Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/26/1990CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 26, 1990 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting Room, 8.80 South Lemon Street, Walnut, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Vice ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Harmony. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner Lin, Commissioner MacBride, Vice Chairman Harmony, and Chairman Schey. Also present were Planning Director James DeStefano, Associate Planning Director Robert Searcy, City Attorney Bill Curley, and Secretary (contract) Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Harmony requested the Minutes of October 22, 1990 be amended on page 5, third paragraph, to read "do dili- gence"; page 6, last paragraph, to read "installation" as opposed to "insulation"; page 7, third paragraph, to add "Knoll" to "Rolling", and page 8, sixth paragraph, to read as "the Los Angeles County Department...". -. Motion was made by Commissioner MacBride, seconded by jCommissioner Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve r the Consent Calendar and the Minutes of October 22, 1990 as amended. OLD BUSINESS: Consideration Staff reported the resolution prepared is in conform Resolution of ance with the direction given by the Commission at the 'Denial for last Planning Commission Meeting of October 22, 1990. Variance 90-0101. Since then staff has had an opportunity to meet with the applicant and the architect to discuss possible changes to the drawings. The architect prepared a letter dated November 131 1990, requesting an opportunity to speak in regards to the matter. Staff requested to see any speci- fic changes to be made prior to tonights hearing, so as to advise the applicant, the architect, and the Planning Commission appropriately. However, no new drawings were presented. There is, before the Commission, a Resolution of Denial and a letter from the applicant requesting to be heard. VC/Harmony requested the applicant be allowed a five (5) minute presentation. Chair/Schey, with the consensus of the Commission, per- mitted the applicant to speak before the Commission. Pete Volbeda clarified the original height denied by the County was 48 feet, not the 35 foot height presented to the Commission. He stated the six (6) foot variance on the height could. be altered to three (3) or four (4) feet, and claimed it would be much easier to work with - 1 7F77-7' - - - '.- r �, - -I - - - - Qovember 26,1990 Page 2 the given shape as opposed to not receiving any height variance at all. James DeStefano,Planning, Director, stated the discussion to find alternatives to the granting of the height variance requested, occurred at the meeting with the applicant three (3) weeks ago. Staff suggested to redesign the roof, but the client was concerned it would not provide the vaulted ceilings desired throughout the home. Another concept suggested by staff was to drop the house a few feet below the proposed elevation in order to find a desireable medium from the 7 foot variance requested. The purpose of requesting drawings prior to the meeting was to allow for staff review and to present an amended recommendation, or some other action, to the Commission. The difficulty in the applicants presentation is the lack of specificity as to where the few feet variance will come from. Staff suggested it is not appropriate for the Commission to have to decide on possible options to variances at this particular time. Bill Curley, City Attorney, explained if the Commission has an interest in pursuing a redesign, the proper motion would not be to go into discussion or analysis, but rather to request a continuance allowing the applicant an y opportunity to work with staff to find designing options. The alternative would be a denial, if the Commission thought it could be worked out without prejudice, to give the applicant an opportunity to turn around with a redesigned project. Chair/Schey affirmed his view that any height difference is therefore a variance and must be taken as a complete package and resubmitted through the proper channels for negotiations. He stated his inclination to approve the resolution as written. VC/Harmony concurred and reiterated the 35 foot standard was adopted by the County after incorporation. He stressed it is a needed standard and one that should be enforced. He questioned the necessity of approving the resolution without prejudice and inquired if the project has been on the same application process since being denied by the County. Staff explained the applicant resubmitted a different application and a different design than was denied by the County. They maintained by using the clause "without prejudice" allows the applicant an opportunity. to show a circumstance that may have alluded the Commission previously. Yovember 26,1990 Page 3 Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Resolution of Denial with an amendment allowing the denial to be "without prejudice". . NEW BUSINESS: Developmental Staff reported a developmental