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 .