Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/13/1990N CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF SPECIAL STUDY SESSION CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 1990 The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar convened in a special study session at 5:1,5 p.m, in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Walnut; California. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, Vice Chairman Harmony and Chairman Schey ABSENT: 11 COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Lin ALSO PRESENT: Bill Curley, City Attorney Ron Kranzer, City Engineer Jack Istik, Assistant City Engineer Irwin Kaplan, Interim Planning Director Robert Searcy, Assistant Planning Director Dawn Anderson, Planning Technician Larry Weissman, Associate Planner DISCUSSION: A public hearing was held on July 23, 1990 to discuss Subdivision 90-0052 SPM 22178) and Subdivision 90-0041 SPM 22102) located in the Gateway Corporate Center. At this time it was determined that additional information was needed to explain the project in detail and give background information on the project. If the Commission acts upon the parcel maps, staff recommends that a supplemental EIR be required. This study session is to give the applicants the opportunity to explain the project thoroughly and to discuss the process that was taken prior to the City being incorporated. M Mr. Reiling gave a brief description of the center. On Lot 4 there is a proposed restaurant currently under Planning review. Lot 23 has been sold to. Kaiser Permanente to build a two phase medical office complex. Most of this complex will be patient oriented. There will be a major medical facility on the corner of Archibald and the 60 freeway to serve patients with emergency and over -night case. The facility to be located in Diamond Bar will be a day care patient center only. Lot 1 is the location of the 347,000 square foot AQMD building. This building will have two conference rooms. One will accommodate 350 people with all of the latest audio visual equipment and the other will accommodate about 50 people. The smaller room has been offered to the City to be used for City Council meetings, etc. The Days Inn Hotel is on Lot 3 and the proposed restaurant is on Lot 4. There is a building owned by the SEMA Corporation, Specialty Equipment Manufacturer Association, which is the trade association for the after market automobile industry. This building is 90 percent occupied. Another building is 100 percent occupied by Kelly Clark. There is a 2 -story 50,000 square foot office building which is occupied by various tenants. The building next to it is owned by Trammel Crow Company and is also Leased to various tenants which occupy about 82 percent of the building. There are 7 buildings which were developed by the Kole Company and 3 of those buildings are currently in escrow. Lot 19 is occupied by the City Hall building which is 98 percent leased. The building next door is under construction. Lot 2 is the subject parcel. Mr. Reiling stated that they have many 1, 2, and 3 acre parcels. There have been several people expressing an interest in constructing a building in this center but needed smaller parcels. Zelman Development ,has been discussing the idea of subdividing Parcel 2. This will allow a wider spectrum of uses. The character of the project has changed from its original proposal although the zoning, Unilateral Contract and Environmental standards have not changed. It is developing more towards an office park rather than an industrial park. The Unilateral Contract allows the lower lots to be 5 stories, the upper lots to be 3 stories and everything else to be 2 stories. On some of the lots 7 and 9 stories can be obtained with a Conditional Use Permit. There are a lot of businesses that want to get away from the high- rise buildings and want small buildings for their businesses. 2 77 I"I'"7I7fr1T'"'t`^T - 4, r The traffic study pointed out the traffic issues that needed to be addressed. Some of these were mitigated when they made improvements on Golden Springs. They installed a higher standard signal, wider roads, deeper turn pockets, etc. Last year they completed some additional improvements that the County required. These were to create free right turns, deeper pockets, moving signalization around, and contributing $325,000 to the County for mitigating the intersections at Golden Springs and Grand, at Diamond Bar and Grand and at Golden Springs and Brea Canyon Drive. Most of the traffic, according to the traffic report, is not site generated traffic. Most of the traffic on Golden Springs is traffic that is trying to avoid the congestion of the freeway. They have started the TMO (Traffic Management Organization). When the rules of AQMD are in place, it will be mandatory that small companies belong to this organization. Employees will be charged if they don't ride share and will be paid if they do. Paul Wilkinson, Traffic and Transportation Engineer, stated that he did not conduct the original traffic study which reflected an industrial park. Starting with the traffic study he conducted for the Days Inn, it became obvious that while the development approvals were not increasing, it, seemed that the market courses were driving the project to come closer to the maximums that were indicated in the original report. He conducted a study dated December 1989 which identified existing traffic conditions, the roadway network, traffic volumes, peak hours, change in traffic conditions or Level of Service related to this project. They looked at 7 intersections starting at Brea Canyon and ending at Diamond Bar Boulevard, including the two project entries. He analyzed both the peak a.m. and p.m. hours. The a.m. peak hour was typically better than the p.m. peak hour. Through site observation, he determined that there is a band of cars traveling Golden Springs in order to avoid freeway traffic. This constitutes 25 percent of the traffic. He estimated what might happen to the roadways in the complete absence of this development. He estimated about 3 percent ahead for the next 7 years, this added 25 percent volume. 