code draft was received Code Status approximately September 5, 1990, and passed around to a Report. variety of people. Many good comments are now being re- ceived and staff is in the process of restructuring the code. Due to the complexity of formulating zoning issues to pertain to Diamond Bar needs in preparation for a de- velopmental code standard, it is going to take more work than originally anticipated. A document for the Commis- sions review will be ready sometime in January, 1991. Sign Ordinance Status Report. Staff reminded the Commission of the decision made at the last discussion, concerning the sign ordinance, to have staff work with the City Attorney to put the working document into an ordinance format, preparing it for adop- tion by the Commission and by the City Council. It was indicated the document would be sent. out to a wide va- riety of people to advertise a hearing tentatively set for tonight. This was not done because the document is not in the proper shape staff is comfortable with. The City Attorney found many areas of inconsistencies ori- ginally not noted and some concerns pertaining to defini- tions which could cause problems from a legal defense stand point. The reason for the delay is the concern on how to implement and explain the document so the public can understand it. VC/Harmony questioned if staff needs direction from the Commission., Bill Curley stated the bulk of the problem isn't the need for Planning Commission policy direction, but for mechan- ical cleanup of the document. VC/Harmony requested staff take the initiative to rewrite the document, with the knowledge that a simplification is far preferable. Bill Curley acknowledged the preference and stated the mechanical problems of the document concerning defini- tions is just one element. The key beyond the defini- tions is the application of those definitions, whereas the level of intensity, or lack of it, of the sign pro- grams are as the Commission prefers. C/MacBride specified the Commissions intent was not to have an aggressive abatement of nonconforming sign pro- gram. The attempt is to have an amortization program, "T" , r-. 4ovember 26,1990 Page 9 discouraging a continuance of offensive signs, that would eventually meld the entire program throughout the years. Bill Curley inquired if the Commission has concerns with the application packet. He explained the applicant must depict every sign and every structure within a 100 ft radius around the site. A complete monitoring of appli- cations would be a nightmare for both'staff and the ap- plicant. He requested the Commission give certain dis- cretion to his office and the -planning staff to develop workable processees. C/MadBride asked if a study, relating to our Community in terms of leader signs, has been done. - _.... _ 1771 Chair/Schey stated the Commission would leave it to staff to formulate the application packet in such a way to gat- her enough information to make a reasoned recommendation. James DeStefano noted two (2) representatives of the Ramada Inn who may want to speak in regards to the item. He stated it is up to the Commission to allow for a pre- sentation since it is not a Public Hearing. Chair/Schey, with the consensus of the Commission, re- quested the representative from Ramada Inn speak before the Commission. Jack Williamson, 259 Gentle Springs,Lane, representing Ramada Classics, pointed out the recent down turn in the hotel market also affecting Ramadas decrease in business. The Ramada relies on all available advertisements to generate revenues in Diamond Bar and keep a competitive edge. He informed the Commission they are working Bili - gently with staff to come up with sign alternatives to keep within the parameters, be visually appealing, yet attract people to their business. They will make a pre- sentation in hopes to be considered a special interest case. VC/Harmony inquired if the plan for a Marriot in Diamond Bar will go on through. James DeStefano responded that information from the de- velopers toward alternative land uses have been received. The developer has considered the possibilities of office buildings at the pad the hotel was previously proposed and a new proposal may be forthcoming sometime in Decem- ber, 1990. Jack Williamson emphasized the fact the Country is headed for more troubled times in the hotel business and stress- ed they need as much help as possible. C/MadBride asked if a study, relating to our Community in terms of leader signs, has been done. - _.... _ 1771 Tia _ _ _ _ 1. _ '. - -' ' - lovember 26,1990 Page 5 Jack Williamson responded it is very difficult to find a leader sign or to afford one. He explained most leader signs are corporately sponsored, but this is not the case with the Ramada. It is much easier for the Ramada to put up something at one time, and on location. James DeStefano explained there are strict standards on what is allowable in urbanized areas. Commercial signage is not allowed. There are two (2) elements against off- site signage, which are the lack of billboard space, and the Department