Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7/13/1992
Next Resolution No. 92-15 FIX -1 - DI SOUTH COAST. AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AUDITORIUM 21865 E. COPLEY DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 July 13, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 pm PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman MacBride, Grothe, 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. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recording Secretary- (completion of this form is voluntary) . There is a five minute maximum time limit whenaddressingthe Planning Commission. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the commission only: 1. Minutes of June 22, 1992 OLD BUSINESS: None NEW BUSINESS: 2. Planning Commission report regarding staff's analysis of the distance between accessory and main buildings. PUBLIC HEARING: 3. Variance No. 92-2 A request for a variance from Section 110.D.2 of the sign code in order to permit an illuminated wall sign of 100 square feet in area. Location: 21700 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar. Applicant: Cal Comp Insurance Co. Address: 504 Redwood Blvd., Novato, CA 94947 Environmental Determination: Categorically Exempt 4. Conditional Use Permit 89-528 (1) and Development Review 92- 03 A request for approval to amend an existing CUP. The applicant is requesting to construct a new Burger King Restaurant with drive-thru facilities. The building will be approximately 3,600 square feet and the site is approximately 53,289 square feet in size. A sign plan will also be reviewed as a part of this application. Property Address: 525 S. Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar Applicant: Russel Hand, Tedrus Properties Environmental Determination: Negative Declaration INFORMATION: ANNOUNCEMENTS: Staff Planning Commissioners ADJOURNMENT: July.27, 1992 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22,, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: the Community Development Director James DeStefano. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Li, Grothe, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Vice Chairman MacBride was absent (excused). Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of Minutes of May May 26, 1992, the Minutes of May 28, 1992, and the 26, May 28, Minutes of June 8, 1992, as presented. & June 8, 1992 PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding a request, from applicant William A. Stiegler, for a Variance Variance to approve an existing six (6) foot high No. 92-1 wrought iron fence with pilasters within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback, over the allowable height of forty-two (42) inches. The proposed project is located within "The Country" at 2621 Indian Creek Road (Lot 8, Tract 23483). There are three issues that need to be addressed pertaining to this project. The first issue concerns the fact that the existing fence has been constructed within the twenty (20) foot front yard setback and exceeds a height of forty two (42) inches. The second issue is determining if it was necessary to construct the fencing as it exists or if it could have been placed behind the twenty (20) foot front yard setback. The third issue is determining whether the fencing is aesthetically compatible with the area. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 92-1 with the following conditions and Findings of Fact attached to the staff report. C/Meyer inquired why this particular project is before the Commission since there are other such similar fences located in "The Country". PT/Lungu explained that it began as a code enforcement issue. It ' is before the Commission as a request for a Variance to permit modification of the development standards because the topography of the site makes it difficult to enforce the Code setback and height requirements. ll June 22, 1992 Page 2 LIRA C/Meyer inquired if the City issues building permits for fences. PT/Lungu stated that building permits are -not- issued for fences six (6) feet or less, and it is not a retaining wall. William Stiegler, residing at 8724 E. Garvey Ave., Rosemead, the applicant, stated that this matter was brought up because of an inspector, who was in the area regarding an unrelated matter, noted the fence. Mr. Stiegler submitted an affidavit, from two neighbors across the street from the indicated property, stating that they are in favor of the fence. He explained that the fence has been installed for approximately one year. The Public Hearing was declared opened. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Grothe indicated that, though the fence is aesthetically suitable, he does not feel a variance should be granted for a fence that is too tall, too close to the street, and does not conform to the zoning code. He suggested that there needs to be modification to the development code. C/Meyer stated that this type of fencing occurs in that community, is consistent with the development standards of that community, is acceptable to the neighbors, and only violates a set of development standards that may no longer be applicable to that area. Instead of looking at it as an exception, perhaps the development standards should be reviewed. He recommended that the request be continued, and staff be directed to develop some sort of development standards, either through a conditional use permit, or a modification of the development standards for large lot subdivisions, which would allow this development in certain circumstances. The variance is the wrong tool for this project. . C/Li concurred that the variance is an improper tool. All fencing that violates the development standards should be before the Commission, not just one. He suggested that there should be a timeline to determine at what point our standards come into effect. CD/DeStefano explained that code enforcement in Diamond Bar is limited and works on a reactive basis. If this case is a result of some sort of June 22, 1992 Page 3 code enforcement activity, then we are obligated, by the code, to get the proper permits. Staff feels it is a righteous variance in terms of it being a hardship for the applicant, the topography of the site, and the safety issues., Staff recommended that the commission approve the variance, eliminating the hardship for this particular applicant, and then direct staff to prepare a code amendment to bring back to the Commission for consideration at the earliest date. C/Meyer inquired how long it would take for staff to develop new standards. He further inquired if the present standards are antiquated as they're applied to this particular zoning character. CD/DeStefano responded that the standards are antiquated in. terms of their application to hillside properties. It will probably take staff six to eight weeks to gather up information from other hillside communities with - similar circumstances, see how they are addressing the problem, and then develop an ordinance, for the commissions consideration, that meets the desires of our community. Staff recommends that the variance approach is the appropriate tool for this specific application. However, in terms of dealing with the more broadly based issue, a change in code is warranted. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by Chair/ Flamenbaum and CARRIED to approve Variance 92-1. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: M e y e r L i a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None— ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/MacBride. Chair/Flamenbaum, upon the concurrence of the Commission, directed staff to prepare a code amendments to be brought back to the commission for consideration within 60 days. CONTINUED Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Commission may first wish to begin discussion on the Zone Change issue. TT Map No. 50519/ DA No. 91-3/ C/Meyer stated that since it is a comprehensive DR No. 91-2/ project, perhaps the information submitted on the Zone Change 91-1 entire project should be discussed, and then the actions dealt with incrementally. The Commission concurred. June 22, 1992 Page 4 DRAFT AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the request from the applicant, Diamond Development Company, to subdivide a 2.3 acre site, located at 23575 Golden Springs, into six (6) lots, to construct -an 80 unit Senior citizen project, to change the zone classification from C-1 (Restricted Business) to Zone R-4 (Unlimited Residence), and to enter into a Development Agreement with the City.. He thoroughly reviewed the Application Analysis, as indicated in the staff report. It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss the project, and direct staff on issues and project specifics. Staff is supportive of multi -family residential development at this location as well as senior citizen housing as a specific land use. It is an appropriate transitional use for this land. staff recommended that the development agreement, incorporating the appropriate density bonus, be drafted. However, staff can not support the massive reduction in parking and potential problems with the internal circulation within the parking structure as proposed by the applicant. Chair/ Flamenbaum inquired if the traffic report has been reviewed by the Traffic and Transportation Commission (TTC). AP/Searcy stated that it is staff's understanding that the project went before the TTC nearly one year ago. Chair/ Flamenbaum, noting that the project presented today has been revised from the one reviewed by the TTC a year ago, suggested that it would be appropriate to allow the TTC to review it again. AP/Searcy informed the Commission that a representative of Alfred Gobar and Associates is available to discuss the Impact Analysis, if the Commission so desires. - Al Marshall, residing at 4400 MacAurther Blvd., Newport Beach, representing Dr. Crowley, discussed the need to provide for senior housing in Diamond Bar. He made the following comments: many seniors are looking for an alternative to their current lifestyles, and desire to continue to live within their community, on a fixed income; there is a hand by hand cooperation, of City and private enterprise, to keep housing affordable, usually in the form of density bonuses; this project is proposed in the $100,000 to the $160,000 range, which allow seniors to sell their current home, live on their fixed income, put additional fund June 22, 1992 Page 5 uI?AFT money in bank, and continue to own their homes;. the parking ratio of this project is far greater than the other. 