3 71' -111117T7" _SLI fl fGIV fPi' T 'il II C: Mr. Wilkinson stated that he estimated the future traffic volumes from identifing the improvements which substantiated the trip budget. He dad this in two ways. First, he counted traffic at the two intersections. Second, in reviewing the historical traffic volume data along Golden Springs, Grand and Diamond Bar Boulevard, he identified and estimated an annual percentage growth rate. He determined that the development happening was adding traffic to the streets and this number was about 3 percent. The County supplied him with their tabulation, at that time, of development in this immediate area that was on record, The Downey Savings site and the Chino Hills development on Grand Avenue was part of this study. They took the existing development plus 3 percent regardless of where it came from plus the developments that were identified in the area to include the Downey building and a large part o.f Chino Hills. To this the project was added with the Transportation Management Organization in place. Secretary Kaplan asked Mr. Wilkinson to explain the traffic mitigation measures. Mr. Wilkinson stated that at Golden Springs and Brea Canyon they added an additional northbound free right turn lane, a dual southbound left turn lane, and a third south lane within the entrance area of the intersection. At Golden Springs and Gateway Center they added a right turn lane. They lengthened one of the pockets so that the through lanes will not be blocked. At Golden Springs and Grand Avenue the County wanted to provide left turn lanes at every approach and through lanes in each direction on Grand Avenue and separate right turn lanes. At Diamond Bar and Golden Springs there is a dual left turn lane on Golden Springs and a west bound right turn lane on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Secretary Kaplan asked as to the status of these improvements. The County has collected the money from the applicants and were supposed to begin the improvements once the money had been collected. The money has been transferred to the City of Diamond Bar. Chairman Schey stated that he, thought that there was a traffic study update done for this parcel map and asked if this addressed the status of the trip budget. The applicants stated that there was not, but that they could create one. Secretary Kaplan stated that at applicant's representatives was travel. The applicants indicated throughout the park. 5 a meeting last week one of the asked to look into pedestrian that there are sidewalks provided ,ry ILl�tivilv_*bhIN�IWid�at6ill!�'YLhYIe�. .. ..:.� .ni�rs.m, .�-• e.:w�.citiu � s � ,—. ,._ _ _—. _.... s' Commissioner Grothe asked as to the Unilateral Contract and why they do not review some of the projects. Mr. Reiling stated that they inherited the contract which basically sets forth design guidelines in a fairly minimal way and a set of uses that were pre -approved. After they purchased the property in 1985 they took the design guidelines and expanded them into a set of CC&R's that overlaid the design guidelines and the CC&R's that Trans America originally had placed over the property. They have developed the property in accordance with the CC&R's and the design guidelines. When the City incorporated they approved the Gateway Center Guidelines as the controlling document for the development of the property. Vice Chairman Harmony stated that the signage for the site is governed in the CC&R's and to change these it takes a 50 percent vote of the members of the Property Owners Association. He asked how the membership was broken up with the Association. The applicant indicated that it was by the percentage that one owns. Secretary Kaplan stated that every development in this center will now come before the Planning Commission. Mr. Refiling stated that it was his understanding that the City Council stated that as long as the use and the design meets the design guideline, unless there was a specific ordinance against it, the development would not necessarily come before the Commission for review. The Guidelines indicate the types of uses that are permitted, the type of uses that would be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and the type of uses that are not allowed at all. Secretary Kaplan stated that if the Commission feels 'that the rules that an applicant are operating under were inappropriated, the Commission would notify the City Council that they felt that the Resolution passed in October 1989 was in need of additional review. If the CC&R's were to be changed in a way that would be less restrictive then they were when the Resolution was passed in October 1989, then the Commission would have the opportunity to review the project. 6 — — ,,, „ m,, -ren w -- .7 r� i7 � . ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, Motion was made by Commissioner MacBride and seconded by Commissioner Grothe and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 7:10 p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on August 13, 1990 to be held at the Walnut Valley Unified School District Board Room, 880 N. Lemon Avenue, Walnut, California at 7;00 p.m. ATTEST: Irwin Kaplan Secretary, Planning Commission 7 David Schey Chairman 7.17 1 . I k 11 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF SPECIAL STUDY SESSION CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 1990 The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar convened in a special study session at 5:115 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Walnut.California. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, Vice Chairman Harmony and Chairman Schey ABSENT: I COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Lin ALSO PRESENT: Bill Curley, City Attorney Ron Kranzer, City Engineer Jack Istik, Assistant City Engineer Irwin Kaplan, Interim Planning Director Robert Searcy, Assistant Planning Director Dawn Anderson, Planning Technician Larry Weissman, Associate Planner DISCUSSION: A public hearing was held on July 23, 1990 to discuss Subdivision 90-0052 (PM 22178) and Subdivision 90-0041 (PM 22102) located in the Gateway Corporate Center. At this time it was determined that additional information was needed to explain the project in detail and give background information on the project. If the Commission acts upon the parcel maps, staff recommends that a supplemental EIR be required. This study session is to give the applicants the opportunity to explain the project thoroughly and to discuss the process that was taken prior to the City being incorporated. 