Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/27/1995 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 27, 1995 7:00 P.M. South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Bruce Flamenbaum Bob Huff David Meyer Don Schad Franklin Fong Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Community Development Office, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accomodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Community Development Department at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Pfease refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Auditorium The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Monday, March 27, 1995 Next Resolution No. 95-5 CALL TO ORDER:7:00 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1.ROLL CALL:COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Bruce Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Bob Huff, David Meyer, Don Schad, and Franklin Fong 2.PRESENTATION: Presentation of plaque to David Meyer commending his services as Planning Commission Chairman. 3. MA1TERS 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 when addressing the Planning Commission. * * * * * * * * 4. 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: 4.1Minutes of March 13, 1995 5. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: 5.3Conditional Use Permit No. 94-7: This is a request to locate an unmanned public utility substation for a cellular telecommunication facility at an existing office building located at 3333 Brea Canyon Road, west of the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Brea Canyon Road. The installation of the facility requires the placement of a 90 ft. high steel monopole with three antenna arrays, a microwave dish, and the construction of an enclosure to house the equipment room and emergency generator. 1 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 27, 1995 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that this project requires a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Applicant: L.A. Cellular, Box 6028, Cerritos, CA 90702-6028 Property Owner: Metro Diamond Bar Properties, Inc., 2030 Main #1020, Irvine, CA 92714 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to table this matter until the revised application has been submitted to the City and staff has had adequate time to review and provide appropriate public notice. 6.PUBLIC HEARING:None 7.OLD BUSINESS:None 8.NEW BUSINESS:None 9.INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 9.1Update on Vesting Tentative Tract No. 47850 9.2 Status Report on Draft General Plan 10. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS 12. ADJOURNMENT: April 10, 1995 2 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 13, 1995 64,4,14 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL Present:Commissioners: Chairman Meyer, Vice Chairman Flamenbaum, Schad, Fong, Huff Also Present: Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Community Services Director Bob Rose; Recording Secretary Carol Dennis MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1.Minutes of February 27, 1995. A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Huff to adopt the minutes as presented. The motion was approved 4-0 with the following roll call: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, C/Huff VC/Flamenbaum, Chair/Meyer COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: None COMMISSIONERS: Fong C/Fong arrived at 7:17 p.m. Regarding the Draft Resolution for Pantera Park, Chair/Meyer offered the following corrections: On Page 3 (d) the first sentence should read: "The Application is for development of a 23.8 acre park located east of Pantera Drive and south of Bowcreek Drive. C/Fong stated that he was not aware that at the last meeting the Commission had indicated that the water element should be deleted from the Draft Resolution Page 4, Condition No. 1. He asked that the Commission spend additional time deliberating on this item before deleting the element. Chair/Meyer responded that it was debated as indicated in the minutes and March 13, 1995Page 2Planning Commission it was the concurrence of the Commission to delete the water element because of the cost of maintenance, the liability factor and the potential safety hazards. C/Fong stated that other cities have water elements in their parks and they are a very attractive asset. Chair/Meyer responded that it had been debated and asked for a motion. A motion was made by C/Fong and seconded by C/Schad to leave the water element in the master plan. C/Huff stated that most other cities' water elements are at very visible intersections or places where there is high exposure to large numbers of people. As much as this is one of Diamond Bar's larger parks, it is not located at a major intersection and the amount of money that would be spent to develop this element, forgetting the liability and the maintenance, would not be worth the park dollars that could be better utilized. For the lack of visibility he