800 units he has developed, none of which had a higher parking ratio of 1.08:1; there is a sufficient number of quest parking outside of the project; 'since the average age of the buyer is 72 years old, the ratio of cars actually owned is considerable below the 1.08:1 ratio; and the design of the project fits well in the surrounding area. Chair/Flamenbaum informed Mr. Marshall that two of the Commissioners present have never heard a presentation on this project. Al Marshall continued his presentation and made the following comments regarding the proposed project: itis 80 units consisting of 2 and 3 stories over the parking structure, and 2 and 3 stories on grade at the front; there will be 10 two bedroom units, and 6 one bedroom units per building; the parking and complex is secured; the homeowners association will participate in running the recreational facility; the age restriction is geared specifically for adults; the majority of the purchasers are, in most cases, elderly single women; the number of parking spaces need only be tied to the number of units, not bedrooms, because seniors don't usually expand their family unit; and it is 35 feet above grade. C/Meyer stated that the Planning Commission has already recommended, in the Land Use Element, that this land be used for multi -family residential zoning at 16DU/acre. Noting that the density bonus is based on the availability of the units to low and moderate income, he inquired if.an individual with a low to moderate income of $26,000/year can afford to buy these units at $100,000 to $160,000. Al Marshall stated that the density bonus is not necessarily tied to just the income level, but the restrictions on the property are taken in to consideration as well. Al Marshall -made the following responses to C/Meyer's inquiries: there is a lot of concrete, however, the deck above will be landscaped with a lot of planters; the biggest units are the best sellers whereas the den is used as a study, and the extra bedroom for visiting children; everything is fully accessible, with stairways and 4 elevators; the age is restricted through the CC&RIs, the land covenant, conditioned by the Conditional Use Permit, and other trigger mechanisms that can be June 220 1992 —ge 6 Pao; Put in Place; Purchase; OnProof Of . age e companion is Will be required to s allowed to units that is at lea t 45 Years Of age can oniv occupy the Visit for a certain I children overnight stays_ per total number of deciduous- -- I screening Year,'' controlled by the HOA; visuallmaterial Y obscure the south weste will be used to site from the existing rly and be of the a shadOw,analysis single family residences; site. was not conducted on this C/Li advised the development caapplicant to enter considered carefulbecause the seniors to this and taken care of, must be C/Grothe indicated that he has various stated that he concerns on the Project in general. However, at this point is very concerned that he has not Yet received the elevation, he to how the project view of that project, as Torito Lane, and to fits into Diamond Bar Blvd. and the surrounding resident , has requested numerous times, as he chair/Flamenbauni, in reg Summary and conclusions ards to page 8 report, inquired how it W of the In the as I development Of the s Fiscal Impact concluded that retail ite will result In a negligible net increase in retail sales by the city. tax revenues received Olance Gadreen, with Alfred located as 721 Gobar Associates that the pecif Kimberly I ics sup Ave., Placentia/ stated located On page 17 and 1s that statement is his summary 8 Of the report. Following explained Of the Fiscal Iscal Impact Analysis development if Diamond Bar I he to the 2.3 limits retail site, the city will acres get another available on convenience oriented t duplicat' this which,is already in over Of retail. Ion Of the r supply. operations, Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he does not With the sudden transit- concur develops 2.3 acres of ret ail, the cit 'On that if the city sal negligible increase in retail Will see a es taYx. Chair/FlamenbaUm recessed the meeting at 8: The meeting was reconvened at 9:00 p.m. 43 p.m. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Red Calkins, residing at 240 Eaglenest Dr. that at the time that he moved to stated Diamond Bar, it was supposed to be a Village type cluster of homes. June 22, 1992 Page 7 He inquired if a traffic study was conducted. He noted that Diamond Bar is over run by office vacancies as it is. Don Gravdahl, residing at 23988 Minnequa, made the following comments: much of the lack of audience may be due to the fact that the project has been continued so often; there is not adequate available parking spaces; a change of ownership could generate more cars than first anticipated; 55 year olds and 45 year olds often have more than one vehicle; the TTC often review problems in which residential areas are being impacted by the lack of parking spaces in office buildings; and the effects of these tall buildings on Diamond Bar should be considered. The Public Hearing was declared closed, to be continued to a meeting yet to be determined. C/Grothe stated that, though he is not opposed to a zone change, he does not see any reason to continue a project that is so far out of conformance. C/Li stated that, though he is not opposed to the project, he has a lot of doubts regarding the density of the project, and would concur to continue the matter. C/Meyer made the following comments: density bonuses does have a direct relationship to the provision of units to low and moderate income, and if the project does exceed the 37 dwelling units, then some provision should be made for low to moderate incomes; the TTC should review the site, and the issues relative to on -street parking; on site parking should be commensurate with the size of the units and the number of bedrooms; there needs to be a redesign of the project to provide easy access to these units; the elderly are not usually attracted to subterranean parking, and it should be redesigned; the plans should show above grade landscaping above the subterranean parking; there needs to be an analysis of the potential impacts on the surrounding land uses; on site circulation plan is difficult to maneuver; the visitor parking will probably be used by the residents; the lot coverage is contrary to a lot of the concepts, dealt with in the General Plan review, regarding design standards, softening glare of hardscape with landscaping efforts, reducing the amount of impervious materials, etc.; the recreational amenities are minimal and should be redesigned to be the focal point to encourage group _.:,7...u..'r 0 June 22, 1992 Page 8 ,type of activities; this development should comply with the rest of the standards we would apply to other condominium developments in the community; the trash areas are inadequate; a public transit facility should be made to provide use; an analysis should be made of the site, it's impact of each of the buildings internally, and external to the project, to include a shades analysis; and an Environmental Analysis should be done. Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Meyer to deny the project, as submitted. C/Grothe concurred with the statements made by C/Meyer, and added that the number and size of the parking spaces need to be increased, and there should be recreational amenities for guests. He recommended denying the project, and advising the applicant to resubmit a redesign of the project, as a new application. Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that if the application is denied, the applicant should be given groundrules as to what he should expect if he chooses to resubmit. C/Grothe indicated that this project is fundamentally the same project that has been proposed for a year now, with the exception of the senior citizen housing. He stated that his direction to the applicant would be to go back and design the project to meet the code, the design review, and the General Plan. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired of the applicant if they are in a position to work with staff to develop,a project that the Commission feels would be more appropriate for Diamond Bar. Al Marshall requested the opportunity to study the project, and give it further consideration, given the concerns expressed by the Commission. The Planning Commission voted upon C/Grothe's motion to deny the project, as submitted. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: M e y e r L i a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/MacBride. The Motion FAILED. June 22, 1992 Page 9 C/Meyer asked if the applicant is willing to waive the time restrictions for the.Tentative Tact Map. Al Marshall stated that the applicant is in concurrence to waive the time restrictions on the Tentative Tract Map. C/Grothe requested that the application first go before the TTC for review before coming to the Planning Commission. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED. UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the meeting of August 10, 1992. The Commission stated more concerns regarding the proposed project: the size of the parking stalls need to be increased; there needs to be additional guest recreation amenities, especially for children; there should be sprinklers in the garage of the community building; and there should be a further explanation as to why this site should not be retail space, as indicated in the Fiscal Impact report. Chair/Flamenbaum noted that the letter received from the Pomona Unified School District, expressing a concern that the schools could not adequately handle more enrollment, was written before the project was proposed as a senior citizen complex. The Commission then discussed the need to renotice this project. The project has already been noticed four times. However, because there is going to be a 60 day lapse before the next hearing, the Commission concurred to renotice the project. C/Grothe suggested that noticing, in general, should come up as a Commission item to determine how to adequately notice all of the projects. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CD/DeStefano reported that the City has hired George Wentz, with the firm of Abbot & Associates, Staff as Interim City Engineer. He further reported that the City Council has tentatively approved the Plan for Public Health and Safety, as well as the Plan for Public Services and Facilities. Also, the video tapes on the Tres Hermanos presentation is available if anyone would like to view them. Commissioners C/Meyer requested staff to place, on the agenda, a discussion regarding the provisions of the zoning ordinance, with respect to set backs of swimming pools, with respect to main and accessory June 22, 1992 Page 10 A JKA buildings. He would like staff to confer with.the City Attorney to see if there is a way to clarify the definition, either by policy, or potential modification of that I def inition by whatever means necessary. The Commission concurred. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by Chair/ Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 10:00 p.m. Respectively, James DeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Chairman and Planning Commissioners Ann J. Lungu, Planning Technician �V 9 Planning commission report regarding staff's analysis of the distance 'between accessory and main buildings. July 2, 1992 ANALYSIS/BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission, on June 22, 1992, requested that the staff provide their analysis and interpretation of the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code which the City adopted after incorporation and the interpretation of the Uniform Building Code (U.B.C.) pertaining to the distance between accessory and main buildings. The following is information to assist the Commission in understanding how staff interpret the Planning and Building code relative to the separation of a main structure and an accessory structure (i.e. pools). County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code 1. Chapter 22.08 - Definitions: "Structure means anything constructed or erected which requires a fixed location on the ground, or is attached to something having a fixed location on the ground". "Accessory use means a use customarily incidental to, related and clearly subordinate to a principal use established on the same lot or parcel of land, which accessory use does not alter said principal use nor serve property other than the lot or parcel of land on which the principal use is located". "Accessory building or structure means a detached subordinate building or structure, the use of which is customarily incidental to that of the main building or to the main use of the land, and which is located in the same or a less restrictive zone, and on the same lot or parcel of land with the main building or use". 2. Chapter 22.48. 130.2 "Distance Between Accessory and Main Buildings. Except where a greater distance is otherwise required by this Title 22, a minimum distance of six (6) feet shall be required between any main residential building and an accessory building established on the same lot or parcel of land". The staff, using the definition of -"structure",- considers- 'a swimming pool to be a structure because its construction requires a fixed location on the ground. The use is incidental to, related and clearly subordinate to the principal used established on the same lot or parcel of land which makes it an accessory structure. The definition of an accessory building includes a structure and a pool is considered a structure. Therefore, it is subject to the development standard of Chapter 22.48. 