1 07 Mr. Reiling gave a brief description of the center. On Lot 4 there is a proposed restaurant currently under Planning review. Lot 23 has been sold to Kaiser Permanente to build a two phase medical office complex. Most of this complex will be patient oriented. There will be a major medical facility on the corner of Archibald and the 60 freeway to serve patients with emergency and over -night care. The facility to be located in Diamond Bar will be a day care patient center only. Lot I is the location of the 347,000 square foot AQMD building. This building will have two conference rooms. One will accommodate 350 people with all of the latest audio visual equipment and the other will accommodate about 50 people. The smaller room has been offered to the City to be used for City Council meetings, etc. The Days Inn Hotel is on Lot 3 and the proposed restaurant is on Lot 4. There is a building owned by the SEMA Corporation, Specialty Equipment Manufacturer Association, which is the trade association for the after market automobile industry. This building is 90 percent occupied. Another building is 100 percent occupied by Kelly Clark. There is a 2 -story 50,000 square foot office building which is occupied by various tenants. The building next to it is owned by Trammel Crow Company and is also leased to various tenants which occupy about 82 percent of the building. There are 7 buildings which were developed by the Kole Company and 3 of those buildings are currently in escrow. Lot 19 is occupied by the City Hall building which is 98 percent leased. The building next door is under construction. Lot 2 is the subject parcel. Mr. Reiling stated that they have many 1, 2, and 3 acre parcels. There have been several people expressing an interest in constructing a building in this center but needed smaller parcels. Zelman Development has been discussing the idea of subdividing Parcel 2. This will allow a wider spectrum of uses. The character of the project has changed from its original proposal although the zoning, Unilateral Contract and Environmental standards have not changed. It is developing more towards an office park rather than an industrial park. The Unilateral Contract allows the lower lots to be 5 stories, the upper lots to be 3 stories and everything else to be 2 stories. On some of the lots 7 and 9 stories can be obtained with a Conditional Use Permit. There are a lot of businesses that want to get away from the highrise buildings and want small buildings for their businesses. 2 F[ 17-77177777777' CD The traf f is study pointed out the traf f is issues that needed to be addressed. Some of these were mitigated when they made improvements on Golden Springs. They installed a higher standard signal, wider roads, deeper turn pockets, etc. Last year they completed some additional improvements that the County required. These were to create free right turns, deeper pockets, moving signalization around, and contributing $325,000 to the County for mitigating the intersections at Golden Springs and Grand, at Diamond Bar and Grand and at Golden Springs and Brea Canyon Drive. Most of the traffic, according to the traffic report, is not site generated traf f ic. Most of the traffic on Golden Springs is traffic that is trying to avoid the congestion of the freeway. They have started the TMO <Traffic Management Organization). When the rules of AQMD are in place, it will be mandatory that small companies belong to this organization. Employees will be charged if they don't ride share and will be paid if they do. Paul Wilkinson, Traffic and Transportation Engineer, stated that he did not conduct the original traffic study which reflected an industrial park. Starting with the traffic study he conducted for the Days Inn, it became obvious that while the development approvals were not increasing. it, seemed that the market courses were driving the project to come closer to the maximums that were indicated in the original report. He conducted a study dated December 1989 which identified existing traffic conditions, the roadway network, traffic volumes, peak hours, change in traffic conditions or Level of Service related to this project. They looked at 7 intersections starting at Brea Canyon and ending at Diamond Bar Boulevard, including the two project entries. He analyzed both the peak a.m. and p.m. hours. The a.m. peak hour was typically better than the p.m. peak hour. Through site observation, he determined that there is a band of cars traveling Golden Springs in order to avoid freeway traffic. This constitutes 25 percent of the traffic. He estimated what might happen to the roadways in the complete absence of this development. He estimated about 3 percent ahead for the next 7 years, this added 25 percent volume. He identified with the County some improvements that they thought were feasible at the five intersections. They also took into account the 450 cars an hour that travel the street and adding the proposed freeway improvements which consists of adding another lane. It is his expectation that some of the traffic using the side streets will be brought back to the freeway system. What he found when he took into consideration the existing volumes, the improvements to the freeway, completion of the project at about a 50 percent ratio predominately office complex, was that the p.m. peak hour was typically worse but still acceptable. The small lots are proposed to reduce the traffic. With the TMO, there is an estimated 16 percent reduction in project trips. The traffic is going to be in existence whether the development is there or not. If the development takes place within the City then the City is able to enjoy the benefits of the development as well as some of the traffic volumes that go along with it. If the development takes place outside of the City, the City has the privilege of providing the street improvements for everyone else, and the City will still have the traffic