafter): 1. This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until a duly authorized representative of the owner of the property involved has filed at the office of Planning Division of the Community Development Department the Affidavit of Acceptance and accepts all the conditions of this permit; 2. That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the underlying zoning of the subject property must be complied with, unless set forth in the permit or shown on the approved plan; 3. That three copies of the new site plan, irrigation plan, and landscape plan including ivy plan for walls located on Grand Avenue, similar to that presented at the public hearing and marked Exhibit "A" and conforming to such of the following conditions as can shown on a plan, shall be submitted for approval of the Community Development .Director. The property shall thereafter be developed and maintained in substantial compliance with approved plans. 4. Landscaping along the perimeter of each ele- 3 5. vation shall be year round in nature. All landscaping approved shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. No construction shall occur within the 50' easement shown on the site plan along the north elevation of the building. 6. No construction shall occur within setbacks as delineated on the approved site plan.. 7. Street trees with year round foliage shall be planted along western elevation of Grand Ave- nue per the approved landscape plans. 8. Recreation areas adjacent to Grand Avenue shall be landscaped to provide a visual buf- fer from off-site access. 9. Provide wrought iron fencing around recrea- tion areas to insure the security of the children. 10. That all exterior lights above wall height be shielded and be directed away from adjacent development; 11. Maneuvers through the median opening will not be allowed until a traffic signal is installed and becomes operational at 800 S. Grand. The traffic signal, due to its's close proximity to the Grand/Golden Springs intersection, will need to be interconnected to the latter to provide coordination of signal phasings at these two intersections. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Final Occupancy, the design and construction costs associated with this traffic signal shall be borne by the developer (Diamond Brothers Inc.) initially. When the lot located at 887 Grand Avenue becomes approved, a fair share cost will be developed for said signal, based upon confirmation of the generated traffic data for each project. At such time, the property owner of 800 8. Grand will receive a refund based proportionally on each project's. traffic shares in accordance with the City approved reimbursement agreement. 12. Shielded trash enclosures shall be located as shown on the approved site plan. 4 13. Sidewalks shall be provided along Grand Ave- nue for the length of the property per City Standards. 14. The project shall comply with all State and local ordinances for noise level standards. 15. All air conditioning units will be ground mounted and screened from street level view. 16. All conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-551 (1990), not superseded by this amendment, shall be incorporated herein by reference. 17. The applicant . shall satisfy the Park obligation fee by contributing .34 acres of land or the in -lieu fee of $164,333 prior to the recordation of the final map. 18. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the appli- cant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. 19. The applicant shall and provide a new site plan reflecting a vehicular and pedestrian gate at the entrance of the site, and approximately eight (8) additional parking spaces located near said front gate. 20. Conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) shall be provided to the Community Development Director and the City attorney for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&R's which requires disputes involving interpretation or application of the agreement (between private parties), to be referred to a neutral third party mediation service (name of service may be included). The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, the parties shall agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration under the laws of the State of California. 21. The applicant shall incorporate the following list of items into the interior design and construction of the'unitso a. Increase second subflooring from s/e inch plywood to 3/4 inch plywood. b. Add insulation between 1st. & 2nd floor. c. Use resilient channel through out all 1st floor ceilings. d. Install recessed lights in kitchens and bathrooms. e. Add dulted kitchen fans to improve air flow. f. Insulate all plumbing chases to decrease sound transmission. g. Add additional telephone and TV outlets. h. Add 32 os. carpet over 1/200 rebound pad to increase sound control and cushion. 6. This Resolution shall be null, void and of no effect if the Council of the City of Diamond Bar fails to approve' Tentative Tract Map 51079, as described in the Resolution of the City of Diamond Bar 'Manning Commission No. 92-07, and Resolution s9-Ss1 shall remain in full force and effect. 7. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Reso- lution, to Diamond Brothers One, Ownership at the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 1992 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Jack Grothe, Chairman 6 ATTEST James De -Stefano, Secretary I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu- tion was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Com- mission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission opened on the 24th day of February, 1992 and concluded on 23rd day of March, 1992 by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:] 7 RESOLUTION NO. 92-08 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT 51079, FOR A ONE (1) LOT SUBDIVISION AND CREATION OF 54 AIR SPACE UNITS LOCATED AT 800 S. GRAND AVENUE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. . (i) Diamond Brothers One, Ownership, 18645 E. Gale Avenue #205, City of Industry, California, has heretofore filed an application for approval of a Tentative Tract Map, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution referred to as "the application". (ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, in- cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar. (iii) Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency to the proposed General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360. (iv) On February 24, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on March 23, 1992. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Plan- ning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 1 2.. The City Planning Commission hereby certifies that the environmental analysis conducted previously; specifically, the Negative Declaration prepared for Conditional Use Permit 89-551, and previously certified, does not require supplementation, amendment, or subsequent analysis, in compliance Wi-th-the. California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, based upon the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on February 24, 1992, and concluded on March 23, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with the terms and provisions of Cali- fornia Government code Sections 65360, this Com- mission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 800 South Grand Ave., Diamond Bar with'a gross area of 4.5 acres and is zoned R-4-40 U. (b) Properties to the east and south are devel- oped with multiple and single family resi- dences, to the north the site is commercially developed and the sites to the west are developed by an unoccupied office building and also undeveloped portions. (c) The applicant's request is for an amendment to the conditional use permit to construct a 54 unit condominium complex. (d) The subject property is graded and currently under construction under the provisions of conditional use permit 89551, and (e) The site is sufficient in size and can pro- vide adequate ingress and egress to allow multiple family development in character with surrounding current land uses. K (f) There is a reasonable —p-r-obabil-it-y—that the subdivision proposed in the application will be consistent with the proposed General Plan; (g) There is little or no probability that the subdivision of said real property, as proposed in the application will be a substantial detriment to, and interfere with, the proposed General Plan for the area of the project of the site; and (h) The application, as proposed will and conditioned herein, complies with all other applicable requirements of state and local ordinances. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to the restrictions and conditions listed on the attached Exhibits "A-211 and "A-311 6. The , recommendation of this Commission is conditioned upon the approval . and existence of Planning Commission Resolution No. 92-07,, which amended Conditional Use Permit No. 89-5511 converting an apartment Complex to a condominium subdivision. 7. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Transmit this recommendation to the City Clerk for submittal to the City Council. (c) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Reso- lution, to Diamond Brothers One, Ownership at'the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 1992 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: ATTEST Jack Grothe, Chairman James DeStefano, Secretary I, James Destef ano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu- tion was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning com- mission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of March, 1992, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:] 4 15 w8rrp -1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR I N T E R 0 F F I C E M E M 0 R A N D U M DATE: March 4, 1992 TO: Departmeht Of Community Development, Planning FROM*. Department of Public Works, Engineering/ y/ SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.51079 DATE NOVEMBER 2" 1991 Tentative Tract Map No. 51079 has been recommended for approval by the Office of the City Engineer subject to the following conditions: SUBDIVISION 1. The final map must be prepared in accordance with Title 21 of the Los Angeles County Code and the Subdivision Map Act. 2. A preliminary title report, dated no more than 30 days, mylar copies of all referenced record maps, copies of all referenced documents and five (5) prints of the most recent Assessor Map with book page or pages covering the proposed division of land must be submitted for review prior to approval of. the final map. 3. A title report/guarantee showing all fee owners and interest holders must be submitted when a 'final map is submitted for plan check. This account must remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder. An updated title report/guarantee must be submitted ten (10) working days prior to approval of the final map. 4. The developer shall submit to the City Engineer the total cost estimate of all off-site improvements, prior to approval of the final map. 5. The tract shall be annexed to the Landscape Assessment District 38; and the City-wide assessment' lighting district. 6. The developer shall submit to the City Engineer the total cost estimate and a monumentation bond for this amount for the new boundary monuments which must be set in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act requirements, City standards and subject to approval by the City Engineer. DRAINAGE 15. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. SEWER 16. Each building must have a separate and independent connection to the sewer mainline. The minimum lateral size is a 611 VCP and it must be connected to an 811 diameter mainline. This main line must be a public sewer with a 10' wide easement granted to the City. This easement needs to be depicted on the final map. 17. The subdivider must obtain connection permit from the City and County Sanitation District. The subdivision must be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate easements for all sewer main lines must be provided and accepted by the County of Los Angeles Public Works Department, prior to approval of the final map. 18. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be connected to city sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works Department, prior to approval of the final map. 19. Subdivider, at his sole cost and expense, must construct the sewer system in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Department and County Sanitation District Standards. TRAFFIC 20. Manoeuvers through the median opening will not be allowed until a traffic signal is installed and becomes operational at 800 S.Grand. The traffic signal, due'to it's close proximity to the signal at Grand/Golden Springs intersection, will need to be interconnected to the latter to provide coordination of signal phasings at these two intersections. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Final Occupancy, the design and construction costs associated with this traffic signal shall be borne by the developer (Diamond Brothers Inc.) initially. When the proposed Diamond Bar Medical Plaza located at 887 Grand Avenue becomes approved, a fair share cost will be developed for said signal, based upon confirmation of the medical plaza's traffic data, in proportion to each project's traffic shares. Ewi 0 r N-z C-OUN-T--Y-OF LOS ANGELES -FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS - INCORPORATED AREAS CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. TRACT 51079 1. Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by County Forester and Fire Warden for all land shown on the map to be recorded. 2. Provide Fire Department and City approved street signs, building address numbers prior to occupancy. 3. Fire Department access shall be extended to within 150 feet distance of any portion of structure to be built. 4. Access shall comply with Section 10.207 of the Fire Code which requires all weather access. All weather access may require paving. 5. Where driveways extend further than 300 feet and are of single access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and maintained to insure their integrity for Fire Department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways which extend over 150 feet. 6. The private driveways shall be indicated on the final map as "FIRE LANE" and shall be maintained in accordance with the Los Angeles County Fire Code. 7. All required fire hydrants shall be installed, tested and accepted prior to construction. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction. S. Show and label fire lanes and turnaround fully on final map. 9. The required fire flow for public fire hydrants at this location is 3500 gallons per minute at 20 psi for a duration of three (3) hours, over and above maximum daily domestic demand. 10. The required on-site fire flow for private on-site hydrants is 1250 gallons per minute at 20 psi. Each private on-site hydrant must be capable of flowing 1250 gallons per minute at 20 psi with any two hydrants flowing simultaneously. 11. Fire Hydrant requirements as follows: Existing three (3) Public Fire Hydrants. Install one (1) private on-site Fire Hydrant. 12. All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2-1/2" brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA standard C503 or approved equal. All hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25' from a structure or protected by a two (2) hour fire wall. Location: As per map on file with this office (aay I of DIAMOND BAR Planning Department 2 am a* - March 23, 1992 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89-551 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This permit shall not be effective for any purpose until a duly authorized representative of the owner of the property involved has filed at the office of Planning Division of the Community Development Department the Affidavit of Acceptance and accepts all the conditions of this permit; 2. That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the underlying zoning of the subject property must be complied with, unless set forth in the permit or shown on the approved plan; 3. That three copies of the site plan, irrigation plan, and landscape plan including ivy plan for wills located on Grand Avenue, similar to that presented at the public hearing and marked Exhibit "All and conforming to such of the following conditions as can shown on a plan, shall be submitted for approval of the Community Development Director. The property shall thereafter be developed and maintained in substantial compliance with approved plans. 4. Landscaping along the perimeter of each elevation shall be year round in nature. All landscaping approved shall be installed prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 5. No construction shall occur within the 501 easement shown on the site plan along the north elevation of the building. 6. No construction shall occur within setbacks as delineated on the approved site plan. 7. Street trees with year round foliage shall be planted along western elevation off -Grand Avenue per the approved landscape plans. 8. Recreation areas adjacent to Grand Avenue shall be landscaped to provide a visual buffer from off-site access. 9. Provide wrought iron fencing around recreation areas to insure the security of the children. 10. That all exterior lights above wall height be shielded and be directed away from adjacent development; 11. Maneuvers through the median opening will not be allowed until a traffic signal is installed and becomes operational at 800 S. Grand. The traffic signal, due to its I s close proximity to 1 M the Grand/Golden ,Springs intersection, will need to be interconnected to the latter to provide coordination of signal phasings at these two intersections. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Final Occupancy, the design and construction costs associated with this traffic signal shall be borne by the developer (Diamond Brothers Inc.) initially. when the lot located_._ at _. 887 _ Grand_ Avenue- becomes approved, a fair share cost will be developed for said signal, based upon confirmation of the generated traffic data for each project. At such time, the property owner of 800 s. Grand will receive a refund based proportionally on each project's traffic shares in accordance with the City approved reimbursement agreement. 12., Shielded trash enclosures shall be located as shown on the approved site plan. 13. Sidewalks shall be provided along Grand Avenue for the length of the property per City Standards. 14. The project shall comply with all State and local ordinances for noise level standards. 15. All air conditioning units will be ground mounted and screened from street level view. 16. All conditions of Conditional Use Permit No. 89-551 (1990), not superseded by this amendment, shall be incorporated herein by reference. 17. The applicant shall satisfy the Park Obligation fee by contributing .34 acres of land or the in -lieu fee of $164,333 prior to the recordation.of the final map. 18. Notwithstanding any previous subsection of this Resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment thereof shall be made by the applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. 19. The applicant shall and provide a new site plan reflecting a vehicular and pedestrian gate at the entrance of the site, and approximately eight (8) additional parking spaces located near said trout gate. 20. Conditions, covenants, and restrictions (CC&R's) shall be provided to the Community Development Director and the City attorney for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&R's which requires disputes involving interpretation or application of the agreement (between private parties), to be referred to a Pq neutral third party mediation service (name og servf.c_e_ma_y_be included). The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. In the event mediation is unsuccessful, the parties shall agree to submit the dispute to binding arbitration under the laws of the State of California. 21. The applicant shall incorporate the following list of items into the interior design and construction of the units: a. Increase second subflooring from 5/s inch plywood to 3/4 inch plywood. b. Add insulation between 1st. & 2nd floor. C . Use resilient channel through out all 1st floor ceilings. d. Install recessed lights in kitchens and bathrooms. e. Add dulted kitchen fans to improve air flow. f. Insulate all plumbing chases to decrease sound transmission. g. Add additional telephone and TV outlets. h. Add 32 o$. carpet over 1/2" rebound pad to increase sound control and cushion. 3 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION offig-w-amEaffe'.4•-•-- 4 March 18, 1992 March 23, 1992 DR 92-1/ Tentative Parcel Map 22986 To subdivide a 2.76 acre lot into two lots of 1.88 acres and .88 acres and to construct a two floor commercial office building of approximately 6,000 sq. ft. 23475 Sunset Crossing Ed and Shirley Uaworsky 3349 Paloma LaVerne, CA. Fred and Norma Janz 2683 Shady Ridge Diamond Bar, CA 91765 The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for this project on February 23, 1992. At the conclusion of the February 23, 1992 public hearing, the Commission requested that the applicant provide staff with additional information for review and evaluation related to the visual impacts and the compatibility of the proposed office building in relation to adjacent development. The applicant was to provide a section which would identify the street scape elevation and the relationship of the height of the office building to the adjacent residence. Additionally, the applicant was to provide a photo which would exhibit visual impacts from various elevations. The applicant was to provide this information prior to the March 9, 1992 Commission hearing. The applicant did not provide the information and requested that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing to March 23, 1992. The Commission granted the continuance with the provision that the staff be provided the information with adequate time to review. As of the date of this report, the requested information has not been received. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution 92 -XX, denying DR 92-1 and Resolution 92 -XX recommending that the City Council deny Tentative Parcel Map 22986. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Resolution 92 -XX, Denying DR -92-1 Resolution 92 -XX, Recommending the City Council deny TPM 22986 RESOLUTION NO. 92-8X A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY CO . UNCIL DENIAL OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 22986, FOR A TWO (2) LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 556 N. DIAMOND BAR BLVD., DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) Fred Janz, 556 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. 0306'Diamond Bar, California, has heretofore filed an application for approval of a Tentative Parcel Map, as described in the title of this Reso- lution. Hereinafter in this Resolution referred to as "the appli- cation". (ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of, Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the state of California. on said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 2*1 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, in- cluding the subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar. .(iii) Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency to the proposed General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360. (iv) On February 24, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on March 23, 1992. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.' B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Plan- ning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution.. 2. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Planning Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on ft"-Za� 1rr LIJI February 24, 1992, and concluded on March 23, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically.finds as follows: (a) The application pertains to Lots 8 and 9 of tract 28853, consisting of approximately 2 . 76 acres. The site is located on- 23475 -Sunset--Crossing The site is currently developed with a three story office building which is accessed from Diamond Bar Blvd. (b) The site is located within Zone CM (Commercial Manufacturing)., (c) The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences to the east, a three story office building to the north, residential condominiums and a swim and racquet club to the south, and a health club to the west. (d) The proposed project is a request to develop a two floor office building, with underground parking, for commercial use. (e) Residential properties located adjacent to the easterly boundary of the subject property are located at elevations above the subject property and currently look down upon the existing office building. M The application as submitted would contradict the goals and objectives of the proposed General Plan and would promote detrimental conditions to the persons and properties in the vicinity of the site insofar as it would create a lot with a net usable area of approximately .16 'acres, The small developable area would be out of character with commercially developed properties in the area of the site. (g) The proposed site is not adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, loading facilities, trash enclosures, landscaping and other development features prescribed in the zoning ordinance, and as is otherwise required in order to integrate development with the uses in the surrounding area. (h) The application, if approved, would create a lot which would not be physically suitable for either the type of development or the proposed mass and density of the development. - 3. Based on substantial evidence presented to this Planning Commission during the above -referenced- public hearing, and upon the specific findings of fact as set forth above, this Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes 'as follows: �A LjKAFT (a-)—The—app-l-i-ca-t-i-on—i-s—not—in—conforma-nc with the goals and policies of the proposed General Plan and the codes of the City of Diamond Bar. (b) Pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code No. 65360, this Planning Commission hereby finds and determines as follows: (i) The City of Diamond Bar is proceeding in a timely fashion with the preparation of the General Plan. (ii) There is a reasonable probability that the application will be inconsistent with the General Plan proposal being considered or studied. (iii) There is a probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the future adopted General Plan if the application as proposed were approved and determined to ultimately be inconsistent with the General Plan. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council deny the application based on the findings presented above. 5. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Transmit this recommendation to the City Clerk for submittal to the City Council. (c) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Reso- lution, to Fred Janz at the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 23TH DAY OF MARCH, 1992 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Jack Grothe, Chairman ATTEST James DeStefano, Secretary I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu- k] tion was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning com- mission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of March, 1992, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: (COMMISSIONERS:) NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:] 4 RESOLUTION NO. 92-88 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA DENYING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 92-1 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO FLOOR OFFICE BUILDING WITH UNDERGROUND PARKING,, IN A CM ZONE,, LOCATED AT 23475 SUNSET CROSSING ROAD, DIAMOND BAR AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. .(i) Fred and Norma Janz, 2683 Shady Ridge, Diamond Bar, California, has heretofore filed an application for approval of Development Review 92-1 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution referred to as "the application". (ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. (iii) Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject Application, as to consistency to the proposed General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360. (iv) On February 24, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on the March 23, 1992. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. In all respects as set forth' in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on February 24, 1992, and concluded on March 23, 1992, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with the terms and provisions of California Government Code Sections 65360, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The subject property is located at 23475 Sunset Crossing Road, Diamond Bar, California and is located in the Zone CM (Commercial Manufacturing). (b) The applicant's request is for a Deelopment Review application to construct a two floor office building with underground parking'. (c) The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences to the east, a three story office building to the north, residential condominiums and a swim and racquet club to the south, and a health club to the west. (d) The subject property is currently developed with a three story office building, the Great Western Bank, parking and landscaped areas, and open space vacant areas. (e) The proposed project will establish a two floor office building, with underground parking, for commercial uses to exclude any medical service tenants. (f) The subject property fronts on