130.2. The Uniform Building Code (1988) which the City has adopted uses the following code and definitions in determining the distance between a main structure and an accessory structure. Uniform Building Code (1988) 1. Chapter 12, Section 1201 - Group R Occupancies: Classifies a single family dwelling as and R-3 occupancy. 2. Chapter 11, Section 1101 - Group M Occupancies: 1IM-1 occupancy as defined in U.B.C. are private garages, carports, sheds, agricultural buildings, and miscellaneous structures which are ancillary to the main structure. The City's Building Official classifies a swimming pool as an M-1 occupancy". 3. Chapter 5, Section 503.(a) General. "Mixed Occupancies: When a building is used for more than one occupancy purpose, each part of the building comprising a distinct "occupancy", as described in Chapters 5 through 12, shall be separated from any other occupancy as specified in Section 503 (d)". 4. Chapter, 5, Section 503.(d) Fire Ratings for occupancy Separations. Since this section defines the fire rating required between occupancies, an occupancy may be adjacent, under or over any other occupancy so long as they are separated by the proper fire rating. No fire rating separation is required between a swimming pool and a single family residence. Therefore, a pool may be constructed as close to a dwelling as possible or it can also be constructed under the dwelling or on top of any dwelling. The only criteria would be the structural stability of the pool and/or dwelling for the above mentioned conditions. In discussing this matter with the County of Los Angeles Regional Planning Department, there is a difference in interpretation of the Planning Codes sections mentioned, in the beginning of this report. Interpretation of the code by planners working in a "field office" is less stringent than planners working in the "main office" of the Regional Planning Department. A field office is a satellite office for Los Angeles Regional Planning and there are several located through out the County. These offices contain Building and Safety which does plan checks and issues permits. Also, Regional Planning supplies a planner, one day a week, on a rotating basis. When there are questions concerning the interpretation of a development code, they tend to lean toward the Building and Safety Department interpretation saying that the distance between a main structure and an accessory structure is triggered by the Building and Safety Department. In the field offices the key words are 11 above grade". To be considered a structure, a structure must be "above grade". But, these words are not mentioned in Planning definitions and codes the City has adopted which is presented in this report and taken from the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code. In the main office of Regional Planning, the interpretation of the code is more restrictive than in the field offices. The Planners interpret the code as the staff does in the City going through the reasoning and logic presented early on in this report. The reason for the minimum of six (6) feet between a main structure and a pool is for safety reasons - to provide access for fire equipment between the two structures and to allow a safe access for people between the dwelling unit and the pool. The following Cities were contacted concerning this matter: Brea, Chino, Ontario, Corona, Lakewood, Burbank, Fullerton, Placentia, and Rancho Cucamonga. All cities required a minimum distance between a main structure and a pool. In a majority of the cities, this distance was regulated by the Building and Safety Department and was f ive ( 5 ) feet. A majority of the cities would allow a minimum of three (3) feet between a main structure and a pool if the pool was engineered appropriately. A three (3) foot minimum separation was the shortest distanced permitted due to the fact that an emergency may arise and would require safety and rescued equipment would necessitate access between the two structures. RECOMMENDATION: Provide policy direction to the staff as appropriate. Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: -3 REPORT DATE: June 26, 1992 MEETING DATE: July 13, 1992 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Variance No. 92-2 APPLICATION REQUEST: A request for a Variance from Section 110.D.2. of the sign code in order to permit an illuminated wall sign of 100 square feet in area. .PROPERTY LOCATION: 21700 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Cal Comp Insurance Company 504 Redwood Boulevard Novato, CA 94947 PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Bar Business Associates 1661 Hanover Road, #221 City of Industry, CA 91748 BACKGROUND: The applicant, Cal Comp Insurance Company is requesting a Variance to approve an illuminated wall sign, with a sign face area of 100 square feet. The proposed wall sign is to be located on the north elevation of the office building which they occupy within the Gateway Corporate Center. The project site is located at 21700 E. Copley Drive, in Gateway Corporate Center, and is approximately 6.89 acres. It is zoned Commercial-Manufacturing-Billboard'Exclusion-Unilateral Contract (C-M- BE-U/C) . Generally, the following uses surround the site: to the north is Neighborhood Business -Billboard Exclusion (C -2 -BE) zone and open Space (OS) which includes the golf course; to the northwest is the Pomona Freeway (60 Fwy); to the southwest is the Orange Freeway (57 Fwy); to the east is C-M-BE*U/C. The office building on the subject site is a multi -use structure with a total of 76,874 square feet. Cal Comp occupies the entire third floor (26,070 square feet) and is considering leasing an addition 7,000 square feet on the first floor. At this time, Thorson and Associates occupies 18,154 square feet of the first floor. The second floor is 25,650 square feet and vacant. Several leases are being negotiated at this time for the second floor. ANALYSIS: The proposed wall sign is 100 square feet in area. It will incorporate the words "Cal Comp, Insurance Company", in two lines, composed of individual metal channel letters,.and back lighted. It is to be located at the exterior elevation facing north, on the tile band above the third floor windows. The letters will have polished faces with blue returns. On June 2, 1992, the City adopted a Sign Ordinance which is in effect at this time. The following are excerpts from this sign ordinance which are used in the analysis of this Variance. 1. SECTION 106. DEFINITIONS: WALL SIGNS: Any sign which is attached, erected, or painted on the exterior wall of a building including the parapet, with the display surface of the sign parallel to the building wall, and which does not project more than twelve (12) inches from the building. 2. SECTION 110. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM: Wall signs for multi -use buildings or commercial centers: Maximum area'of 1.25 square feet per one (1) lineal foot of frontage, to a maximum of 125 square feet per street level uses plus one (1) square foot per one (1) lineal foot of frontage per establishment up to a maximum of 100 square feet for uses not located at street level..which are visible from the street, courtyard, or public parking area and which are individually accessible directly from the outside, such as along a common balcony or walkway. Maximum number is one (1) per outer wall. Special Conditions: Businesses with frontages less than twenty- five (25) feet may be approved for sign area up to thirty (30)square feet. An additional sign may be permitted on a wall other than the wall which contains the front entrance, provided said wall faces a public right-of-way and such signage does not exceed one (1) square foot per liner foot of frontage for each business, to a maximum of 100 square feet. Zone: Commercial and Industrial. There are several entrances and exits for this building. The main entrance and exit faces north. The secondary entrances and exits are at the rear and sides of the building.. These entrances and exits are shared by all tenants. The design of the building is such that tenants enter and exit their suites by common isle ways, within the building, which lead to the main and secondary entrances and exits. Individual tenants do not have direct access from the exterior of the building to their suites. As a result, per the Sign ordinance, wall signs are not permitted. In Gateway Corporate Center, there are other buildings which are design in the same way as the building which Cal Comp is leasing. These buildings have wall signs similar to what is requested in this application. These wall signs were approved under the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code sign regulations which was enforced at that time and are legal non -conforming signs. There are three (3) freestanding monument signs located on the site approved in November, 1989. Two are located next to the driveways at Copley Drive. The third one is located at the northeast portion of site, on a landscaped area, approximately sixty (60) feet from the building. The two (2) monument signs located next to the driveways designates the address of the site. They are 5 feet 2 inches in height and 8 feet is width totaling to approximately forty-two (42) square feet in sign face area. The third sign is a tenant identification and identifies Thorson and Associates. It is 3 feet 7 inches in height and 10 feet 8 inches in width totaling to approximately 39 square feet in sign face area. The three (3) freestanding monument signs comply with Gateway Corporate Center Design Guidelines and the sign ordinance that was in effect in November, 1989. The monument sign which is closest to the building is used for tenant identification. Instead of using this monument sign for tenant identification, the property own and applicant could use one of the monument signs near a driveway for tenant identification. As per the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code, Section 22.56.260, E. (Title'21 & 22), The Variance procedure is established to permit modification of development standards as they apply to particular uses when practical difficulties, and unnecessary hardships, or results inconsistent with the general purposes of this Title 22, develop through the strict literal interpretation and enforcement of such provisions. There shall be special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which are not generally applicable to other properties in the same vicinity and under identical zoning classifications. After analyzing this application, staff finds that there are no special circumstance or exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property that would allow the granting of this Variance. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: This item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on June 22, 1992, and the Highlander on June 24, 1992. Notices were mailed to approximately twelve (12) prop- erty owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site on June 19, 1992. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is categorically exempt according to guidelines of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). UOKOL"I Y OW I shlv 0 celyWr Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance No 92-2 with the Findings of Fact. FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. There are not any special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property, the strict application of the code does not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classifications; and 2. This Variance will -constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated; and 3. That strict application of zoning regulations as they apply to such property will not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose of such regulations and standards; and 4. Granting this Vaiiance may not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of Denial Application Exhibit "A" - site plan, dated July 13, 1992 Exhibit "B" - elevation and sign, dated July 13, 1992 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENYING VARIANCE NO. 92-002 AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, AN APPLICATION FOR AN ILLUMINATED WALL SIGN OF 100 SQUARE FEET IN AREA ON AN OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED AT 21700 E. COPLEY DRIVE, PARCEL I OF TRACT 39679. A. Recitals 1. Cal Comp Insurance Company filed an application for a Variance No. 92-2 for a property located at 21700-E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Re- solution, the subject Development Review application is referred to as "Application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly 'organized municipal organization 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. 3. Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, ac- tion was taken on the subject Application, as to consis- tency to the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government S 65360. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on July 13, 1992 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on said Application. 5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu- tion have occurred. 0 B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the city of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identifiedabove in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b) (3) of Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project as proposed by the Application, and conditioned for approval herein, will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before this Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding the provisions of the paragraph, the applicant shall pay all fees required for the filing of a Notice of Determination and any other fees imposed by the California Department of fish and Game prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Based upon I substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above public hearing and oral testimony provided at the hearing, the Director hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a site comprised of approximately 6.89 acres and is developed with a three (3) story office building, within the C-M- BE-U/C zone, located at 21700 E. Copley Drive, City .of Diamond Bar, California. (b) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered. The site is adequate in size to accommodate the use and is surrounded by other commercial uses N (c) The Variance may have an adverse impact on adjacent or adjoining uses. It may be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity and may adversely affect the health or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding area. - (d) There are no special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property, and the strict application of the code does not deprive such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification. (e) The Variance authorization will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. (f) The strict application of zoning regulations as they apply to the subject property will not result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general purpose of such regulations and standards. (g) Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby denies the application. The Planning Secretary Shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to Cal Comp Insurance Company, at the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 13th DAY OF JULY, 1992, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. 19M Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman James DeStefano, Secretary 3 .. - .�. z::.:_a1_-r-T...._�F...,::✓.._�1S1.1u::,.�i_r.._:'..r.,.*-.1�<_.s,u ti.�,� �',`� I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of July, 1992, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:] 4 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 21b60 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117 VARIANCE APPLICATION Record Owner(s) Case#—Y--U Filed Fee $ Receipt(, -74k164-1 "'ED c0,%1,, By U�IITY N'T 10: 8 Applicant Applicant's Agent Diamond Bar CalComp Name Business Associates insurance.. Graphic Solutions (Last name first) Address 1661 Hanover Rd. #221 504 Redwood Blvd 1750 Kettner Blvd. city City of Industry Novato - San Diego zip 91748 94947 5'-3 : Phone (818) 913-0030 015)881--2503 92101 (614 239-1335 (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this request. Signed I Date (All recorded owners) CERTIFICATION: 1, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name Ruben Andrews / Graphic Solutions (Applicant or Agent) Signed Date, (Applicant or Agent) Location21700East Copley Drive (Street address or tract and Lot number) betweenBridgeGate Drive and Golden'Springs Drive (Street) (Street) Zoning, CM HNM Project Size (gross acres) 293, 240 SJ; Project 'Density Previous Cases None Present Use of site Office / Commercial Use applied for Signage - (1) set Halo Illuminated Letters - 100 sq. ft. area Domestic Water Source N/A Company/District N/A Method of Sewage Disposal N/A Sanitation District, N/A _i..., .: ._ .'._.._._...,. _.�-.-...'. ..... .' ..... '..�. .: _'. �.:...:.. ..�"..:...,. ..—..i:.i.. _i.�.-�..,. ... .r._....,..._..:'. Y;,. .v.�,...: �.-."C:i: Y—::'a`L ._ ... ... .. .. ....... �. .....-..... r. ...... ..... ..... ,r. r.r....� .. ... .-..- .. �l r `CrrY OF jaMWOZD BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING d1660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 ,(714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117 VARIA"NCE APPLICATION Record ®wnsr(s) Applicant Appbicaa�t's Agent Diamond Bar CalComp Name Business Associates Insurance . Graphic Solutions (Last nsae tin:) Address 1881 _ H note R!d J221_ 504 Redwood Blvd 1730 Kettner Blvd. Cit, City of Industry Novato Asn, Piezo 2ip. 91748 94947 92101 Phone(818)_913-0. 30 015) 883-2503 (81q 239-1335 (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures Of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations.) CONSENT: I consenr to that subm:saion o, the appZ.i request. cat.£oa aeee,rap$apfaq this Signed SEE ATTACHED Date 6/11/92 (All recorded owners) CEArzr CAXZ0N: 2, the underszgnad, hereby carti.fy sander pgnelry ce perjury that the Jx.:orma.rfort h®rrm.irt. provided 's corzeca to the ,bast o,f qty knowledge. Printed Name Ruben Andrews / Graphic Solutions L tieant allAgent) Signed*"9CAW!icant-or Agit) Location 21700 East Copley Drive (Street address or tract 61*4 tot rumor) between HridM Gate Drive and Golden Springs Drive (Street) (Strut) Zani.�g C�Y1HW Project Size (gross acnes) 293, 240 s.f: pzaject Dens#.:y Previous Cases None Present Use of Site Office / Commercial Cse apellAd for set Halo Illuminated Letters - 100 sq ft area Domestic avatar Source N/A C=mpany/District N/A Method. of Sewage Disposal ___ N/ A sanitation Aiatsict. N/A DIAMOND BAR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES, A California General Partnership By: DIAMOND BAR PARTNERS a California General Partnership, Partner By: Zelman Development Co., a California Limited Partnership, Partner By: Zelman Management Co., a Calif orni Corporation General Partner By: Ben Rel I ing, Presi ent By: New England Mutual Life Insurance Company a Massachusetts corporation Its: General Partner By: Copley Real Estate Advisors, Inc. a Massachusetts 96rporation, Asset Manager d visor hereunto duly authorized By: S: MANAt31M3 oinc R SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS: VARIANCE APPLICATION The information requested must be completed for all Variance applications. The second half of the form identifies the various specific types of application -requests being made. Here, youmayfill out just the pertinent sections. The detailed instructions' which follow explain only those items not clearly self-evident or requiring greater amplification. If there are any questions, please call (714) 396-5676. You may also obtain a counseling appointment on how to fill out the application by calling this number. 1. Complete and submit one (1) copy of the Variance application. If a Variance map is submitted with any number of other requests, submit twenty-seven (27) copies of the,form; 2. 'The Variance Application form MUST either be signed by the owner(s) of the subject property or the application must present a statement signed by the property owner(s) giving him the right to file the case. Purchaser in Escrow is not acceptable. A planner will assist you in filling in the following information. 3. Zone may be identified on the House Numbering Map. 4. HNM--House Numbering Map. 5. Use applied for - Describe the proposed project in detail --the nature of the business, occupation or purpose for which the structure or improvement or premises 'are to be used and what is to be done on or with the property in the way of additional improvements., K. Complete Case: A case CANNOT be Accepted for filing if any of the minimum required material *stipulated is not * complete and accurate. During the processing of the case additional material may be needed to clarify the case. L. Public Hearing: You or your representative must be present at the public hearing and be prepared to testify in detail on your request. THE MATERIALS HEREWITH BEING SUBMITTED DO NOT CONSTITUTE A COMPLETE FILING OR AN ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY. Within .30 days from the date noted on the Fee Receipt, the applicant or his agent will be mailed a statement notifying him if additional materials or information are needed. It should also be noted that. additional environmental material, data may be required before project processing can -begin and a public hearing meeting scheduled. The results of the staff environmental review (Initial Study) will be sent to you as soon as possible. AT THE TIME THE INITIAL STUDY IS COMPLETED, YOU WILL ALSO BE INFORVM OF ANY ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FEES REQUIRED., Questions regarding the Initial Study should be directed to the Diamond Bar Planning Department. D. That there are special- circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, which are not generally applicable to other properties in the same vicinity and under identical zoning classification. On 9/91 an attempt was made to submit for permit the same sign as proposed. That application was not accepted due to the incorporationof the City of 'Diamond Bar and subsequent adoption o new zoning or inances afnett multi -use office buildings. We feel the changes in the zoning ordinances were not adequately no ice , wi regar o e appricablitty sufficiently for the end-user (CalComp) to object. E. That such variance is necessary for the preservation of a substantial property right of the applicant such as that possessed by owners of other property in the same vicinity and zone. The variance is necessary to preserve the intent of the accepted design guidelines for the Gateway Corporate Center and the CC&R's which were granted byte UOunty of Los Angeles prior to the incorporation of trie City of Diamond Bar. The applicant, in good faith, relied upon these provisions in designing the proposed signage anct leasing nego is io s, d believes them to supercede any zoning ordinates changes. F. That the granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious to other property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone. Other multi -use buildings in Diamond Bar with multiple signs already exist. The granting of the variance will allow nothing more than the surrounding properties were allowea unZIer trie pre ee n , -Attiiough- tile spirit to reduce sign size and clutter is a good objective, such stringent limitations may go beyonU WITat is neiiessary. Staff Use Project No. ------------------ INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative: Diamond Bar Business Assoc. NAME 1661 Hanover Rd. Suite '221 ADDRESS City of Industry (818) 913-0030 PHONE # Graphic Solutions NAME 1750 Kettner Boulevard ADDRESS San Diego, CA 92101 (619) 239-1335 PHONE # 1. Action requested and project description: 3rd Floor signaVe consistin of (1) set Halo Illuminated individual letters Insurance Company" 2. —"CalComp Street location of project: 3a. Present use of site: Office Commercial 3b. Previous use of site or structures: Same 4. Please list al,1 previous cases (if any) related to this project: None 5. Other related permit/approvals re'quired.,. Specify type and granting agency. None 6. Are you planning future phases of this project? -Y N If yes, explain: 7. Project Area: Covered by structures, paving: 127,975 Landscaping, open space; 165,265 Total Area: 293,240 8. Number of floors: 3 9. Present zoning: CM _�......._L^r. .