but without the benefits of the development. He identified the parcels and their acreage, used a 50 percent coverage for most of the parcels using an office type of configuration. For the entire project including the current uses and the uses which will be added there was about 18.000 trip ends a day. This figure was achieved by assuming that the floor area for the entire site was about 1.4 million square feet and assuming mix uses of retail and office. The medical facility will not have the same peak hour as will general office uses. They tried to establish a trip budget for the project. He identified existing conditions and identified future conditions without the project and with the project to obtain acceptable Levels of Service. As a result of this study, there were some street improvements that were necessary. These improvements were funded for. The trip budget is being monitored to insure that the trips allowed for the site are not used up before the entire project is completed. I Commissioner MacBride was concerned trips that have with keeping a tally of the This will ensure already been used. allotted trip are not used up and that that the each property owner has the opportunity to develop their land. Mr. Wilkinson stated that he estimated the future traffic volumes from identifing the improvements which substantiated the trip budget. He did this in two ways. First, he counted traffic at the two intersections. Second, in reviewing the historical traffic volume data along Golden Springs, Grand and Diamond Bar Boulevard, he identified and estimated an annual percentage growth rate. He determined that the development happening was adding traffic to the streets and this number was about 3 percent. The County supplied him with their tabulation, at that time, of development in this immediate area that was on record. The Downey Savings site and the Chino Hills development on Grand Avenue was part of this study. They took the existing development plus 3 percent regardless of where it came from plus the developments that were identified in the area to include the Downey building and a large part of Chino Hills. To this the project was added with the Transportation Management Organization in place. Secretary Kaplan asked Mr. Wilkinson to explain the traffic mitigation measures. Mr. Wilkinson stated that at Golden Springs and Brea Canyon they added an additional northbound free right turn lane, a dual southbound left turn lane, and a third south lane within the entrance area of the intersection. At Golden Springs and Gateway Center they added a right turn lane. They lengthened one of the pockets so that the through lanes will not be blocked. At Golden Springs and Grand Avenue the County wanted to provide left turn lanes at every approach and through lanes in each direction on Grand Avenue and separate right turn lanes. At Diamond Bar and Golden Springs there is a dual left turn lane on Golden Springs and a west bound right turn lane on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Secretary Kaplan asked as to the status of these improvements. The County has collected the money from the applicants and were supposed to begin the improvements once the money had been collected. The money has been transferred to the City of Diamond Bar. Chairman Schey stated that he thought that there was a traffic study update done for this parcel map and asked if this addressed the status of the trip budget. The applicants stated that there was not, but that they could create one. Secretary Kaplan stated that at applicant's a meeting last week one of the asked to look into representatives was travel. The applicants indicated pedestrian throughout the park. that there are sidewalks provided Commissioner Grothe asked as to the Unilateral Contract and why they do not review some of the Mr. Reiling stated that they inherited the contract which basically sets forth design guidelines in a fairly minimal way and a set of uses that were pre -approved. After they purchased the property in 1985 they took the design guidelines and expanded them into a set of CC&R's that overlaid the design guidelines and the CC&R's that Trans America originally had placed over the property. They have developed the property in accordance with the CC&R's and the design guidelines. When the City incorporated they approved the Gateway Center Guidelines as the controlling document for the development of the property. Vice Chairman Harmony stated that the signage for the site is governed in the CC&R' s and to change these it takes a 50 percent vote of the members of the Property Owners Association. He asked how the membership was broken up with the Association. The applicant indicated that it was by the percentage that one owns. Secretary Kaplan stated that every development in this center will now come before the Planning Mr. Reiling stated that it was his understanding that the City Council stated that as long as the use and the design meets the design guideline, unless there was a specific ordinance against it, the development would not necessarily come before the Commission for review. The Guidelines indicate the types of uses that are permitted, the type of uses that would be permitted with a Conditional Use Permit and the type of uses that are not allowed at all. Secretary Kaplan stated that if the Commission feels 'that the rules that an applicant are operating under were inappropriated, the Commission would notify the City Council that they felt that the Resolution passed in October 1989 was in need of additional review. If the CC&R's were to be changed in a way that would be less restrictive then they were when the Resolution was passed in October 1989, then the Commission would have the opportunity to review the project. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before tf MacBride and seconded by Commissioner Grothe 7:10 p.m. to the regularly scheduled meeting of the at the Walnut Valley Unified School District Board 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: Irwin Kaplan Secretary, Planning Commission e Commission, Motion was made by Commissioner and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at Planning Commission on August 13, 1990 to be held Room, 880 N. Lemon Avenue, Walnut, California at David Schey CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF CITY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 13, 1990 The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar convened in a regular session at 7:20 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Walnut, California. PRESENT: 4 COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, Vice Chairman Harmony and Chairman Schey ABSENT: 1 COMMISSIONERS: Commissioner Lin ALSO PRESENT: Bill Curley, City Attorney Ron Kranzer, City Engineer Jack Istik, Assistant City Engineer Irwin Kaplan, Interim 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 July 23, 1990. Motion was made by Commissioner MacBride and seconded by Commissioner Grothe to approve the minutes. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. MATTERS FROM THE PUBLIC: There were none. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. City Council Minutes - meeting of July 10 and July 17. 2. Resolution PC# 90- for Conditional Use Permit 89-551, 54 unit complex. apartment lex. p P 3. Resolution PC# 90 -_for Variance application 90-0054, for a three story house exceeding the 35 foot height limitation. Commissioner Grothe stated that he had aq uestion pertaining ertainin to Item No. 2. This item was s ulled from the consent calendar i P r for discussion. t ,���`� I� VIII"1'il;'. �.I ��,,� -, -- I ------��-,,� ,• "f�'i".�...1III III 1 I �9..�_ - -- -,. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Vice Chairman Harmony asked the City Attorney how he should participate on the consent calendar due to his absence at the last meeting. Mr. Curley stated that it would not be appropriate for Vice Chairman Harmony to participate in this section of the meeting. Vice Chairman Harmony stated that he would then like Item No. 3 to be pulled from the consent calendar. Chairman Schey asked the Commission to consider the consent calendar with the omission of Item Nos. 2 and 3. Motion was made by Vice Chairman Harmony and seconded. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. Discussion was opened for Item No. 2 on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Grothe stated that under Planning Division Conditions Page 2, Item 4 states that the entrance of the site will be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The applicant shall be responsible for his pro rata share of the signalization and other conditions mitigating traffic impacts as may be required as a result of the proposed development. He was of the understanding that the approval stated that the traffic signal had to be installed prior to any development of the parcel of land that would be affected by this signal. Secretary Kaplan stated that the pro rata share was referring to the persons responsibility. If 10 percent of the total cost of the item was their pro rata share that would be their responsibility. They could pay 100 percent of the cost up front and then at such time as other parties begin development they would be reimbursed. He felt that it may be inappropriate to mandate that they pay the entire cost and be reimbursed up to their pro rata share. Commissioner Grothe stated that he felt that it would not be safe to turn into the site without a signal at that location and that is was mandatory that the signal be installed. If the applicant only paid 10 percent it may be a long time before the City had the funds to finish the job. Mr. Curley stated that it was within the Commission's jurisdiction to dictate in the resolution that the applicant must pre -pay the entire cost of the signal with eventual reimbursement. F PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Motion was made by Commissioner Grothe and seconded by Chairman Schey to amend the Resolution for Conditional Use Permit 89-551 to read that the applicant is responsible for the installation of the signalization and other conditions which mitigate traffic impacts as may be required as the result of the proposed development. At the time the adjacent property is developed, the property owners will be subject to contribution towards the signal and there will be a determination of pro rata shares at this point. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. Discussion was opened for Item No. 3 on the Consent Calendar. This item was removed from the consent calendar in order to conduct an independent vote on the Resolution for 90-0054. Motion was made by Commissioner Grothe and seconded by Chairman Schey to approve the Resolution for Variance 90-0054. Ayes: Commissioners Grothe, MacBride and Schey Nayes: None Abstentions: Vice Chairman Harmony PUBLIC HEARING: i 1. Draft Sign Ordinance: Secretary Kaplan stated that staff set aside the previous draft and developed a new draft ordinance for the Commission to review. Mr. Weissman summarized the memo sent to the Commission explaining the Sign Ordinance. The Ordinance consists of the grouping of four sign types as follows: A. Basic Sign Proqram. The Basic Sign Program offers a limited choice of signs which may be permitted within certain specified limits. As long as the signs remain with the specified limits they can be approved at a staff level. B. Planned Sign Program. The Planned Sign Program allows two types of variations from the Basic Sign Program. 1. The Planned Sign Program offers additional types of signs. The sum total which will still have to remain within the limits of the Basic Sign Program square footage limits. 