heartily agrees with the liability factor. He stated he believes it should be deleted from the park. C/Schad indicated he believes it is worth additional research. If it can be done within reasonable limits it is worthy of consideration. The motion was defeated with the following roll call: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad Huff,VC/Flamenbaum, Chair/Meyer None None C/Schad referred to Page 9, last paragraph of the minutes of February 27, 1995 Planning Commission meeting. He indicated that the matter of the trails is not included in the Draft Resolution. AP/Searcy recommended that it be added as Condition #13 on Page 6. AP/Searcy stated that since this is a Master Plan, staff can be directed to develop the park in compliance with the ADA requirements. CSD/Rose suggested the following wording: "Existing trails shall remain in the current state." C/Huff asked for language to include "with access to" existing trails. CSD/Rose responded that staff could add "access". He °RAFT March 13, 1995Page 3Planning Commission indicated there will be a concrete walkway going around the park so staff can add language that refers to walkway access. VC/Flamenbaum suggested adding "on the undeveloped portion". C/Schad suggested adding "minor improvements". A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by VC/Flamenbaum to add Chair/Meyer suggested wording for Condition 13, Page 6 of the Draft Resolution to read as follows: "Access shall be provided to the existing trails in the undeveloped portion of the park in such a manner so as to comply with the ADA standards." Without objection, the Commission concurred. VC/Flamenbaum stated he did not understand the wording of Item (11) on Page 5. and moved that the sentence be changed to read:"All activities at the park shall comply with applicable City ordinances."The motion was seconded by C/Schad. Without objection, the Commission occurred. A motion was made by C/Huff and seconded by C/Fong to adopt the Resolution as amended and to include VC/Flamenbaum's suggestion that the motion be amended as follows: On Page 3, Item (d) delete "lighted" so that the second sentence reads: "The master plan for the park includes development of two ball fields, multi-use hard courts, tennis courts, picnic areas, tot lot, and a multipurpose community center approximately 7,500 square feet in size." The motion was approved with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Huff, Fong, Schad, VC/Flamenbaum, Chair/Meyer NOES:COMMISSIONERS:None ABSTAIN:COMMISSIONERS:None ABSENT:COMMISSIONERS:None OLD BUSINESS: 1. Draft Development Code AstP/Lungu reported that as discussed at the last Planning Commission meeting the Commissioners agreed to present their "top ten" list of topics to be included in the first phase of the Development Code. Staff has prepared an overview and outline of a Development Code and recommends that the Commissioner's lists be presented for consideration. Chair/Meyer asked if it is the City's intent to hire a consultant to put the code together. AP/Searcy responded that March 13, 1995Page 4Planning Commission at some point in the future that would be the intent once the budget is approved to provide for that service. The anticipated earliest start date for the code is after July, 1995. Chair/Meyer referred to Page 4, Item 19 of the proposed Development Code outline. He stated that his understanding is that minor deviations have caused city attorneys a lot of grief and cities either have a variance or do not have a variance and there is no such animal as a minor deviation. AP/Lungu referred Chair/Meyer to the yard modification. Chair/Meyer requested staff to discuss this item with the City Attorney for his interpretation. Chair/Meyer stated he did not find any reference to property maintenance. AP/Searcy responded that he would assume that the PM0 would be incorporated into the Development Code or operate as an adjunct to it. Regarding Page 5 of the Project Specifics, Chair/Meyer referred to an overlay zone for the Country Estates, but in the General Plan recommendation to the City Council there were overlay zones for planned development. AP/Searcy responded that PD was one of the two overlay zones, the other being Specific Plan. Chair/Meyer stated that one of the issues he has in terms of parking is that some communities allow in-lieu fees to be paid in the event that a developer is a small percentage short of the off-street parking. The City has a provision where 40 percent of the off- street parking can be provided in compact spaces. He indicated that there was Commission consensus that this percentage should be reduced and there should be consideration for adding in-lieu fees in the event a developer cannot meet all of the parking requirement. This could be coordinated with some manner of parking authority where, if the in-lieu fees would be paid, it would be the City's obligation to collect the money and look for public off-street parking lots. AP/Searcy suggested that the City could create off-street