�_.v:,. f r, 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pesticides, 'chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials? YES NO If yes, explain 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? YES NO If yes, explain 21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on- site. 22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES NO If yes, explain 3. Are there any major trees on the site, *including oak trees? YES NO If yes, type and number: 4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed through project development?: YES NO If yes, explain: 5. Grading: Will the project require grading? YES NO If yes, how many cubic yards? Will it be balanced on site? YES NO If not balanced, where will dirt be obtained or deposited? 6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on the property (including uncompacted fill)? YES NO If yes, explain: 7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)? i YES NO Distance to nearest fire station: 8. 'Noise: Existing noise sources at site: N/A Noise to be generated by project:N/A Fumes: Odors generated by project: N/A Could toxic fumes be generated? N/A 1111i 10 11111111, 11111 1111 1661 HANOVER ROAD • CITY OF INDUSTRY, CALIFORNIA 91748 • FAX (818) 913-6169 • TELEPHONE (818) 913-0030 June 11, 1992 Ms. Ann Lungu CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Planning Department 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Re: Cal Comp Insurance Signage Variance 21700 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Dear Ann: Enclosed for your records, please find two (2) copies of the City of Diamond Bar Variance Applications with the appropriate signatures of Diamond Bar Business Associates Owners of Record attached. It is our understanding that this enclosure is part of the sign variance process submitted by Graphic Solutions on behalf of California Compensation Insurance. Please contact me at your convenience if you should require any additional information or back-up materials. Sincerely, f1w4f AZ44't Klaus Guttau Associate Vice President Director of Construction KG/kmf cc: Catherine Evans, Cal Comp Insurance (w/encl) Cheryl Villa, Graphic Solutions (w/encl) Imo.. ter.. ..... v, n,_.. _... i.� ......... .i.... 1_... ,..... ...r............. __.... _.__... r_�. ... .._ �::..._v_>.u. i. .....a.... ..��.. ..._ .....�e.._.1' _...1J.r:.F„7.•_....�'. vTa.�.-r�!.ZZ+`%w::.t._.iti: ..i..,vr.._}... i...._: ....�i._J✓_xv.. vr.....K _. ' IM, 'RZE im:.Y r=i' En •1ta. 1 :��QaCI i-;. 1 q . i�■F1.i �■.'M■ 11 Mal MI 'Unt■ �I aim ■ t°ai Nrm� ��9:: 1 ;:E�iI=An i-� ■i■:■■i MINE .e ao� : a.r =11111 6a:! 1,11 ■r- M IN ft..e noc .■■ 1 e i � ■ IMMAII, tat low gin IV., IV.., �■ �MEN �iHIM U' -I 0 'Ins MOM IMM Inn 8t- ,:•: moi:IN !Ca:MIN on •::':.i:•• IMai INNN :■■■ :..' ippp■■N ■■ 11■1 ISO mom :n ■a IN n Agenda Item 3. — Variance No. 92-2 — 21700 Copley Dr. Plans found in project file. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 4 July 9, 1992 July 13, 1992 Extension of Time for Conditional Use Permit 89528 and Conditional Use Permit 89528 (1) and Development Review 92-03 (1) For a one (1) year extension of time for the existing CUP for the expansion of the existing Honda Dealership, construction of a car wash and a McDonald's restaurant. (2) Additionally, the applicant is requesting an amendment to the CUP and Development Review to allow the development of a Burger King restaurant with drive through facilities. 525 S. Grand Ave. Russell E. Hand P.O. Box 4655 Diamond Bar, CA.91765 Tedrus Properties 525 S. Grand Ave. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 The development proposal was submitted to the County of Los Angeles in 1989, was subsequently processed by the City, and received approval by the Planning Commission on May 14, 1990 and was appealed to and approved by the City Council on July 10, 1990. The applicant requested a one (1) year Extension of Time which was granted by the Planning Commission on July 22, 1991. To this date, no structures or project components, with the exception of a retaining wall along the freeway, have been initiated or completed on-site although rough grading has been initiated. The graded site is of a retaining wall along the freeway, have been initiated or completed on-site although rough grading has been initiated. The graded site is currently used for storage and display of vehicles from the dealership. The project is as follows: Parcel No. 1 Diamond Bar Honda Dealership Approved for a 4,375 sq. ft. expansion of the existing dealership to be used for retail, storage and service space, and a 3 1/2 floor parking structure with a wall sign. Parcel No. 2 McDonald's Restaurant Approved for a 5,000 sq. ft. fast food restaurant with drive thru window and a maximum occupancy Of 116. Parcel No. 3 Automated Car Wash Approved for a 4,850 sq. ft. structure containing an automated car wash and gasoline dispensing facilities. The use will display two service islands and a maximum of six gas dispensers. Parcel No. 4 Freestanding Freeway Sign The freestanding freeway oriented sign will be located on the parcel. The maximum height is 25 ft. above the adjacent Grand Avenue street elevation. No development project is approved for this site. Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code as adopted by the City of Diamond Bar, allows for a CUP to be conditioned so as to limit the life of an unused grant for a maximum of three (3) years, which can be requested in increments not to exceed one (1) year in duration. The applicant is currently requesting the final Extension of Time allowed by the code in order that the project might proceed. The applicant is proposing to replace the approved McDonalds restaurant on lot No. 2 with a Burger King restaurant. This request requires an amendment to the existing CUP. The grant which is due to expire, is very explicit in that the type of use (restaurant) and a specific user (McDonalds) were called out within the entitlement (site plan, resolution, and conditions, etc.). The alteration of this grant requires an amendment to the CUP for the change in user and Development Review for the revised elevations, signage, and circulation plan proposed. APPLICATION ANALYSIS: The application before the Planning Commission contains two main issues. First however, the Planning Commission must follow through on one of three courses of action. The Commission may: 1) grant the Extension of Time as requested by the applicant or for some other period of time up to one year and grant the Development Review and amendment to the CUP application; 2) grant the Extension of Time but deny the Development Review and the amendment to the CUP or request K revised plans; 3) deny the Extension of Time, Development Review, and CUP applications. The Planning Commission should consider the following in drawing their conclusions considering the proposed project and the previously approved land uses. The project was approved two years ago and since that time development standards and criterion have evolved concerning issues such as parking stall dimensions and signage to name a few. Extension of Time The applicant is requesting a second one (1) year time extension in order that the project can proceed as the economic atmosphere brightens. The applicant states that the project has received over $200,000 in improvements by the owner since the property was purchased. Additionally, the rough grading of the site has been completed since the Commission has granted the previously requested time extension. The applicant states that commercial financing is difficult to obtain at the present time. Although the project is not currently under construction, the applicant states that the development is still viable and that the requested extension will allow the applicant and his associates the necessary time to move forward with the development. The Extension of Time would allow the project to proceed as approved by the City Council in July 1990. Amendment to CUP 89528(1)/Development Review 92-03 The CUP granted in 1990 by the City Council for the construction of a McDonalds fast food restaurant was very explicit in the phrasing of the grant. The grant was specifically for that user at that location and any revision required an application for an amendment to the CUP. The intent of council was to guarantee that public review and input on the design and aesthetic.,t of any revised project would be placed before the public. The Burger King restaurant is proposed for a site approximately 1.21 acres in size ..and is designed with approximately 30 percent landscaping. Access to the site is taken from Grand Avenue on the eastern portion of the site and from Brea Canyon Road on the west. The parcel slopes approximately 3 percent from the east to the west and has been rough graded. The site is devoid of vegetation at present. The building is proposed to be 4,292 sq. ft. and is a primarily one story building with minimal (approximately 700 sq. ft.) storage area in the second floor. No seating is proposed in the limited second floor which will serve primarily as an exterior architectural feature. The plans also indicate a playground/recreation area. No seating is indicated and no formal plans have been submitted to identify the components of the play area. 3 The restaurant is 281611 in height from grade to the top of the tower. The main portion of the structure is 171611 above grade. The project is designed typical of other Burger King restaurants with a Santa Barbara eggshell plaster and San Simeon plaster base trim on the moldings. Additional trim includes a Vermillion ceramic tile and metal flashing painted to match adjacent finish. The roof material features a Bermuda Blend red clay brick and will extend toall hips and ridges. The building is designed with a drive-thru facility with the access road beginning at the east elevation and food pick up on the west elevation. The structure is designed with public entrances at the south and east elevations. An employee entrance is located on the north elevation for access to the to trash enclosure. Parking Area/Internal circulation The project proposes 53 parking spaces. There are two recreational vehicle and two handicap parking stalls and 7.5 percent of the stalls are for compact parking. The Planning Commission in the past has established a policy of requiring 91X191 standard parking stalls and as a matter of course, this would require the redesign of the parking plan. All driveway aisles are 26 ft in width as required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department except at the Grand Avenue entrance. The driveway will need to be redesigned to comply with the 26 ft on either side of the landscape median or to remove the median. Additionally, the Grand Avenue entrance will need to be designed with an alley drive approach for increasing ease of access. This approach will open the entrance to allow less restrictive and dramatic turning movements into and out of the site. The Engineering Department staff also identified a potential problem at the exit of the approximately 400 ft. long drive-thru. The proximity of this opening to the Brea Canyon Road driveway is a potential source of vehicular safety problems because of the traffic volume expected at this location. Although this location is on a cul-de-sac, this driveway