Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/25/1990CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 25, 1990 The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar convened in a regular session at 7:00 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Walnut, California. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Lin, MacBride, and Vice Chairman Harmony ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Chairman Schey ALSO PRESENT: Bill Curley, City Attorney Ron Kranzer, City Engineer Jack Istik, Assistant City Engineer Dennis Tarango, Acting Planning Director Robert Searcy, Assistant Planning Director Dawn Anderson, Planning Technician Larry Weissman, Associate Planner MINUTES: Chairman Schey asked the Commission to consider the Minutes of May 14, 1990 and June 11, 1990. Vice Chairman Harmony inquired as to the vote taken for 88-555 on the June 11, 1990 Minutes. He asked if there was another category other than abstention for Commissioner MacBride since he was excluded from the vote. Mr. Curley indicated that abstention was the proper place to list Commissioner MacBride's name. Motion oti n was made by Commissioner MacBride and seconded by Commissioner Lin to approve the minutes. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: There were none. ,dI 1 DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. City Council Minutes - meeting of June 5, 1990. 2. Draft Environmental impact Report for Tentative Tract No. 47722 and Conditional Use Permit No. 89338. Secretary Tarango stated that Item No. 2 was on the Consent Calendar in order to make an official record that the Commission received the Draft EIR. It will be on the Agenda for July 9, 1990 as a 'public hearing item. Motion was made by Commissioner Grothe and seconded by Commissioner MacBride to approve the Consent Calendar. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. DISCUSSION ITEMS: 1. Feas i,b i I ity Study for Soque I CanyonlTonner Canyon prepared for the County of San Bernardino and the County of Orange. Secretary Tarango stated that this item was on the agenda as an information item only. This item will be on the July 9th Planning Commission agenda. Staff will then supply the Commission with a copy of the Response to the Draft EIR. Vice Chairman Harmony asked for information on the boundaries as to the takes. He asked to see an overlay showing these boundaries at the next meeting. Commissioner MacBride stated that he was very interested in the traffic generation from the project and the impact of the traffic on both canyons on other Diamond Bar Arteries. He was also Interested in what controls might be necessary to see that the proposed right-of-ways are developed. He asked as to how the Commission might encourage visual discipline and control with regards to signage. Commissioner Grothe stated that he encouraged any road improvements. Vice Chairman Harmony asked if there was a potion of the sphere of influence that might cut into the boy scout area. 2 DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 Mr. Kranzar stated that the report addresses issues that impact City of Diamond Bar. The Sequel Canyon and Tonner Canyon projects are the only projects which can reduce congestion on the City of Diamond Bar streets. This can only be achieved If both canyons are uu|it' The construction of only one of the canyons will further impact the streets of Diamond Bar ' Staff stated that they will draft the Commission's comments which will be included in the m8ondm packet for the July 9th meeting. Vice Chairman Harmony asked if staff received a response to the Draft E|R for the Cityof {ndustry'n Lemon Avenue Trunking Distribution Center. Staff Indicated that they wi|| ||et this item on the next agenda as o discussion item after scheduled meeting with the City of Industry. PUBLIC HEARING: 1' Variance 80-0054, o request to al low a three (3) story residential structure to be constructed which w||| exceed the maximum of 2 1/2 stories, and the maximum building height of 35 feet. The project is located at 2108 Rusty Spur Road, between Flint Rook and Rocky View Rmmd, Mr. Searcy stated that the residence wi|} be approximately 4,500 square feet, the site is approximately 1 acre, and the topography of the land averages m 2,1 slope over most of the site. About half of the site has m boi|d|ng restriction which is the result of a f|ood restriction placed on the site at the time the pmrum| map or tract map was created. Staff asked to continue the case until the Oak Tree Permit (which was filed subsequent to the Vmr|anoe app |ioat ion) has been pronomond' During a site inspection, staff identified approximately five <5> oak trees that may be affected by the construction on that site. When reviewing the Oak Tree Permit, staff determined that o|| the information is needed in order to make m dwm|aimn on this oaow' Therefore, staff recommends that u continuance be requested of the applicant. Bmmmm on the information currently available, staff would have to recommend denial of the project. 3 ` [�Ti1'­771711 =17, 1---.— 1 s__ _.