parking lots. Regarding subdivisions, Chair/Meyer indicated that the procedure for lot line adjustments are excluded from the State Subdivision Map Act and that there should be a process created for dealing with lot line adjustments. He stated his understanding is that the City's review is limited to compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and with the building standards. He further stated that there is a provision that March 13, 1995Page 5Planning Commission sometimes a record of survey is required. When the record of survey would be required would be important in that provision of the code. Chair/Meyer referred to Page 2 of the Scope of Work and the CC&R's under Task 1.2 Review Land Use Regulation and Permitting Procedures. He asked staff the purpose of the Planning Commission's review of CC&R's. He stated that it is his understanding that the City is not a party to the enforcement of the CC&R's and over the years, the City has indicated that there would be no involvement. AP/Searcy responded that this is an outgrowth of the hillside development projects in the community where there is a concern for maintenance of the common area slopes and for maintenance of some of the replanted vegetation and habitat areas in dealing with term of limit for which the homeowner's association is responsible for replacement of any trees or vegetation that may not survive over a five year period, for example. The intent is that some of those issues may be germane for the Planning Commission as they may impact the enforcement of the mitigation monitoring program and there would be no assumption of enforcement of the other elements of the CC&R's. Chair/Meyer stated he would like to see the code include design guidelines to give the Planning Commission a policy guide in the form of definitions of quality development and as a guide to designers for uniformity in the review process. C/Huff stated he would like to see the Planning Commission review a Tree Ordinance. He would like to review a thematic guideline for development within the community. He indicated/ he is concerned with the parking issue and would like to see the compact spaces excluded. He further stated that the home occupation is an issue that should be investigated to determine what is permitted and what is not permitted. He indicated he would like to see the permit application process streamlined and the process for handling development in the City. C/Schad presented the following list of concerns: 1)Preservation of native vegetation (Tree Ordinance). 2)EIR to be inclusive of all vegetation and EIR research conducted on two week intervals during one year to fully document all forms of life due to seasonal cycling. AFT March 13, 1995Page 6Planning Commission 3) During development design, plan for the preservation of natural views sheds for citizens who pay premium prices for the view. To be preserved a set of CC&R's may accomplish this. 4 All bare areas caused by development must be planted with indigenous vegetation based upon the recommendations of the fire marshals. 5) Neighborhood development consisting of streets, sidewalks, driveways and curbs should have a guideline setting aside a plantable parking strip. The entrance to the driveway incline shall be the width of the parking strip making the sidewalks continuously flat and accessable for handicapped people. 6)Street lighting shall be non-intrusive to the neighborhood, both new and existing. 7) Blue-line stream areas are to be preserved for all time as they are a significant portion of the City's ecology. 8)Develop a visibility code for the City's streets, especially at intersections where vegetation, walls or signs might hinder visibility. 9)Irrigation controls would, as well as save water directed to the site to be watered, prevent sprinklers or irrigating systems from causing erosion, mud flows across sidewalks, streets or into private property. 10) Prevent encroachment of any development impacting existing established neighborhoods. 11) Residential designs should have more variables in structure prominence rather than four or five plans turned this way or that or by the use of different paint colors or chimney locations. Air conditioning should be soundproof from the neighbors. 12) In hillside development, no ridgelines may be built upon. 13) Large lot development for homes will not be impacted by small unit or clustering thereby changing the overall visual impact or in a downgrading manner. 14) Any development causing noise levels to exceed the noise tables in the General Plan must be adhered to. DRAFT March 13, 1995Page 7Planning Commission Mitigation measures must be compatible with the adjoining existing neighborhoods. 15) Strict grading practices must be adhered to produce the following: A) Safety and solidification of hazardous areas B) Retention of the natural appearance C) Preservation of ridgelines D) Preservation of native vegetation 16) No development should be permitted that creates isolated pockets of wildlife areas with no migration corridors so all known wildlife is known with a suitable food chain. 