accesses the only controlled intersection serving the restaurant and adjacent car wash site. There are additional concerns because of potential visual impediments for drive-thru patrons as they attempt to negotiate turns from west bound cars exiting the parcel. Review of the trash enclosure location indicates that there are concerns as to the most appropriate location from an aesthetic and internal circulation standpoint. The proposed location is not the most appealing location from an aesthetic stand point although it is convenient from a functional perspective. The trash removal at this location does however create a great potential for disruption of internal circulation if it is conducted during regular business hours. signage The project proposes signage that is consistent with the signage approved for the McDonalds restaurant. The issue at hand for the 4 Commission to decide is whether the current standards as established by the City's sign code are applicable. Under the current sign ordinance, signage for this property would be substantially reduced. The freeway oriented sign for the center would not be allowed at the current height nor would the 101X101 entry sign from Grand Avenue to parcel No. 2 be permissible. The wall signs proposed for this project are far less than those approved for the McDonalds restaurant and would comply with the current code. The remaining proposed signage is also in substantial compliance with the current sign ordinance. Conclusion The Commission, in considering these applications, should take into consideration the appropriateness of the land uses approved for the site as well as the development standards applied to the project. Balanced with these considerations, the commission must recognize that their body, in the past, has weighed these issues and granted the Extension of Time request. The denial of the requested time extension would preclude taking action on the amendment to the CUP and the Development Review application. Staff has reviewed the Burger King development * application and has found that there are design problems that must addressed. The fast food restaurant land use proposed by the project is an acceptable one at this location and would not create an incompatible use to thea. existingor proposed projects. The Honda dealership and the car wash are not proposing any changes as a part of this action. The hurdle that must be surmounted by the Commission is to determine the appropriateness of the project in whole and in part. Additionally, the Commission will have to decide the degree that to which the project can move forward with the entitlements granted under standards applicable two years ago. I ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative 'Declaration as prepared for Conditional Use Permit 89528 (1990). PUBLIC NOTIFICATION: This application was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin on June 22., 1992 and all property owners (3) within a 500 radius were mailed notices of the public hearing. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following course of action: 1. Approve the Extension of Time application for the requested one A (1) year period. 2. Direct the applicant to work with staff in redesigning the Burger King restaurant to improve the internal circulation and parking situation and bring the project back to the Planning Commission at the appropriate time for the CUP and the Development Review. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Application Letter Requesting the Extension of TIme Initial Study Burger King Development Plans City Council Resolution 90-67 and Conditions of Approval Minutes of May 14, 1990 Planning Commission HONDAMRORKING.STY 1AMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION INUTES OF MAY 14, 1990 Mr. Curley stated that in the body of the ordinance there is reference to a proposed future office site. He recommended deletion of the statement. This pad will have to come back before the Commission for review to designate it as future office site will only confuse issues in the future. Motion was made by Commissioner Grothe and seconded by Commissioner Lin to adopt the project as recommended by staff including the deletion of any reference to Parcel No. 4 and the regulation that the monument sign be no higher than 25 feet above the closet adjacent curb on Grand Avenue and that a cover crop be provided and maintained on Parcel No. 4, and the recommendations by the Traffic Engineer. An amendment was made by Vice Chairman Harmony and seconded by Chairman Schey to eliminate the tower structure attached to the proposed McDonalds Restaurant.' Commissioner Grothe stated that this will put the top of the McDonalds Restaurant at about 10 feet above street level and thus the sign at street level. He felt that this building gave ave the project an architectural step down into the buildings as a whole. Chairman Schey stated that his concern was that the tower did not look proportional to the building. The applicant brought forth the model of the project again so that the Commission could look at the tower proposed for the McDonalds restaurant. The applicant stated that they felt the tower was necessary due to the fact that patrons traveling on Grand can not see the pylon signs. The McDonalds pad elevation is below the street level. Chairman Schey stated that the tower visually look fine when looking at the model. Chairman ScKey called a question to the amendment. There was one aye and three noes. MOTION FAILED. AYE: Vice Chairman Harmony NAYES: Chairman Schey, Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner Lin Chairman Schey called a question on the primary motion. There was three ayes and one nay. AYES: Chairman Schey, Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner Lin NAY: Vice Chairman Harmony MOTION CARRIED. 13 DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 1990 Vice Chairman Harmony stated that according to the sign regulations they are allowed a large amount of signage. He is satisfied with the sign as proposed especially without the reader board. The applicant indicated that this sign will be internally lit. Vice Chairman Harmony stated that he did object to the tower built onto the McDonalds Restaurant. He would like to proposed that in the motion it be deleted. He asked the applicants where they planned to have the employees and the customers park their cars. The applicant indicated that they do plan for the curbs along Brea Canyon to marked red in the future. The parking structure is proposed to be used for service vehicles, new vehicles and their employees. Vice Chairman asked if it would be appropriate to allow for code striping on the first floor only. The applicant indicated that their intent for the first floor was'to prepare for delivery new vehicles' and 'washing of any used cars or customers' cars being serviced. employee vehicles and cars larger than compact size will probably be on the very top floor. If they were going to call for re - striping to allow for larger cars, then it would probably be more appropriate on the top floor. Vice Chairman Harmony stated that his concern was that there be adequate parking for customers on-site. The applicant stated that the addition of the parts department will not call for additional parking. They currently have off-site storage facilities and the parts department will only bring this inventory on-site. This will not generate a -need for additional traffic. The parking structure will allow them to house some of the extra display Hondas which will allow more room on-site for customers to park. There,,are a limited number of models and colors for Hondas which enable them to only display a small array of cars. Commissioner Grothe asked the applicant if the parking structure will not allow for any public parking. The applicant indicated that it will not. Commissioner Lin asked the applicant to restate the location of the freestanding signs. The applicant brought forth a model of the proposed site. Secretary Tarango stated that more than one wall sign would be permitted if the signs are oriented to two different frontages. 12 DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 1990 Those in Favor: There were none. Those in opposition: Fred Jans, 2683 Shadey Ridge, Diamond Bar, one of the owners of the carwash that was proposed for Brea Canyon which was denied. He asked if the applicant of this project was required to present a'sound and traffic studies. He wanted to make sure they were reviewed by the same criteria. Chairman Schey stated that the applicant of the expansion of the Honda Dealershipwasrequired to submit a traffic study. Information from Cal -trans and readings taken at the site pertaining to noise were included in the staff report. The applicant was not required to. conduct a sound study Oue to the fact that this project is not adjacent to any residential. Vice Chairman Harmony wanted to state for the record that he asked for a sound study for this project. Joe LaRitta, 2546 Sunbright Dr., Diamond Bar, wanted to address the signs along the Freeway. He is concerned that there was an ordinance passed many years ago that stated that billboard signs were not allowed. He asked the Commission to consider the signage as it can be seen by residents and people traveling along the Freeway. Public Hearing Closed. Chairman Schey stated that he is satisfied that the traffic issues have been addressed, the parking calculations seem to be appropriate. His 'major concern is with the 50 foot pylon sign. The applicant has deleted the reader board from the pylon sign. Grothe proposed that they accept the project as recommended by staff with the limitation that the pylon sign is no higher than 25 feet above top of the curb. DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF MAY 14, 1990 . Conditional Use Permit 89-528 and Environmental__Asesgment, this request is to develop a multi -tenant commercial project totalling 99,325 of gross floor area on 4..8 acres of land in Zone C3 -DP (Unlimited Commercial with a Development Program Overlay) located at the southwest corner of Grand Avenue and Brea Canyon Road. Mr. Searcy listed some of the items that needed to be addressed. McDonalds submitted their sign program in addition to the total project sign program. Page 2 of staff report contains both the parking calculations in Section E and the freestanding sign information in Section F. Their provided parking exceeds the required parking by 20 spaces. Within this calculation, does not include any of the parking which may be provided in the 2 1/2 story parking structure. This the existing parking on-site now reflective of transferring some of the storage and display of cars to the parking structure and the addition of the parking withinthe additional 4 parcels. Based upon the frontage that is allowed for 'this type of a center, the applicants are allowed 4 maximum signage of 1,620 square feet possible. At this time they are proposing a total of 898 square feet. There has been an addendum to the traffic report submitted to the Traffic Engineer for his comments which are included in the agenda package. There has been an addendum to the line of sight which reflects the distance from which one can see every major structure on the site and also the signage which is also included in the agenda package. Additionally, there was a concern voiced at the last meeting about noise produced and how it would impact the structures on-site. The noise produced by the car wash is less than the current noise produced by the Freeway during various time periods throughout the day. one of the conditions was the inclusion of certain sound barriers built into the structures that are proposed on- site. The car was will not in any way increase the prod . uction of sound existing at that site. Chairman Schey stated that some of the concerns raised at the last meeting were the parking calculations and the aesthetic appearance of the facility. Public Hearing Open: Russ Hand, owner of Diamond Bar Honda and the property at that location, 525 S. Grand, asked that this project be brought to a vote tonight to enable him to go onto the City Council. 