of Transportation regulations. Chair/Schey summarized the discussion stating staff and the City Attorneys office will massage the document fur- ther, distribute to the appropriate interested parties, and then set a hearing date. Staff concurred and stated the projected date for the Hearing will be January 7, 1991 and the document will be ready for advertising and review around December 7 or 10, 1990. VC/Harmony asserted staff and the City, Attorney could as- sume'the Commissions support to make notes on any major changes, and advise the Commission as such. C/MacBride upheld the importance the, foundation of the document be as acceptable as possible from the beginning to establish acceptance from the public, not animosity. Bill Curley contended if the Commission is comfortable with the signage concepts such as the density and inten- sity of the signs, -then the document will not be altered all that much. The difficulty is the trappings sur- rounding it that make it work, such as the mechanics, the application process, and the definitions. Those elements need to be smoothed out to make sense of it. C/Grothe stated his consent to postpone the date of the projected advertisement of the document, if staff feels it is not yet completely acceptable. Chair/Schey related to the Commissioners to note their comments on the draft and relay them to staff. Status Report Staff reported four (4) members have been found for the SEATAC. SEATAC from local colleges. They have met once with the purpose of touring the site. They are scheduled to meet again next week and will then meet a third time to con- clude their analysis and provide the information to staff to incorporate it into these projects. The Commissions will then review it at a later date. The committee mem- bers were approved by the City Council by staffs recom- mendations. The committee is more of a task force rather r_ November 26,1990 Page 6 than an ongoing commission and will come into play when there is a project located within a SEA area. VC/Harmony stated his satisfaction with the qualifica- tions of the members chosen. He was concerned with the fact they are all local people which could lead to the possibility of a specialized view of the neighborhood. He questioned why there was not someone chosen from out- side the area, and why, contrary to the County SEATAC, so few members were chosen as well. James DeStefano explained an administrative decision was made to keep the task force small therefore more manage- able than the County task force. The goal was to gather five (5) people but it was difficult obtaining qualified individuals who were willing to devote the time needed on the projects along with accepting the compensation offer- ed to them. He explained the reason professional consul- tants were not brought in was to keep the ideas fresh and free of conflict of interests. Chair/Schey suggested more individuals might have been interested in joining the task force had they been offer- ed enough compensation to justify the amount of time and work being asked of them. VC/Harmony inquired why the applicant hired the EIR consultant, and not the City. Staff explained the project is caught in the middle of the City's incorporation, the philosophical changes, the maturing of the decision makers, and not a process the City would embrace now. The applicant and the EIR con- sultant were told it will not be done this way again. The SEATAC plans to visit the site without the applicants agent, use the data from the EIR consultant and judge the adequacy of the material. In the future, the consultant will be our consultant providing the information to us as needed. ,PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Environmental Staff reported the application is a CUP request to locate Assessment & a mobile telephone repeater station in a public storage CUP 90-0109 site located at 275 South Prospectors Road. The request is unusual in that the property site is in a M-1 zone and the application is for locating the repeater within a storage unit which is a 2 story building. The unit will be located in 2 adjacent units and there will be a 60 foot monopole located within the site but not 'In the building. The applicant seeks approval of the unmanned repeater station for the mobile phone at the storage unit. The site is a 2.5 acre triangular shaped parcel with an 8 foot block wall separating the property from the building and a 2 foot parapet wall separating the November 26,1990 Page 7 60 foot monopole from thebuilding. There is a landscaped embankment separating the storage facility from the free- way. The condominium complex which lies to the southeast is visually separated from the site by a wrought iron fence and a row of trees. The site is virtually flat and is located to the south of the Orange Freeway and ranges from approximately 15 to 25 feet below the surface of the road. Currently the City has two (2) repeater stations or monopoles located at the roof of the Diamond Bar High School shrouded by a Brahmas canopy and the other is on the eastern portion