- a,-1.1- ro. -I 11�--_ _; _ DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 Skip Burton, Applicant, 1420 North Claremont Boulevard, Suite 207A, Claremont, stated that if there was any way to move the time table and accomplish everything that is needed within the limitations of the law, he would like to do so. Vice Chairman Harmony asked if ail of the elements of the Oak Tree Permit have been completed. Mr. Searcy stated that they were not completed at this time. In reviewing the application, there were some additional items that staff requested. Staff had requested additional corrections due to the change in the plan as initially submitted. Staff also requested identification of oak trees which were shown on the application as not being affected. Per law, if the applicant is going to proceed with construction according to the submitted design, these trees will not be able to be saved because there must be a five {5') foot radius around the drip line that cannot be affected by the construction. Due to the grading on the site, they will be affected by the construction. Vice Chairman Harmony asked the applicant if he was in favor of continuing the project, otherwise staff is recommending denial of the project. Mr. Burton stated that he did not wish the project to be denied and that he would agree with a continuance. Commissioner Grothe asked the applicant about his proposal to exceed the height limit by approximately six W) feet. Mr. Curley stated that the continuance should include a waiver of any time lines that may be in effect. Public Hearing was Opened. Steve Falk, Architect, 954 Vilest Foothill Boulevard, Upland, addressed Commissioner Grothe's question regarding the height of the proposed home. He stated that it was the oIlent's decision to have a portion of the house showing from street level. The topography is such that it slopes away from the street quite rapidly. To achieve this look, the applicant wanted to construct a tutor design and this demands higher -� roof lines or steeper pitches. There are several houses in the Country area that have been constructed in this similar manner. He asked, if it is within the law, if the Commission could approve the variance subject to the Oak Tree Permit. 4 i fl) DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 3 Those in Favor of the Proiect. There were none. Those in Opposition to the Project. There were none. The Public Hearing Was Closed. Commissioner MacBride stated that he read one statement in staff's analysis that indicated that in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project there are no residents that exceed the current requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In the record submitted by the developer, it is indicated that this development will not be detrimental to the City residents and the home next door is three stories as well as the new home currently under construction across the street. Staff indicated that this contradiction was do to the confusion regarding the difference between a basement and a cellar. The y site next door to the proposed development is a 2 -story with a cellar and the house across the street is a 3 -story. Commissioner MacBride asked as to the flood restriction placed upon the site. Mr. Searcy stated that the property slopes down into a ravine and the ravine is subject to some type of water f I ow at certa i n per i ads and a I so may be prone to s I i des. Jack Istik stated that the flood restriction was placed on the property by a note placed on the final map at time of recordation. No vertical construction will be permitted in this area. Mr. Kranzer stated that a precise grading plan will be required to accompany this development which will have to be approved. 5 i ti ■ DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 0 Mr. Searcy stated that trees in excess of three (3") inches in diameter are considered to be trees that should be protected and replaced if they are adversely affected. He believes that there are approximately three (3) to five (5) trees that may be in the three (3") Inch and above category. One of those is an eighteen (18) inch diameter tree, located approximately curb side or the southeastern elevation of the property. The applicant, as indicated in the revised Oak Tree Permit, is proposing to attempt to save the tree by providing a block wall between the swimming pool and that tree. Due to the nature of grading that will be required, staff believes that this tree's root system will be impacted by the construction on this site. It is staff's recommendation to save this tree and they will review this issue thoroughly. Vice Chairman Harmony asked if this project has gone before the Architectural Committee. The applicant indicated that the Architectural Committee now requires developers to submit approved plans. They will not review plans that have not been stamped approved. The applicant also stated that he is 1n favor of saving the eighteen (18") inch diameter tree. His architect used to teach several subjects. He was the gentleman who helped Mr. Burton prepare this report. The report indicates that there is not a problem with locating a wall behind the drip line. He feels that he does not need to submit another report, which would be very costly. Commissioner Lin asked staff if there is a large oak tree in the middle of the property, will the land become unusable for the proposed development. Staff indicated that this would be a determination by the Commission. They could require development to be built around the tree, deny the project altogether, or relocate it. Conditions may be put on the approval stating that the tree has to remain unless the owner comes before the Commission with an Oak Tree permit. Commissioner Lin stated that she was not opposed to the height of the proposed home due to the topography of the Country and since this house will not obstruct the view of the neighbors. 