10 — CITY OF DIAMOND BA�Dz o e o DEPARTMENT OF PLM:k--, G 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 .(714)396-5676 Fax (714)861-3117 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION Record Owner(s) Name Tedrus Properties (Last name first) Address 525 S. Grand Ave. city Diamond Bar, CA zip 91765 Applicant Russell E. Hand P.O. Box 4655 Phone(714) 594-6639 ( 31d 649 -367 - 01VIP 0q'sZe, b) Case# qZ-03 061 Fee 0 Rec By. Applicant's Agent (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations) CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this request Signed 5 Date 6/19/92 (All recorded owners) Certification: X, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name: Russell E. Hand (Applicant or Agent) Signed Date. (Applicant or Agen't) Location 525 c;, CT -and Aveniie @ 60/57 (street address or tract and yltot number) Zoning C -3 -DP Previous Cases OW e9�52-0 6/19/92 HNM 1(4 d -:;-541 Present Use of Site Auto dealership & vacant land rere Pre, Eymm- WMWK-04-14 Project Size (gross acres) 2.34 acres existing, pJcJg�e&RqN;ruction Domestic Water Source Walnut Valley Company/District Method of Sewage disposalso.Aler- Sanitation District. 1A County. Grading of Lots by Applicant? Yes X No (Show necessary grading design on site plan or tent map) Completed APPROPRIATE BURDENS OF PROOF MUST ACCOMPANY REQUEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION (all ownership comprising the proposed lot(s)/parcel(s) Being a subdiviginn nf ;q T)n3=tion Q7E r_,Q04—,= a 'I -- -1 - the lei strirl- Land nffire on S=feMbpr 28., 1C)AR And lo;g-ropl 4 of 1;q-rr-s=1 map nn 8024. Filed in book 99, pages 3 & 4 of parcel maps, records of Los Angeles County Area devoted to structures Landscaping/Open space Residential Project: and (gross area) (No. of lots) Proposed density (Units/Acres) Parking .. Required Provided Standard Compact Handicapped Total (staff use) PROJECT NIAMER(s). ------------------ ------------------ INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GF -NERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner): Project Representative: CD4Al2L=— NAME NAME fix- ADDRESS ADDRESS RA r2 13L 7/ 47)L PHONE # (714) PHONE # ( 1. Action requested and project description: ! o 2'q -T-,E 'Q Q 89RC-Z = � / V /-4pP90 \ez— �10�AS � (� rZ A N 2. Street location of project: 3a. Present use of site: b(W-J--1)G-V'F�PEJ-> 3b. Previous use of site or structures: MO/VE 4. Please list all previous cases (if any) related,to this project: 4or'JE- 5. Other related permit/approvals required. Specify type and granting agency. 6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y CN If yes, explain: 7. Project Area: Covered by structures, paving - Landscaping, open space: Total Area: 8. Number of floors: 9. Present zoning: 10. Water and sewer Service: Domestic Public Water Sewers Does service exist at site?Cy N N If yes, do purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project and all other approved projects? N N If domestic water or public sewers are not available, how will these services be provided? Residential Projects: 11. Number and type of units: 12. Schools: What school district(s) serves the property? Are existing school facilities adequate to meet project needs? YES NO If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? Non -Residential projects: 13. Distance to nearest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc.) / 14. Number and floor area of buildings:_ / 3 6C�C� -Q>, 15. Number of employees and shi f t s: ¢S &C L"Zk ,t r1G PArz-rrlm6� 0&00) — i5oc) -- / 16. Maximum employees, per shift: /07 17. Operating hours: ©Goo — 2_q<Dv. 18. Identify any: End products NASI rblo Waste products_ f'� c'o b Means of disposal WpS`r G 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pesti chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials? YES nNO If yes, explain 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? NO If yes, explain I Mn 21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on- site. IF 22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES G) If yes, explain C RECEIVED COMMUNITY ELOPIMIE DEVr_ NT 0 59 Tedrus Properties 525 S. Grand Avenue P.O. Box 4655 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (310) 649-3673 - . June 23, 1992 City of Diamond Bar Planning Department 21660 E.Copley Dr., Suite 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 Re: CUP 89-528 Confirming our discussions, Tedrus Properties has made a good faith effort to move forward with the site plan and development as previously approved by the planning conTnission. More than $200,000 has been spent on site work, grading and retaining walls. This is in addition to over $500,000 spent on a box culvert and the installation of 2000 feet of sewer main. Due to the poor economic conditions and the resultant difficulty in obtaining construction financing, it has. slowed construction of the car wash. McDonalds is being replaced by Burger King and that is being dealt with separately as an amendment request. I respectfully request a one year extension of CUP 89-528 to continue our work. Sincerely, sseP11. H lZd' President Tedrus Properties RESOLUTION NO..90-.67 . A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 89528 FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A.COMMERCIAL COMPLEX TO -INCLUDE A RESTAURANT, AUTOMATED CAR WASH, THE EXPANSION OF THE EXISTING DIAMOND BAR HONDA DEALERSHIP FACILITY, AND TWO FREESTANDING SIGNS OVER SIX (6) FEET IN HEIGHT ON A 4.8 ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF GRAND AVE. AND BREA CANYON ROAD AND NORTH OF STATE ROUTE 60 FREEWAY, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) M.I. Wyatt on behalf of Tedrus Properties and Russell Hand, 525 S. Grand Ave., Diamond Bar, has heretofore filed an application for approval of a Conditional Use Permit No. 89528 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit is referred to as "the application". (ii) On May 14, 1990 the Planning Commission o'f Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public. hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on that date. Thereafter, and pursuant to the provisions of the Los Angeles County Code, as adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, 'a timely appeal was filed with the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar. (iii) On the June 19, 1990 the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on that date. (iv) All legal prerequisites to the. adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by City Council of the City. of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This City Council, hereby specifically finds I hat all of facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Council hereby finds that Negative Declaration No. 4 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and, further, This City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration No. 4- with respect to the application. 3. The City Council 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 upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Council, in conformance with Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code as heretofore adopted and amended by this Council, hereby finds as follows: (a) The application applies to the property located at 'Grand Ave., Brea Canyon Road and the State Route 60 Freeway, also identified as Parcel Map 15625, zoned C -3 -DP BE, with a gross area of 4.8 acres subdivided into four parcels, and is currently partially developed with Diamond Bar Honda Auto Sales and accessory facilities located on parcel No. 1; and (b) That the requested use at the location proposed will not: M Adversely affect the health,, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing in the surrounding area, or ( i i ) Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, or (,iii) Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to public health, safety or general welfare; and (c) That thb proposed -site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, parking facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this approval; and (d) That the proposed site is adequately served: M By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and (Ii) By other public or private service facilities as are required. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Counc*il, in conformance with the terms 'and —2— provisions of California Government Code Sections 65360, hereby finds as follows: (a) There is a reasonable probability that the Project will be consistent with -the proposed General Plan; . (b) There is little or no probability that the project will be of substantial detriment to, or interfere with, the proposed General Plan for the area of the subject sites; and . (c) The project, as proposed and conditioned herein, complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances. 6. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, -2, 3, 4, and 5 above, this Council hereby approves the application subject to the following restrictions as to use and -standard conditions attached to this document and marked Exhibit "A" and by this reference incorporated herein; 7. For the purpose of this Resolution,, the site plan, landscape and irrigation plan, sign plan and traffic report, as approved by the City. Council on lune 19, 1990 and date stamped, as referenced herein. Planning Division Conditions: 1) This approval shall apply to the Conditional Use Permit No. 89528 for the approved development of the followingparcelsas listed below. (a) PARCEL NO. I Diamond Bar Honda Dealership Approved for the expansion of the existing dealership by 4375 square feet to be used for retail, storage and service space and a 3 1/2 floor parking structure as shown on approved site plan. 1. All new, construction, including the 3 1/2 floor parking structure, will utilize materials on the exterior (i.e. exterior finish, roof tile, trim, etc.) which are substantially the same as the materials currently exhibited on the existing structure. 2. . Lower floor of the parking structure shall be clearly marked or otherwise indicated as being reserved for customer and employee parking only. 3. Seventy five (75) -parking spaces available for customer parking on the east side of the existing Honda display -and service facility as shown on, the approved site plan. 4. A 6' x 13 1/2' monument sign is approved at the Grand Ave entrance to Parcel No. 1. S. A 24' x 5' wall sign attached to the south elevation of the 3 1/2 floor parking structure to display the "HONDA" logo with white. individual block letters against a blue background. The sign shall be internally illuminated. 6. The existing freestanding "HONDA" logo sign shall be removed from its present location on -the eastern elevation. 7. Landscaping and irrigation is approved as displayed and shall not deviate from the approved site plan. (b) Parcel No. 2 McDonald's Restaurant Approved for a 5,000 square feet fast food restaurant with drive through window and an occupancy limit of 116 persons. 1. Fifty one (51) parking spaces shall be provided as shown on the approved site plan. 2. Materials used for the exterior finish shall be white stucco above a three (3) foot red masonry base and Redwood trim. The roof will be topped with red mission tile. 3. Internal direction indicators encouraging traffic to Brea Canyon Rd exit shall be painted on drive aisles. 4. A 10' x 10' monument sign located at the Grand Ave. entrance to the parcel displaying the McDonald's logo is approved. 5. The parcel shall implement the approved sign program as approved by Council and dated June 19, 1990. (c) Parcel No. 3, Automated Car_Wash.. Approved for a 4,850 square feet structure containing an automated car wash and gasoline dispensing facilities. The use shall not exceed two service islands and a maximum of six gas pumps. 1. Fourteen parking spaces are to be provided for patron and employee parking on the site. No less than eight parking stalls shall be standard size stalls. 