2. The Planned Sign Program offers additional signage to compensate for some special circumstances. For example, commercial centers may require higher freestanding monument signs along the property line 3 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 in order to compensate for buildings with larger setbacks. All signage under the Planned Sign Program will require Planning Commission review. Within an approved Planned Sign Program, the Planning Director will be able to make modifications as long as they are consistent with the basic intent of the original sign program. C. Exempt Signs. These are signs are exempt from any permit requirements such as traffic control, traffic direction, etc. D. Prohibited Signs. These are signs which have been created which include off-site, billboard, pole, pylon, rotating signs, etc. Also included is a suggested procedure for variance requests and regulations on canopy signs and flags. In addition to the memo, the Commission received a listing of the signs and the permitted square footages for the Basic Sign Program and the Planned Program. Mr. Weissman reviewed this with the Commission. I. THE BASIC SIGN PROGRAM. Permit is required for all signs in both programs except those signs which are exempt. A. Wall signs. These signs are allowed with a limitation of 1 square foot per 1 lineal foot of building frontage up to a maximum of 100 square feet per use. Signs on the front of a building as well as on each side will be permitted. A series of temporary signs are allowed. These include commercial real estate, 16 square feet and 4 feet in height one sign per site, removed one year after the permit has been issued. This is for on-site purposes and new construction. b �e, 4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 B. Construction Siqns. These signs are allowed for 16 square feet, 4 feet in height, 1 sign per site, not to be installed before the building permit has been issued and must be removed upon occupancy of the building. C. Subdivision and On-site Mobile Home Signs. These signs are allowed for 16 square feet, 4 feet in height, 1 sign per entrance, to be removed after 6 months from the date of issuance and may be renewed for an additional 6 months if the signs are in compliance with the original permit. D. Grand Opening, Liquidation Signs. These signs are allowed for 15 square feet, to be placed on walls or windows only, must be removed 30 days after date of issuance, permits for this type of use are issued one time only to any business. E. Special Event Signs. These signs are allowed for 15 square feet, must be removed 30 days after the date of issuance, or 3 days after the event, whichever occurs first. The signs may be used to advertise an upcoming community event and or businesses participation in that event, including sales promotions. The following signs may be allowed in commercial zones only: F. Service and Bulletin Board Signs. This is designed for places of worship, libraries, museums, social clubs, non-profit service clubs, etc. These are allowed for 100 square feet to be placed on the wall only. G. Off-site Community Service Signs. These signs are allowed for 24 square feet, wall signs only. The following signs may be posted in commercial and residential zones: 5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 �J. H. Non -Commercial Siqns on Residential Property. These are allowed for 4 square feet to be placed on the wall sign only. These are limited to non- commercial message. I. Temporary Political Signs. These signs are allowed for 16 square feet, 4 feet in height, may be posted no more than 90 days prior to an election or special event and shall be removed within 10 days after the election or special event. These signs may not be posted in the public right-of-way in such a way as to impede public travelers safety. All signs approved within the Basic Sign Program, except for temporary signs, may not exceed 100 square feet. II. PLANNED SIGN PROGRAM. The signs permitted in this program are only permitted after a Planned Sign Program has been approved by the Planning Commission. A. Business Identification Siqns. This includes six i (6) categories. 1. Freestanding Monument. These signs are allowed a maximum of 24 square feet, six feet in width, 4 feet height, one per frontage in excess of 99 feet, except for a building of 4 or more stories may have a monument sign on any frontage regardless of the length. Content of the sign must include the street address. 2. Window Signs. These signs are allowed a maximum of 25 percent of the window area to be painted. 3. Nameplate Sign for Building Identification or Property Owner. These signs are allowed for 36 square feet, limited to multi -use commercial or multi -tenant residential buildings over 35 feet in height, maximum of 1 nameplate sign per building is allowed. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 4. Rear Building Signs. These signs are allowed when in excess of aggregate site limits of 100 square feet are allowed only where necessary to maintain consistency with other signs on the building or in the vicinity. 5. Awning and Canopy Lettering. These signs are allowed a maximum of 7 inch letters limited to the business name and type only. For these signs, the Planned Sign Program will not be able to exceed 100 square feet. A special circumstance under which 100 square feet of signage can be exceeded would be for a commercial center where a freestanding monument sign will be allowed for a maximum of 72 square feet, 12 feet in length and 6 feet in height, one sign per entrance with consideration given to smaller freestanding monument signs at other entrances. The sign content will be limited to the center's name, logo, two major tenants and the address. A commercial sign may be in excess of the overall sign limits of 100 square feet per site. In addition to those business identification signs that are allowed under a Planned Sign Program. The draft ordinance also proposes the following non- commercial signs allowed as part of the Planned Sign Program: A. Service Sign and Bulletin 'Board. Allowed for 24 square feet maximum, 6 feet in length and 4 feet in height for freestanding signs. B. Community Service Club Sign. Allowed for 6 feet in width and 4 feet in height. C. Freestanding Non -Commercial Sign. Allowed for 2 feet in height, to be placed on residential property. D. Flags. Allowed for 6 - 20 square feet on a pole which may be allowed to extend up to 35 feet in height. 7 �7�111��,.