4 DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 Mr. Curley stated that the motion should include the waiver of any time lines that may be in effect. State Law mandates that within certain time frames discretionary actions have to be acted upon or they are deemed approved. Most jurisdictions, rather than run the risk of automatically approving a project by no action, will choose to deny the application. However, if the applicant waives this time line, then the Commission will not run this risk. Mr. Burton agreed to the waiver of the time lines. Motion was made by Commissioner Grothe and seconded by Commissioner MacBride to continue the project subject to the Oak Tree Permit, waiving the time lines applied to this project. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. 2. Preliminary Draft Sign Ordinance, per Planning Commission's direction, staff has provided the Commission with copies of surrounding cities' sign ordinances (i.e. Mission Vlejo, Brea, San Dimas, Torrance, Santa Barbara), also, the Planning staff has provided a preliminary draft ordinance for the Planning Commission's review and comments. The submitted draft ordinance reflects the most conservative components of those ordinances that were analyzed. Staff has notified the DBIA of this meeting and also the Hacienda, Rowland heights and Diamond Bar Board of Realtors. There is a letter before the Commission regarding the meeting of May 24, 1990 and their recommendations. Staff has also provided the Commission with the existing code and a copy of Ordinance 99.1990 which establishes an interim zoning moratorium in regards to any sign larger than six (6') feet and exceeds the current five (5') square foot maximum signage area. Mr. Weissman introduced the proposed sign ordinance. 7 DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 1. Roof Signs. He stated that, for wall signs, the current code uses a formula that exists without a maximum square footage restriction placed upon it. Staff is proposing a 100 foot requirement for wall signs per each use. There is also a formula which allows one (1) square foot of signage per one (1) lineal foot of frontage. The property would be allowed whichever is more restrictive. There is also a minimum of twenty-five (25) square feet of signage for applicants who might have less than twenty-five (25') feet of frontage as part of this regulation. In the non-commercial zones, four (4) square feet of non-commercial signage is allowed and this Is carried throughout the proposed sign ordinance. This allows flexibility for people putting up non-commeroial signage at home. Staff is proposing a one ( 1 ) square foot maximum on building identification signs. Open house signs would fall under the section addressing temporary real estate signs and political signs would fall under the section addressing temporary signs. Commissioner MacBride stated that he was very much in favor of the Mission Viejo sign regulations and asked to receive a copy of the entire ordinance. Secretary Tarango stated that 85 to 90 percent of the proposed sign ordinance was taken from Mission Viejo's sign ordinance. Vice Chairman Harmony asked the City Attorney to comment on the foreign language provision. In this particular ordinance it provides for equal lettering to be distributed in english for any foreign characters or foreign languages. Mr. Curley stated that the language of this ordinance closely resembles the language in another ordinance that conclusively lost in federal court. He stated that the City Attorney will work with staff to discuss the limitations that are available if that Is the Commission's direction. However, this model, where a given sign area is split into equal halves, violates a significant number of constitutional provisions and rights of association, First Amendment Rights. This has proven to fail in court. Vice Chairman Harmony asked Mr. Weissman to explain the planned sign concept. r37 '71 Q 71-7m r ` �DIAMOND 0A0 PLANNING COMMISSION � MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 Mr' Weissman stated that the ordinance |mmveo room as to how that planned sign program is implemented. There are directions that are mentioned in the proposed ordinance in terms of what the priorities are in approving a planned sign program. There are five <5> criteria that the Community Development Director or Planning Commission, whoever will be approving the sign program, would be looking for. Consistency in terms of color, building materials, |||um'|nmtimn, lettering, shape and size are some of these. Staff's opinion is that the sign program gives them flexibility, within reason, to ensure that the City has consistent and compatible signage. The developer initiates the sign program, not the Planning Commission. If someone wanted to propose m pole sign, the only way they could do so would be to apply for m sign permit and a sign program. 