17) Street views that show satellite dishes and/or antennae must be controlled to the extent that they do not detract from the general appearance of the neighborhoods. 18) A team of consultants such as citizens, geologists, developers known for quality construction, botanists, architects and the like should be established to review any and all projects, either residential or commercial, to be sure they are compatible with existing neighborhoods. 19) A system for scenic view corridors along the City's streets and highways should be established and expanded such as the SR 57 and SR 60 freeway within the City's SO'. 20) The Development Code should be consistent with the wishes of the existing residents as citizens so as to prevent any undesirable impact to their neighborhoods. 21) Traffic 22) Damage to the natural resources, such as carving ones initials in the park trees, benches, resurfacing buildings, defacing buildings and fences, etc. 23) Notify citizens via newspaper and notices to participate in the Development Code creation. 24) Tree Ordinance to go in effect as soon as approved. °RAPT March 13, 1995Page 8Planning Commission C/Fong stated that he would like to include the slope density formula and density reduction and the lot coverage ratio. He indicated he would like to have guidelines included for non- English characters in signs. In addition, he would like a hillside grading manual included in the grading code. Chair/Meyer asked if he thought a grading manual might be more appropriate in the design guidelines. C/Fong responded that it could possibly be included in the design guidelines. Other cities add the grading manual into their grading code. VC/Flamenbaum offered the following items for consideration: 1)Slope density formula and density reduction. 2) The size of structures that come before the Planning Commisison for review. (e.g. a commercial structure of 5000 feet is reviewed by the Commission, but a 12,000 foot house is not). 3)What is the scope of the Commission's (City's) design review? Does it include color? Choice of material? 4) Preservation of natural environment. 5) Hillside management. The present ordinance permits massive grading and subsequent reforming of the hills to look natural. Should the City not minimize grading? 6 Trees. The local cities that we think of as beautiful have lots of trees. Claremont and Sierra Madre do not have more beautiful terrain than Diamond Bar, but they have a lot of trees on the street side and on the homeowners property. What can we as a City do to encourage this? 7) Roads. Is the City to design our roads for our residents only? Or is the City to design the roads to effectively move traffic into and out of the City? Chair/Meyer directed staff to condense the Commissioner's lists to one priority list and bring it back to the Planning Commission for a future meeting along with staff's recommendation for the next step in the preparation of a Development Code. NEW BUSINESS - None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: °RAFT March 13, 1995Page 9Planning Commission 1) City Attorney. In response to Chair/Meyer, AstP/Lungu stated the newly appointed attorney firm is Richards, Watson & Gershon, 333 South Hope Street, 38th Floor, Los Angeles 90071 and Mike Estrada, Attorney at Law, will represent the firm at the designated City meetings. AP/Searcy stated that under the new contract between the City and Richards, Watson & Gershon participation at meetings will be on a more limited as-needed basis. 2Vesting Tentative Tract No. 47850. Staff presented the environmental documents for the Planning Commissioner's review and AP/Searcy stated there was a meeting on Saturday,, March 11, 1995 from 9:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. with approximately 40 people including staff and interested parties. The joint session for public hearing between the Planning Commission and City Council is tentatively scheduled for April 4, 1995. The Planning Commission directed staff to provide a memorandum on official stationery which outlines the scope of service required of the Planning Commission with respect to the April joint session. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: 1) Annual Reorganization of the Planning Commission. AP/Searcy declared the nominations open for the position of Chairman of the Planning Commission to serve for a period of one year. C/Huff nominated VC/Flamenbaum.The nomination was seconded by Chair/Meyer. The roll was called as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:Huff, Chair/Meyer, Schad, Fong COMMISSIONERS:None COMMISSIONERS:Flamenbaum COMMISSIONERS:None AP/Searcy declared Commissioner Flamenbaum the elected Chairman of the Planning Commission and passed the gavel to him. March 13, 1995Page 10Planning Commission Chair/Flamenbaum declared the nominations open for Vice Chairman. C/Meyer nominated Commissioner Huff. The nomination was seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum. Chair/Flamenbaum