2.- One 6' x 13'6" monument sign located at the —4— Brea Canyon Road entrance to display gas•prices and the*. - business logo/name. No other signs for this parcel are approved as part of this application. 3. A wall eight (8)'feet in height as measured from grade, shall be constructed to separate parcel No. 3 from the Orange freeway on the south elevation and also from parcel No. 4 on the east elevation. This wall shall be landscaped and maintained with a growing ivy on each side thereby minimizing exposed surfaces. 4. The exterior materials of the structure shall be composed of white stucco and Redwood trim and red mission tile will be used on the roof. (d) Parcel No. 4 1. No project is approved for this parcel as part of this approval. 2. The owner of record shall maintain this parcel with in good condition with landscaping as approved by Council on the landscaping and irrigation plan: . 3. Any future development of this site must be approved by Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission and be consistent with all applicable conditions. General Conditions Applicable to All Parcels (Parcel Map 15628 Parcels 1, 2, 3, and 4) 1. The, hours of operation shall be limited from 6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. for the project. 2. Outside speaker volumes shall be modulated so as not exceed 10 decibels'! beyond the property line. 3. Landscaping must be maintained in accordance with landscape plans approved by the Director of Parks and Maintenance and shall be maintained in good condition by owner of record of each parcel or leasee there. 4. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term "permittee" shall include the applicant and any other person, corporation, or other entity making use of this approval. 5. This approval shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and the owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, at the —5— Cit Diamond Bar Planning Department, their affidavit s t o, .g conditions of this approval upon becoming effective. Additionally, this approval shall conform with conditions of Parcel Map 15625. 6. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall expire, unless extended pursuant to the City codes and ordinances, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commencedwithin twelve (12) months from the date of approval. 7. Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code, State Fire J{arshall's regulations, and the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services regulations have been complied with. 8. A freestanding pylon sign 25 feet above top of curb (Grand Ave.) to the highest point of the sign. The location of said sign is * approved to be located on parcel No. 4. The sign shall be installed as shown on approved sign program with fascia not to exceed 480 square feet. Remaining signage within the center shall conform to the sign plan approved for the center. All proposed signs must be submitted to the City Planning Department for final approval. 9. Parking and landscaping must be provided as approved and shall be in compliance with City requirements. Parking provided shall be at least 60 percent standard size parking stalls. Any alterations must be approved by the Planning Commission or its designee. 10. All appropriate permits shall be obtained prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 11. All'traff I ic mitigation measures identified by the City Engineer shall be completed and approval filed with the Planning Department before final inspection approval. 12. The subject parcels shall be developed, maintained, and operated in full compliance with the conditions set forth in this approval, the schedule of the development program as required by code and all laWs, statutes, ordinances, or other regulation applicable to any development or activity on the subject parcels. Failure of the permittee to cease any development or activity not in full compliance with this approval shall be a violation of these conditions. 13. Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission . may after conducting a public hearing, revoke or modify this approval, if the.Planning Commission finds these conditions to have been violated. —6— 6. This Council hereby provides notice to M.I. WYATT, TEDRUS PROPERTIES and RUSSELL HAND that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedures Section 1094.6 7. The Ci.ty Clerk Shall: (a) Certify to the adoption -of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return receipt request, to: 11.1. WYATT,.TEDRUS PROPERTIES and RUSSELL HAND at their addresses as set forth on the Application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 17th DAY OF JULY, 1990. CITY COUNCIL OF CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Mayor I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adop'}ed by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of July, 1990, by the following vote -to - wit. AYES: [COUNCILMEN:] Kim, Horcher, Mayor Pro Tem Forbing NOES: [COUNCILMEN:] Papen, Mayor Werner ABSENT: [COUNCILMEN:] None ATTEST: 1� a It -6 CSC Lynda Burg'egs, City Clerk.. DIA34OND.BAR HONDA PROJECT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Diamond Bar Honda--Parcel--No. 1 Approved for:. 1.• 3?h floor parking structure -and additions; all materials (i.e. tile, exterior) will match the existing Diamond Bar -Honda. display and service facility structure, material's. 2. 6' x 13.5' monument sign at Grand Ave. entrance. 3. 24' x 5' wall sign attached to the 3?i floor parking• structure in individual block letters casings with :shite letters on a blue background (internally lit). 4. One floor of parking structure exclusively for employee and customer paxking.. 5. 43.7.5 square foot addition to retail, s torage, and service facility. 6. Removal of existing freestanding sikn on south elevation to be replaced by "HONDA" wall sign on parking structure. 7. Landscaping which shall not be less than 10% of Parcel No. 1's total gross square footage. 8. Seventy fi-Ye (75) parking spaces available for customer parking shall be provided on eastern elevation as shown on site plan. McDonald's Restaurant --Parcel No. 2 Approved for: 1. 5,000 square foot fast food restaurant with drive through window and an occupancy limit of 116 persons. 2. Parking provided for the restaurant shall be 51 spaces as shown on approved site plan. 3. Landscaping for parcel No. 2 which shall be provided as shown on 'approved site plan. Landscaping shall not be less than 10% of total gross parcel square footage and landscaping and open space shall be at least 32 percent of gross parcel square footage. a-1 : 4. Materials used for exterior finish shall be white stucco above a three (3) foot red masonry base and Redwood trim. The roof will be topped with red "mission" tile. 5. Signs approved are as follows: Directional Signs Description Number Height Sq. Ft. Location 1. Height Detector 1 91 Drive Thru 2. Directional Sign 1 4' 9 Brea'Canyon Rd. 3. Directional Sign 1 41 9 E -it r2n ce @ Drive Thru 4. Directional Sign 1 41 9 Interior Pkg. Lot 5. Directional Sign 1 40 9 Grand Ave. Entrance TOTAL 36 sq. f t . Wall Signs •L Description Amount Dimensions Sq. Ft. Location' I. Tower Logo 4 4' x 5' 80' Q)__ on each elv,,ation 2. Wall Logo 2 4'.x 6' 48 East and West sides 3. Facia Arch Logo 4 2' x 19' 152 One each elevation • TOTAL 280 sq. ft. Other Type Amountli Dimensions Sq. Ft. Location 1. Flag Pole 2 25' Grand Ave. Entrance Flag Poles 1 30' Grand Ave. Entrance 2. Monument Sign 10' x 10" 100 Grand Ave. Entrance 3.. Menu Boards 2 6' x 6.5' 39 Drive-thru aisle TOTAL 139 sq. ft. ALL SIGNS ARE TO BE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED , I ..' . I I Car Wash—Parcel No. 3 Approved for: 1. A 4850 square foot structure containing an automated car wash and gas service facilities (no more than 6 pumps). 2. Fourteen parking spaces are to be provided for patron and employee parking. 3 A 6' x 13.5' monument sign located at the Brea Canyon Rd. entrance to * display gas prices and business logo/name. .No other sign is approved as par't of this application. 4. An eight (8) foot wall shall separate parcel 3 from the Orange Fwy. and an eight (8) foot wall shall be constructed to separate parcel 3 from parcel 4. All walls must be landscaped with ivy or some other clinging vine. 5. tiie exterior materials of the structure shall be composed white stucco walls and red mission tiles. 6. Landscaping for parcel 3 shall not be less than 10 percent of the gross site area and must comply with the landscape plan as approved. 7. Water reclamation and conservation devices shall incorpora,t,ed into the design of the car .,,ash. 8. The chemical/detergent used for cleaning the vehicles shall be composed of biodegradable compounds. ii 9. Petroleum waste* products shall be disposed of - by appropriate methods and shall not be discharged into public sewer systems except as allowed by law. a-3 Open Site, Parcel NO. 4 1 1. This site is not approved for development as a part of this approval. Any development of this site must be approved through a separate CUP application by the City Planning Commission. 2. ' This site is to be landscaped and maintained in good condition by the owner of the site. General Conditions 1. Unless otherwise apparent from the context, the term " pqrmittee" shall include the applicant a.nd any other person, corporation, or other entity making us-- of this grant 2. The hours of operation shall be limited fro -a.6:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. for the project. 3. Outside speaker volumes shall be modulated so as not to exceed 10 decibels over ambient noise levels at property line. 4. Landscaping must be approved by the Director of Parks and Maintenance and shall be maintained in good condition by owner of record on each parcel or leasee, thereof. 5. A freestanding pylon sign 25 feet above top of curb (Grand Ave.), measured from base of sign to closest curbside is approved to be located on parcel No. *4. The sign shall be installed as shown on approved, sign program -with fascia not to exceed 480 square feet. Remaining signage within the center shall conform to the sign pro -gram developed for the center. All proposed signs must be submitted to the City Planning Department for.final approval. C:\vp\cndiHons\bhondada a-4 TRAFFIC ENGINEER CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -- C.U.P. 89-528 1. City of Industry approval of the following modifications on Grand Ave: a. .Curb cut allowing left turns into Parcel No. 2; b. Prohibition of street parking in the vicinity of the site. 2. A traffic signal for the intersection of Grand Ave. at Brea Canyon Rd. and the 60 Freeway on-off ramps will be required in conjunction with the proposed extension of Grand Ave. northerly of Diamond Bar Honda. The cost of this traffic signal is to be the responsibility of the applicant. 3. City of Industry approval of prohibition of street parking on Brea Canyon. Citv Engineer General Conditions of Approval C.U.P.-89-528 1. Grading shall be accomplished in accordance with an approved grading plan substantially conforming to the approved tentative map. 2. Project grading shall be in accordance with Chapter 70 of the City of Diamond Bar Building Code. 3. Submit a rough grading plan and gxading/paying plan to the City Engineer for review and approval. 4. All manufactured slopes landscaped shall be in accordance with the grading ordinance and approved by the Planning Department. 5. Obtain a street construction permit Froin the City of Industry prior to any work within the public right of way. 6. Obtain the required permits from the Los Angeles County 23 Department of Public Works for connection into the storm drainage system. 7. Obtain permits from the- California Department of Transportation prior to any work within* their right of way. h-1 Plans found in project file. Yr, b6wi�fivlos,iq Ic' Oil. Filai onzy CTend — Wd iTready for , 1� -b , . I a .8cannifig. File rev)ewo by Clerk 4L��� and is ready fo onr, ci destruction by ty .