2' Freestanding 8!gnm' The maximum height of freestanding signs =^ in any zone would be six (S') feet. Pole signs are prohibited, monument signs would be the only freestanding sign that would be allowed. Staff is proposing that through on -- approved planned sign program, an applicant could have a mix (G'> foot high pole sign in the zones which permit this. This height ||mit is a result of the input from the City Counoi| meetings. Planning Commission meetings and surveys conducted by the DS|A. The proposed ordinance will completely prohibit root signs. The proposed ordinance prohibits projecting, moving, mechan|om|, rotating, out door advert >s|ngand b|||board m|gnm (off -premise advertising a|gne)' Page 8 of the draft ordinance defines what constitutes a billboard. 2' Window S|one' This includes the use of the window for advertising reasons; the advertisement of something for aa|m' � Staff is proposing prohibition of window mrmmm used for o|gnagoexcept in the omme of on -prem |mm rea| estate eigna fnr � oo|m, lease or rent of the subject property. There are prov|m|ons for temporary mpeoim| aa|ea such as ||qu|dot|wn sales, holiday, etc. If the Commission desires, staff will include in the ordinance allowance for windows to be used on a temporary basis through a permit. Mr' Weissman wanted to point out to the Commission that in any � sign ordinance there is provision for aueoim| sign permits and this is basically through a variance procedure. DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 3. Temporary Real Estate Signs. This section states that temporary real estate signs are allowed a maximum of sixteen (16) square feet of signage and a maximum of four W) feet in height for ail zones. These signs wl I I required the applicant to obtain a temporary sign permit. These signs may remain as long as the home or building is for sale, lease or rent. Once the property or building is sold. the temporary real estate sign must be taken down. 4. Building Identification Signs. This section states that building identification signs will be allowed one (1) square foot of signage in all zones. Building Identification signs refers to signs containing an address and logo mounted on the wall of a building. 5. Temporary Construction Signs. This section states that temporary construction signs wl I I be allowed a maximum of sixteen (16) square feet of signage and a maximum of four W) feet in height and limited to one construction sign per site in all zones. 6. Temporary Subdivision Signs. This section states that temporary subdivision signs wi I I be allowed a maximum of sixteen (16) square feet per sign, 100 square feet total per site with one (i) sign per frontage and a maximum of four (4p) feet in height. 10 "!rr 1=rl'777- ~— DIAMOND 0A8 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25° 1990 Public Hearinu was opened. Greg Hummel, 1077 Overlook Ridge Road, Diamond Bar stated that be is the Vice President of Candidates Outdoor Drafting Services. They serve most of the City Council members in their election campaigns as well as other Assemblymen, Stated Assemblymen and Congressmen. He has tried to come up with a a|8n ordinance regarding political signs for the City of Diamond Bar. He handed each of the Commissioners m copy of this ordinance. He previously submitted this ordinance to the City Council members. There are throe (3) itemo in mtuff'm draft mign ordinanom that he was opposed to. Two (2) of these have been referred to as being unconstitutional. These are items B and C on Page No. 24' Item B. etmtam that temporary m|Qna must not be posted prior to 90 days before the election and removed 10 days after the election. In his draft ordinance he has proposed that therm is not a restriction as to when political signs may be posted prior to the election and a 10 day restriction following the election. Courts have determined that the First Amendment Rights are a 365 day m year right and can not be restricted. Item C states that no temporary sign may exceed four (4') in length, four (4'> feet in height or a total square footage of sixteen (16) square feet. Similarly, courts have decided against o|zm limitations on political miAna' In his draft ordinance he has proposed u maximum of thirty-two (32) square feet which is about the largest size that his company produces and is requested by campaign candidates. This is m four (4') foot by eight <8'> foot plywood sign. Item D states that no temporary signs may be placed upon the property of another without the written approval of the owner or occupant of said property and the Community Development Director. This is questionably changed under the First Amendment in that this is heavily burdensome to ommpm|gnm' Hundreds of signs are sometimes distributed. In h|m draft ordinance he proposes that this merely requires the verbal consent of the resident. The Code Enforcement Off icer has the right to question the right of any sign to be located in u particular area. He has also allowed signs in the public right- of-way in Is draft ordinance. One location that campaign candidates like to use is the crossbars of utility