called the roll as follows: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Chair/Flamenbaum, Huff Schad, Fong None None ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Meyer stated that a significant number of Commissioners did not arrive in a timely manner for the meeting and he feels there is an obligation to staff and to the general public to arrive at the appropriate time. VC/Huff asked if it has been the policy of the City to have an attorney present at all meetings and if that is the case why are the current decisions of the Planning Commission not sufficient to merit the attendance of an attorney. AP/Searcy responded that a new contract has been entered into and that for reasons of budget constraints the City is reviewing its practices in order to be more streamlined and effective. Anytime the Commission feels it is appropriate to have the City Attorney present the Commission should forward the request to staff and the attorney will be requested to be present. C/Meyer stated he feels this is a good policy since all of the actions of the Planning Commission can be appealed to the City Council. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Rob Searcy Acting Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.3 MEMORANDUM DATE:March 22, 1995 TO:Chairman and Planning Commissioners FROM:Robert Searcy, Associate Planner RE:Conditional Use Permit No. 94-7 The application requests approval of a cellular repeater station and a 90 ft. tall monopole at a site located at 3333 Brea Canyon Road. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing for this project on January 9, 1995. At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Planning Commission requested that the applicant provide additional information to staff that investigates other possible locations for the project. At the February 13, 1995 staff recommended that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on this project. The Commission continued the public hearing to the March 27, 1995 Commission meeting. In the intervening period the applicant has informed staff that the project may be proceeding under a revised design and location. With that consideration in mind, staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to table this matter until the revised application has been submitted to the City and staff has had adequate time to review and provide appropriate public notice. CILE77ERIREPORTSICUP94-7A.MEM ITEM NO. 9.1 MEMORANDUM DATE:March 23, 1995 TO:Chairman and Planning Commiss* FROM:Robert Searcy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 The City Council scheduled a public hearing for VTM No. 47850 on Thursday, April 4, 1995. Pursuant to Part 2 of the Settlement Agreement, the Planning Commission and City Council will conduct a Joint Session to review the project. The project to be reviewed is the same project which was reviewed by the City Council in November of 1992. The Settlement Agreement mandates that the Joint Session review the applicant's compliance with the 24 points raised in the October 29, 1992 memorandum and geotechnical review conducted by Leighton & Associates, Incorporated. Additionally, the Joint Session may consider the project in light of the proposed General Plan or any other matters or alternatives which the Joint Session deems germane to their deliberations. At the conclusion of the deliberations of the Joint Session, the City Council shall take action on the reconsideration. The Council is then required to take action on the project pursuant to the discretionary entitlements granted by state statutes and local ordinances. C;ILETTERS1REPORTSIDBAMEM.PC ITEM NO. 9.2 MEMORANDUM DATE:March 23, 1995 t.,owisApr tv vr!P': TO:Chairman and Planning Co FROM:Robert Searcy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Status of the General Plan The City Council *stated that the draft document will be available for 30 days prior to final action. The document is scheduledlor4ppi distribution by April 4, 1995. However, the Planning Commission'wAlpsrogly.jeceive: thACity Council's Draft General Plan at the meeting of April 10, 1995.• R-160 vt 3 0 noitluVaeb If a determination has been made that finds substantial modifications have been incorporated into the document, state law requires the Council to refer the draft General Plan to the Planning Commission. Pursuant to government code Section 65356, the Planning Commission is required to take action within the time frame set forth by the Council, not to exceed a period 45 days. If no action is taken by the Planning Commission, the Council shall perceive the inaction as a recommendation of approval. In the intervening period, a determination will be completed as to the significance of the modifications to the draft General Plan. Prior to distribution of the document, the role of the Planning Commission will be determined and additional information will be made available. C;ILETTERSIREPORTSIGENPLAN.PC File revieby and is ready for destruction by City Clerk