and takes access from Sunset Crossing Road and the existing development takes access from Diamond Bar Blvd. The existing utilities on site are sufficient to accommodate the proposed project. (g) Residential properties located adjacent to the easterly boundary of the subject property are located at elevations above the subject property and currently look down upon the existing office building. (h) The application as submitted would contradict the goals and objectives of the proposed General Plan and would promote detrimental conditions to the persons and properties in the immediate vicinity of the site insofar as it would introduce and expand commercial uses in an area presently developed primarily by residential and recreational uses and prohibit adjacent residential development from the full enjoyment of their property. (i) The application, if approved, would create an unsuitable type of development that could be detrimental to the public health, safety and welf.ar_e-,-and mentally injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Planning Commission during the above - referenced public hearing, and upon the specific findings of fact as set forth above, this Planning Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The design and layout of the proposed development is not consistent with the applicable elements of the proposed General Plan; (b) The design and layout of the proposed development will unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing and future developments, and may create traffic or pedestrian hazards; (c) The architectural design of the proposed development is not compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will not maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this Chapter; (d) The design of the proposed development would not provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors and will be aesthetically unappealing; (e) The proposed development will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby denies the application described herein. 5. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, to the Fred Janz at the address as set forth on the Application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 1992 BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Jack Grothe, Chairman James DeStefano, Secretary I, James Destef ano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 23rd day of March, 1992, by the following vote -to - wit: AYES: NOES: ABSTAINED: ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] [COMMISSIONERS:] AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: �410TIVa"N ivVp MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: 5 March 18, 1992 March 23, 1992 Extension of Time for Tract 31977 The applicant is requesting a one year extension of time in order to complete preparation of the map for final map approval. North of Goldrush Dr. and Highcrest Dr. ,and so * uth of Cromarty Drive and west of Leyland Drive and Armitos Place. W.R. Lind, Inc. 44 S. Chester Ave. Pasadena, CA. 91106 Andrew King 1595 S. Mc Pherrin Ave., Monterey Park, CA 91754 The City Council approved this map in February of 1990. This project was processed through the County of Los Angeles in coordination with the City of Diamond Bar under the direction of Matthew Fouratt, Planning Director. The tract map proposed 22 lots on 16 acres.. The infrastructure around the subject site was provided prior to the submission of this application to the County in February of 1989. The area encompassed within the map boundaries is a remnant piece of a previous development, therefore the project is surrounded by existing tract development. ANALYSIS: The project as processed within the County and does not exhibit the current accepted standards the City now utilizes in the course of review of tract and parcel maps. The lot configurations appear to be responsive to minimum lot size. requirements rather than attention to ingress and egress or topographic considerations. Although the project has attempted to minimize grading, the result conflicts with the City's Hillside Management ordinance. The project does not reflect land form grading techniques and the design has an extremely manufactured appearance. There are numerous visible 2:1 cut slopes that utilize linear concrete swales which are clearly visible from Cromarty Drive, Radbury Place, and Highcrest Drive. Additionally,, the project identifies shared driveways and driveways with grades in excess of the currently accepted 15 percent maximum. Conclusion: The Engineering Department and the Planning Department have reviewed the map and have identified numerous areas that were not addressed with the degree of attention or standards that projects of this nature are currently required to obtain. The map was processed at the a time when no standards or direction had been clearly delineated by the City concerning residential tract development. Under the standards currently implemented by the City, this project would not be approved 'and would be required to be redesigned. The City is not bound to approve this request and has in the past denied similar requests for the above stated reasons. RECOMMENDATIOWS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the request for the extension of time. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner W. R. LIND, INC. Pasadena, CA 91106 449-3161 January 8, 1992 City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Attention: James jer RE: Tentative Tract 31977 Dear Sir, '10 V I Vy"i We have been diligently processing the final map and find that we will be unable to complete everything for recordation by the expiration date of February 6, 1992. We are, therefore, requesting a two year extension of time on the tentative map on behalf of our client. We appreciate your every consideration. If you have any questions, please let me know. Sincerely -fi E�Y. e cc- A. King File rev ewe by on � < r and is ready for nning File rev'ewe by on� and is ready for, destrucbon by City Clerk .