poles. These are }oouted in the pub |io right-of-wmy and are hmr|zonta||y |ocatmd ei0bt (8') feet to twenty (20) plus feet above the sidewalks. Therefore, they are out of the way of traffic and pedestrians. Signs in these locations do not need nails or tacks to hold them up and as a result there mrmno portions of the signs left behind after the sign is removed' DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1998 Jack Newe, 1081 South Grand, Diamond Bar, Century 21 E N, stated that he wanted to comment on residential real estate signs. Page 23 states a height limit of four (4) feet for a sign. He asked the Commission to reconsider this and revise it to allow six (6') feet. This would also be for safety reasons. It would be less dangerous fora child to run into a pole than it would be for them to run into a corner of a sign. A sign four (4') feet high will also be hard to see behind bushes and trees. He stated that the proposed ordinance allows for a sixteen (16) square foot sign. The standard real estate sign on a residential property has a maximum square footage of approximately six (6) square feet. Page 24 states that all signs must be identified by organization, phone and address. Commonly, real estate signs do not include an address. These normally only include the name and telephone number. He asked that the requirement of the Inclusion of an address be deleted. He asked that directional signs to open houses be allowed on the days the individual agent is willing to stay on the premise. Page 25 eliminates any use of banners. He asked that at least 2 banners be allowed in addition to the existing for sale sign and directional signs. Mr. Weissman stated that there would be one window sign and one additional sign per property allowed for temporary real estate signs. Mark Logan 525 South Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, stated that the Chamber of Commerce worked quite hard on coming up with suggestions for the sign ordinance. In looking at the cities which staff has used their sign ordinances to compose the proposed sign ordinance for Diamond Bar, he feels that the beauty of Mission Viejo is basically hidden from anyone on the freeway. This makes it similar to Diamond Bar. However, going through Mission Viejo, he could identify the Holiday inn, gas stations, many freeway available restaurants and they are all easily identified by signs including monument signs, some higher than six (6') feet. Some of those are higher then six (6') feet because of the location of the real estate. Still, the visibility is much higher than six (6') feet. Ninety (90%) percent of Diamond Bar Honda's sales are from residents outside Diamond Bar. It is extremely important that they attract customers outside of Diamond Bar, otherwise they would not exist. He suggested that the Commission consider a separate sign ordinance, with regards to a freeway -oriented business, making a separate application necessary and proof that a business is dependant on freeways. 12 � 01 DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 Mr. Logan also felt that the Commission should consider temporary usage of balloons and banners for special events. Many of the small businesses in Diamond Bar have gone out of business trying to rely on Diamond Bar alone. One tenth (1/10) of the residents made us a City, 115 people were quoted as writing letters opposing certain signs, 50 people came here last Tuesday, condemned the Home Oooupat ion Ordinance and temporar I I y shut that down, and many protect traffic. Many retailers and other businesses can't wait for Grand Avenue to open at both ends. Often, the most vocal is served, not necessarily all of the people. He stated to the commission that they have the opportunity to serve all the residents. He asked the commission to try to think of each person's position, the location of the business and what they will need to have their business exist when reviewing projects. Jack Williamson, 259 Gentle Springs Lane, Diamond Bar, Ramada Su I tes. He is the Director on the Diamond Bar Chamber Board of Directors and endorses everything Mark Logan has presented here tonight. The Ramada Inn, being approximately seventy (70') feet below the 60 Freeway, is difficult for travelers from out-of-town to locate. They can not see the existing signs which are in conformance with the current codes. They need to fill, in a years time, 36,250 rooms. The majority of the patrons are from out-of- town. He was in favor of a special ordinance for freeway -oriented businesses. Sylvia Jones, Century 21, 1081 Grand, Diamond Bar, asked that directional signs for open houses be allowed as many signs on street corners as needed. It was stated earlier that only five (5) signs would be allowed. She also felt that it was important to allow for signs Six (6') feet high. Vice Chairman Harmony asked staff it people located on the sidewalks attracting the attention of cars and directing them to a particular location would be considered as a sign. Mr. Searcy stated that on Page 19 of the Ordinance it states that a human or an animal used to promote some type of advertisement for a premises is prohibited. 