of the property which has a DBHS can- opy surrounding it. The monopole proposed is blue with antennas extending from the top portion. It will have a surrounding canopy with no proposed signage. The appli- cant states the monopole and repeater station will not interfere with existing TV, radio, satellite, or other cable communication devices. The repeater equipment is designed with a fire suppressant system intended to re- duce the chances of a fire. The land use designation does not prohibit this type of use at this location. The land uses immediately surrounding the site are open space and commercial, and will not conflict with the location of the repeater station. Staff recommended approval of the project with consideration of the conditions imposed in the resolution. Chair/Schey declared the Public Hearing Open. Jerome Buckmelter, representing Los Angeles Cellular Telephone, explained L.A. Cellular Telephone is a public utility licensed by the FCC and the California Public Utlities Commission (CPUC), with the responsibility of providing quality cellular phone service throughout the greater Los Angeles area. They have been doing business for three (3) years and have installed 214 cell sites or repeater sthtions. The project consists of electronic equipment, which will not be visible, to be housed in two (2) storage spaces of a mini -storage facility and a 60 foot monopole with small panel antennas attached to the top. He pointed out there is need to provide coverage and capacity to the City and the freeway travelers, and stated it enhances commerce and adds a new dimension to private communications. He explained cellular phones can be the only reliable means of communications during major disasters, and because they provide free 911 services, the response time during emergencies can be significantly reduced. He stated cellular technology is environmentally safe and will not cause any interference. He explained a metal pole of light blue with matching antennas'will be installed and suggested eliminating the shroud. The noise will be minimal with only a light humming of the air conditioning units. -- -r -1"�7-_„y`j"II�.,.��..�..�._� November 26,1990 Page 8 C/Grothe inquired for an explanation of the temporary structure installed at the site presently. Jerome Buckmelter was unaware of anything presently at the site but suggested it could be a testing unit to obtain readings. Chair/Schey asked if anyone desired to speak in favor of or in opposition to the proposal. The Public Hearing was declared closed. VC/Harmony questioned staff if surrounding residents,'in- cluding the condominium association, were notified of the facility. He also questioned the level of noise from the air conditioning units. Staff reported all property owners within a 300 foot radius of the property site were notified including the condominium association. The noise from the air condi- tioning will not exceed the ambient level because of the proximity to the freeway. C/Grothe challenged the necessity of adding another free standing pole along the freeway, especially since the Commission has been discussing eliminating pole signs. He asserted investigating other options for location of the pole and would like to exclude the provision allowing microwave dishes on the antenna. Jerome Buckmelter responded they need sole access to the pole and locating the device on another pole becomes com- plicated due to a necessity for separate easements. He offered looking into other locations as long as it is kept in the same geographical area. James DeStefano concurred with the possibility of in- stalling the device on an existing pole. He notes, if it goes to an alternative location, there would still be a need for leasing a small building to store the equipment. Chair/Schey was concerned the issue would become compli- cated by relocating to an existing pole because of the involvement of a third party to obtain storage. He stated he does not find the proposed pole objectionable and views it not as a pole sign but more as a utility pole. C/MacBride concurred and finds the project useful and needed. He would like to encourage as easy an accommo- dation to this type of technology as can be provided. He stated he sees no comparison of this proposal to signage, I III which draws attention. fovember 26,1990 Extension for Extension of �ime on CUP �.�34-(1) . _— —J Ix.Wil.—Nd—._-- — __ i____--- __. _: _ __— __ Page 9 C/Grothe insisted the CC&Rs disallow homeowners to in- stall small CB antennas on the roof yet, the Commission is advocating the installation of a 60 foot pole, with antennas 50 times the size that is also visually obtru- sive. He asserted having the applicant find a new site, using existing poles or buildings which would be less obtrusive. He agreed the technology is needed but empha- tically believes any new pole is not needed along the freeway. He suggested moving the pole away from the street and back by the freeway corner to keep it visible to just the freeway traffic as opposed to the whole town. VC/Harmony stated acceptance of the proposal if the app- licant could accept a covenant, or restriction requiring no microwave dishes or additional fixtures other than the top unit. C/Lin stated she does not object to the structure but suggested the applicant explore an alternative location. Chair/Schey pointed out with this type of facility, it may be less obtrusive close as opposed to further away. VC/Harmony recommended, since C/Grothe feels so strongly on the matter, to continue the application. Staff stated they will work with the applicant to find alternative locations on this site or in the immediate area with illustrations of the appearance of the pole both on site and off site. Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter until the next regular meeting of December 10, 1990 pending further dis- cussions,between•the applicant and the staff on the po- tential relocation of the site to a location somewhat further away from old Prospector Road. Staff reported the First Evangelical Free Church was granted a CUP by the County in 1980 to develop a church facility. The application had three (3) phases of con- struction. The last phase, which has not occurred, was to begin by the end of the tenth year. The applicant is requesting an amendment to the condition within the exis- ting approval that mandated the ten year time line. In addition, over the course of the ten years, the applicant has made some minor changes to the church facilities, and wish to make some major changes to the final phase of the prior approval. The staff felt it appropriate to get the item on the agenda to maintain the time line and require a thorough review of the major changes desired. The changes are basically an increase of the sanctuary and fovember 26,1990 Page 10 r parking accommodations. The item will probably be presented to the Commission on the first or second meeting in January, 1991, giving adequate notice of the public hearing. . Chair/Schey asked if the CUP expires today, or if it is the beginning date of "the third phase, which would thereby be negated due to non-compliance. James DeStefano responded the statement of non compliance would be technically correct. Staff recommended to con- tinue the extension until the first meeting in January, 1991, in order to keep the permit alive. Chair/Schey summarized the reason for the extension is to grant a waiver of the condition for a period.of time. C/Grothe inquired if the extension is for the third phase or the entire property. He questioned if the conditions of the third phase are not done by the tenth year, is the entire CUP lost or just the right to build the third phase. James DeStefano explained the extension is for the entire property which was split into three phases requiring con- ditions by the third, seventh, and tenth year. He stated his understandment of the CUP is that they would lose the right to build the third phase. C/Grothe stated his preference to allow the CUP to ex- pire, making the applicant file a new CUP, so as to pro- vide the Commission with control over building condi- tions. VC/Harmony asked the cost of reapplying as opposed to an extension. t Staff explained the cost would be $1600.00 minimum for filing fees. VC/Harmony claimed it would be more convenient for the applicant to allow them an extension subjected to the, lCommissions review process. Robert Searcy stated the applicant is proposing to alter the initially approved CUP and site plan. James DeStefano reported the applicant is making signi- ficant enough changes staff cannot take care of �� administratively. Chair/Schey noted the Commission will have the ability to review the entire CUP and its changes when staff returns with a recommendation. if the Commission does not feel the CUP is in conformance with the current standards, 1 li - fi lovember 26,1990 I' I*NOUNCEMENTS: iP I Page 11 that portion can be denied forcing a new application. He noted if it did conform, there is nothing lost and the applicant saves a significant amount of time and effort. VC/Harmony asked staff the time extension needed by the applicant. Bill Curley responded, at this point, the Commission would be maintaining status quo, allowing no additional construction, pending the appearance before the Commis- sion which is without prejudice to them or us. Chair/Schey declared the Public Hearing open. Upon no response, the Public Hearing was declared closed. Staff requested till December 10, 1990, to sort out the application and come back to the Commission with a re- quest of the amount of time needed for an extension. VC/Harmony suggested giving a 90 day extension to allow the applicant sufficient time to respond. Chair/Schey was concerned with the possibility of the applicant beginning construction based on the letter approving phase three, giving them the right to proceed whether or not it is in conformance with the current standards. He noted the requirements were for commencing construction, not finishing it. He asked if any plans for a permit were submitted. Staff responded no plans were submitted. Chair/Schey realized a plan check could not be completed within 60 to 90 days and was reassured to allow an ex- tension. 1 Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/Lin and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to give a 90 day continuance to February 25, 1991. Chair/Schey made reference to Ordinance 25 adopted by the City Council, and the memorandum by staff dated October 11, 1990 which enclosed Ordinance 25B, adopted by the City Council on October 22, 1990, He was concerned with: 1. The aspect of the new ordinance which mandates that each Commissioners post is a ficdum of a particular Council Member. If that Councilman is changed, the Commissioner is deemed having resigned and a new Commissioner is appointed. This would make the Planning Commission a purely political animal. He questioned the objectivity of this idea and thought the Commission should be independent of the politics of the City. November 25,1990 Page 12 2. Setting the dates, these offices are initiated and reupped, flies in the face of the reappointment of a particular Commissioner by a particular Council- man new in the office. This will create fouled up office periods. 3. It dictates when the Commission elects it Chairman. Chair/Schey was selected as Commission Chairman February of 1990, with the intent of a one year period. The Ordinance states the Chairman will be chosen in the month of June or July. Staff informed the Commission that each Commission has been set up this way with respect to the appointment pro- cess, the Chairmanship, or the terms of office. The ap- pointment of a Commissioner is recommended by a Council- man, and the removal of a Commissioner requires a 4/5 vote of the Council. C/Grothe believed the terms should be fixed so as to prevent quick turn abouts of the Commission. Chair/Schey noted the elected board is a policy making body is and technically non partisan, yet political in its own way. The other boards, albeit is somewhat poli- tical because of their appointment by the. political ani- mals, are there to do more of a technical job rather than � a political job. Structuring the board as it is now, each Councilman will have a Political- h f icdum- a fin ger in each board. In his opinion, he feltwith it is not a particularly good method of operation. VC/Harmony suggested one of the reasons the Ordinance was created was because of a Commlssio ner who moved, yet re- fused fused toresign his position on the Commission, creating a dilemma. The Ordinance, in his opinion, may have some technical flaws, but heerceived it appropriate ppropriate for a new Councilman to want to exercise some of his political backing. Chair/Schey- retold of the letter he. received from Councilman Kim basically reinstating his appointment as Chairman of the Commission. He questioned if his ' term based on the date he is was initially ball appointed based Y pp anted or reupped Councilman on Kims date of reappointment. He pointed out this is an example of the confusion created. Chair/Schey stated he is somewhat bothered by serving as Chairman for another six (6) months without allowing � another Commissioner g r a chance to become Chair. C/Lin inquired as to her position once Council Horcher resigns. James DeStefano explained the City Council has 30 days from the time of the resignation to either appoint a new member or call for .an election. There is a 90 day clock k -- .. - govember 26,1990 Page 13 for the position of the Planning Commission, in which there must be a resignation or a reappointment of the Commissioner from the Council. Chair/Schey _requested staff to find out the date his Chairmanship initiated and when it will terminate. VC/Harmony asked the mailing address on the agenda be altered to read Diamond Bar, as opposed to Walnut, and not allow the Post Office to dictate what is written on our documents. VC/11ar_,*1ony requested staff to coordinate the holidays witn t;io Planning Commission Meetings in order to have one (1) year projected dates. VC/Harmony noted the memorandum of the Hillside Ordinance adopted by the City Council, -deleted the provisions as relating to density. He perceived the density formula used as confusing. He suggested the Commission develop and propose policy in regards to upcoming projects and make them.operating guidelines. Chair/Schey concurred and stated he was somewhat perturb- ed to see in essence, current projects exempted from the Interim Ordinance. Staff stated current projects were not exempted but rat- her they allowed projects with certain difficulties to be reviewed at an exception standpoint. VC/Harmony would like to have a discussion relating to grates and driveways in regards to the Hillside Ordinance to come up with standard guidelines. Staff reported the CTP Meeting of December 13, 1990 was postponed to December 29, 1990. The time of the commen- cement of the discussion is uncertain. _ Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by VC/Harmony and ,,III, CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:56 p.m. 'll _A attest: Jam DeStefano Secretary/Plahning Commission ?Davidchey n