13 'rT1 N DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 1 0 Mark Logan, 525 South Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, stated that the Diamond Bar Beauty Pageant often holds a car wash at First Interstate Bank. The girls stand on the street corner and carry signs trying to attract people to come in to wash their oars. He felt that this would fall under the section in the ordinance restricting people or animals used as promotional tools. This is a people -oriented oommun i ty where children hold car washes to raise money. People try to do special things for special organizations which makes the Commission's job only tougher. Mr. Logan felt that what the Commission is after is the big developers who try to use people to consistently attract attention and abuse our area. When the Commission makes these ordinances they need to take into consideration the local residents, realizing that kids having car washes will be violating the ordinance and an official could give them a ticket. 01 1 ie Kloehn, Realtor, 1529 Blenbury Drive, Diamond Bar, encouraged the Commission to seek other opinions on the six (6') foot height limit. He suggested that they might want to revise this requirement to allow f or signs seven ( 7' ) feet In height. There are two kinds of real estate signs, the for sale sign that is located on the property and the off-site directional sign. He asked that they be addressed separately. He felt that the regulation only allowing one sign per company on a street corner was good, but there are different real estate companies. He hoped that this would be allowed. He stated that there is a limitation requiring temporary signs to be three (3') feet from the sidewalk. He hoped that the temporary directional signs would be allowed to be closer than three (3') feet from the sidewalk. Regulations already state that they can not be placed on private property or on medians and such so they wl I I have to be placed along the sidewalk, on corners. Mr. Istik stated that many of these real estate directional signs are about eye level when in a oar. He suggested that the placing of signs right on the edge of the sidewalk when at an intersection be prohibited because they could possibly block the visibility of the traffic coming around the corner. The Public Hearing was Closed. MacBride expressed his appreciation to the residents who spoke this evening, for the comments and input that they have given the Commission pertaining to this matter. 14 717'r, , DIAMOND BAA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25° 1990 MmoBride asked for the def initipn of roof aigne, Page 25 |tem E Roof Signs. He asked if a structure f}oat ing above a bus inamm would be considered a roof sign. Staff indicated that they would consider thim to be a hitw, MaoBr|dwwas opposed to |mr8a f|oat ing structures used as signs. Grothe stated that Diamond Bar did not resemble Mission Viejo in any way' The Cities immediately surrounding Diamond Bar have more similarities to Diamond Bar than Mission Viejo. Diamond Bar does not have the population to support the bum|nmomem located in the City. The City has to depend on surrounding cities in order for businesses to thrive. He agreed that special signage regulations are needed for freeway -oriented businesses. He agreed with prohibiting billboards and other signs that protrude from buildings, etc. He felt that four <4^> foot high real estate o|Qno would be hard to read and difficult for the resident to move around' He feels' that some of the heights are tom restrictive. There are some bat loon signs that are attractive. He feels that Diamond Bar needs some recognition, puaa>b|y proposing e uniform theme. He would i|he to amm m minimum of six (6^) inch numbers on all commercial buildings. Commissioner Lin stated the Diamond Bar is basically m highway based community. She is In favor of a separate ordinance for freeway -oriented businesses; o possible highway corridor overlay. She asked m|noe, due to Diamond Bars topography, would m variance be the means of submitting e sign that exceeded the current oudee3 Secretary TmranQo indicated that this would be the correct procedure. Grothm stated that, with a variance application including a line of site analysis, he would not be objectionable to approving m higher sign for the Ramada !nn due to its current conditions. Commissioner Lin stated that there Is a possibility of a medial center locating in Diamond Bar. If there is not m professional building built, then they will locatetheir businesses in the small commercial centers. They normally install signs indicating their business hours. Theme signs seldom have permits taken out. She felt that the Commission needed to be aware of this pmnm|bi||ty' Secretary Termngo stated that there is m section In the ordinance that refers to times and limitations on Page 8 and 9. } DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 Grothe asked' if this ordinance is adopted, what will happen to existing window signs? Mr. Weissman stated that if the signs were placed legally they would become nonconforming signs. They could not be added to or changed except if they were brought into conformance. Businesses will be allowed to maintain any signs that are currently up at the time this ordinance becomes effective. Signs that were not permitted will be required to be taken down. Secretary Tarango stated that by the current code, if the window signs are over 25 percent of the window they are not allowed. Mr. Searcy stated that the Burden of Proof is to prove that the applioant of a sign has ''approval through the County or the City prior to the adoption of 'any draft or revision to the ordinance. Vice Chairman Harmony stated that he would rather see the sign standards developed City-wide instead of approving a special ordinance for freeway-orl'ented businesses. Most of the City has freeway frontage. He agreed that the height of real estate signs should be seven (7') feet!in height. He felt that there should be fines if political signslare not cleaned up after the elections. They should also contain names, addresses and telephone numbers on the back of them. He feit that they should be kept out of the center medians. He disagreed with the ordinance where it stated that the candidate had to receive written authorization from the property owner before allowing a sign to be placed on their property. He hesitated to regulate garage sale signs except to prohibit them from being!,plaoed upon city owned property such as traffic light poles. He hesitated also to regulate foreign language signs except to require that they Include the street address. He is opposed to large balloons. He felt that under a permitted situation, smart balloons would be acceptable. Secretary Tarango suggested that one way of regulating special temporary signs is to pla6e a time limit on them. Commissioner Grothe felt that temporary construction signs should be a I I owed to have one per street frontage i nstead of one per s i te. Secretary Tarango suggested to the Commission that they continue the public hearing or reconvene at a study session. 16 DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25, 1990 Commissioner MacBride recommended that they adjourn to m special meeting. call it an advance meet|n0, and meet Saturday and Sunday e,00 u'm' to e:00 p.m., at the Days Hotel. He suggested that they propose this to the City Council requesting them to provide the necessary funds' He also suggested that they make this meeting open to the public. Motion was made by Commissioner MooBr|de and seconded by Commissioner Grothe to appoint the Planning Commission Secretary to place before the City Cuuncil o request that they fund m meeting of staff and Planning Commission to be hold as aqwn as poaa{b|m on a Saturday and Sunday at the Days Hotel for the purpose of advancing on the problem of constructing an appropriate sign ordinance for the City' Vice Chairman Harmony stated that he felt that this meeting abnu|d be used as on educational meeting so that the Commissioners leave this conference with a firm understanding of the definitions of the ordinance instead of u fina| draft of the ordinance. The final draft should come after having several public hearings and receiving puh!|o comments. He also felt that the City Counoi| should provide them with a von mo that they could tour the City. Commissioner Grothw suggested that they might invite the City Counc|| to join them at this meeting so that they wii| have an idea as to the progress and the work that the Commission is putting into this sign ordinance. V|no Chairman ua||od for a vote on the motion made. � AYES: 4 Commissioners � NAYEG: 0 � ABSTAINED: 0 Secretary Tarangu stated that at the next meeting on July 9th, staff will provide the Commission with additional information to continuo the processing of the sign ordinance. Motion was made by Commissioner Myo8r|de and seconded by Vice Cha irman Harmony to adjourn th|m pub !/o hearing and cont |nue |t to the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held on July 9, 1990' DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OF JUNE 25° 1990 Commissioner Grntha asked staff how difficult it would be to find a parking ordinance that would be similar to Diamond Bar's needs. Secretary Torang* stated that staff has notified 10 different cities asking them to provide us with their requirements. Staff wi|| provide the Commission with an update of the July 9th Planning Commission meeting. � Commissioner MacBride asked staff if they have received any � correspondence from Kaiser Permanente regarding relocating to ' Diamond 8mr, One of the practitioners stated that they were having m difficult time with the City of Diamond Bar. Commissioner MacBride wanted to know if this was actually in the pipeline. SanretaryTarmngu stated that they have been contacted by some real estate agents representing Kaiser Permanente' They expressed an -` interest in some parcels of land located in the Gateway Center' The parking requirements for a medical center are very restrictive ` and this is one of the problems. � ADJOURNMENT: � � There being no further business to come before the Commission, � Motion was mode by Commissioner Qrmthe and seconded by Vice Chairman Harmony and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at � 11,00 u'm' to the next regularly scheduled meeting of July S, 1990 to be held at the Walnut Valley Unified School District Board Room, / � 880 N. Lemon Avenue, Walnut, California at 7;00 p.m. � David 8chey Chairman ^ �ATTE8T:<f Dennis A�rango \ / Secretary, Planning cqmm|mm|mn �