�y�, PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 The ordinance includes freestanding non-commercial signs in the Planned Sign Program. This allows several types of non-commercial signage to be erected under a Basic Sign Program with Director Approval which includes wall signs. Commercial Freestanding signs will require Planned Sign Program approval. One of the purposes of the Planned Sign Program would be that no permit be issued for a sign in a multi -use building or commercial center in which more than one sign is proposed unless a Planned Sign Program has been approved for the building or center. Alterations or addition to a Planned Sign Program, once it has been approved by the Planning Commission, can be done at the Director's level if the sign types, square footages, locations, heights and materials aren't changed. If it is just a change of content, this is allowed under the Director's review. III. EXEMPT SIGNS. No permit will be required for this category. These signs may be placed on a piece of property without a permit and would not be added to sign square footage when the City determines whether the applicant has met their square footage limit. These signs include official government traffic or directional signs, official City entrance monument signs which are located at the City limits, and monument entrance signs on City park grounds or at City facilities. Staff is proposing that the ordinance contain language which will require architectural review to be completed by the Planning Commission prior to the installation of any monument signs. On -premise real estate signs are allowed up to 6 square feet, 8 feet in height if freestanding, measured from the highest point of grade. One window sign will be allowed per lease space in multiple use buildings. One ground sign is permitted per lot or building site and has to be removed upon sale, lease or rent of the property. Included in this will be the for sale signs and open house signs on residential properties. Also permitted are building identification signs of 4 square feet and hours of operation signs of 1 square foot, incidental signs which might be used to state which credit cards are accepted, etc. of 1 square foot, security protection signs are allowed up to one square foot without permits. Flags are not to exceed 2 in number, each representing a governmental body or unit for each street level business or residence. No flag may exceed 12 square feet. Flag poles may not exceed 6 feet from grade 8 /srl PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 level. Chairman Schey stated that under Sign Programs, flags are allowed from 6 square feet to 20 square feet and under Exempt signs flags are permitted not to exceed 12 square feet. He asked if the Sign Program should be 12 square feet to 20 square feet. Mr. Weissman stated that they could adjust this under the Sign Program which allows a higher flag pole. IV. PROHIBITED SIGNS: The following signs are prohibited: Off -premise outdoor advertising billboard signs, flashing, moving and pulsating signs, signs which in anyway conflict with traffic control devices or impede the flow of foot or vehicular traffic, the use of animals or human beings as attention attracting devices, loud speakers, signs with mechanical movements, roof signs projecting signs, pole signs unless approved by a Planned Sign Program, changeable copy signs, banners, flags not of a governmental agencies, kites, pennants, signs which constitute.a nuisance or hazard because of their intensity of light, sign which no longer identify an existing business, vehicular or trailer signs, sign g g projecting into the public right of way, price signs except those that the Commission deems to approve, pylon signs and signs on marquee or awning other than 7 inches of lettering which will state the business name and address. Chairman Schey stated that gasoline price signs are mandated by the State. Mr. Weissman stated that they are working on creating a standard for gasoline price signs. Commissioner Grothe asked how this proposed sign ordinance conforms with those ordinances of the surrounding cities. Secretary Kaplan stated that staff has not reviewed the ordinances of surrounding cities. Commissioner Grothe stated that many of the buildings in town do not meet the proposed ordinance. He felt that the City shouldn't draft an ordinance that makes the entire city in violation of this ordinance. 0 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 The Public Hearing was opened. Ben Reiling, Zelman Development, stated that 100 square feet of signage as the maximum is not enough for a large building with a long street frontage. From a far distance, a sign of this size would be hard to read. Carey Treff, Representing the Owner of Country Hills Shopping Center, asked if only one (1) leasing sign would be permitted on a parcel regardless of the size of the parcel. Mr. Weissman stated that the ordinance does make provision for signage going into windows on the ground level. This is under the Exempt Signs section of the ordinance. This would permit one (1) exempt on premise real estate sign for each lease space, one in every window on the ground level. Mr. Treff asked the Commission to consider allowing more signage for a site of their size. He was also concerned with the 4 foot height limit on these signs. The ordinance states that monument signs are permitted to display 2 major tenants only. Mr. Treff asked that they consider allowing more or if he could file a variance to allow a third major tenant on the monument sign. He asked for clarification on how many sides E of the building would wall signs be permitted. Mr. Weissman "y stated that the ordinance would permit signs on all sides of the building. The only time that the applicant would have to submit for a Planned Sign Program for signs on the rear of the building would be in a case where there was a need to keep the sign larger to allow for consistency with the lettering in the surrounding area. Mr. Weissman also stated that in a commercial center one center sign is permitted per entrance with special consideration given to smaller centers. Mr. Kaplan stated that he received a call from a citizen who was not present. He was concerned with banners and felt that consideration should be given to restaurants on a short term basis. Chairman Schey stated for the record that the Commission has received a letter from Brian and Cindy Quan regarding foreign language signs for local businesses. � � '�1'��I' ill IV lillli I'lll' + 6 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Vice Chairman Harmony asked if staff has forwarded a copy of the draft ordinance to the Chamber of Commerce and other interested organizations. Mr. Kaplan stated that it has not. Vice Chairman Harmony asked that the ordinance be forwarded to these organizations. Motion was made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Vice Chairman Harmony to continue the draft sign ordinance to the first meeting in September to allow staff time to distribute this ordinance to interested organizations for their input and to research the questions raised as to the surrounding cities sign ordinances. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. 2. Conditional Use Permit 90-0087, Chevron Company U.S.A. proposal to install underground piping, equipment pad, and equipment to remediate contaminated soil on site. Located at 2707 Diamond Bar Boulevard. Mr. Weissman stated that staff is recommending that the Commission consider all the data presented, the elements of the Environmental Assessment, Conditional Use Permit, negative declaration and grant the Conditional Use Permit and Variance. The project site is zoned _,Cl,' (Restricted Business). The site I is graded and currently occupied by a two story building which has only been partially constructed. Construction ceased due `% to the need for the soil remediation project. To the north of the property the zoning is R1-7500 (Single Family Residential - 7500 square foot minimum lot size); to the east is C1 .(Restricted Business), retail shopping has occurred; to the south is C2 -DP (Neighborhood Commercial -Development Plan), developed for -retail commercial; and to the west is C1 (Restricted Business) developed for retail use. The site contained a gas station form 1967: to 1976. Commercial 'offices were constructed in 1976 and the gas station was demolished in the same year. Commercial offices which were constructed in place of the gas station were demolished in 1988. The property is currently being developed for commercial office.•. In 1989 .the owner , of the Chevron Station determined that certain soils, on site had been contaminated by gasoline vapors which had escaped from an underground storage tank and gasoline dispensers which had already been removed from the site. They were removed at the time of demolition of the gas station. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Chevron has since applied for a Conditional Use Permit to install soil remediation equipment in order to remove those contaminated vapors. The equipment consists of underground piping and a carbon collection unit. The unit will be placed on a 15 foot by 20 foot concrete slab. The slab will be located on the north end of the site facing a parking lot which is part of the commercial development surrounding the site. The carbon collection unit is approximately 5 feet by 5 feet, 5 feet high with a 10 foot smoke stack. The remediation process operates by collecting the hydro carbon vapors from the contaminated soil through the pipes into the carbon collection unit. The vapors are heated within this unit to about 450 degrees. The contaminates are collected inside the carbon and then the carbon is removed to a location suitable to receive this type of material. The contaminated areas lie under the future parking lot of the building. The parking lot will front onto Diamond Bar Boulevard. One area of contamination lies on the western edge of the site fronting the parking lot of the surrounding commercial development. This area is approximately 20 feet wide and lies approximately 17 feet below the ground surface. ! The second area of contamination lies on the south of site fronting Diamond Bar Boulevard. This area has a 35 foot mercy radius and lies within the upper 6.5 feet of soil. The level of contamination far exceeds the State acceptable levels for Hydro Carbons. A variance is required to allow the proposed carbon collection unit on the rear yard at the parking lot. Staff's concerns in reviewing this site were environmental and safety of the unit itself with the remediation process. Their environmental concerns have to do with making sure that all the contamination is identified and removed from the soil and that the project, itself, will not result in any further contamination of the soil and the ground water, which does not appear at this time to be contaminated. They were concerned with the fire safety of the carbon collection unit. This will be monitored by the Los Angeles County Fire Department who will also be issuing the permit for the operation. Permits will be obtained from the South Coast Air Quality Management and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, which is the lead agency on this project for environmental purposes. 711 �r i i III r'I IIII ii I iI �!I! 12 711 �r i i III r'I IIII ii I iI �!I! PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Staff feels that the project will remain compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential uses provided that all the necessary permits are complied with throughout the operation of the project and provided that the project also applies to the conditions of approval that staff recommends for the project. The proposed carbon collection unit will be enclosed by a solid fence and noise mitigation equipment as deemed necessary subject to approval by the Director prior to plan -check approval. Staff also feels that all the necessary findings can be made for the project and therefore, are recommending approval. Condition No. 1 states that this approval is granted for the location of the remediation pipes, equipment and carbon collection device only. The Lead Agency and Environmental Review will be done by the Regional Water Quality Control Board. They will monitor the process. The project will not cease until all contaminants have been removed. The Public Hearing was opened. Tracey Muranik, Chevron USA, Environmental Engineer overseeing the project, stated that the first contamination area runs from about 8 feet to 16 feet in depth and the second area runs from about 2 feet to 7 feet in depth. They have proposed to dig trenches to place the extraction line for the remediation process. The contamination was created when the underground tanks leaked gasoline into the soil and the gasoline adhered to the soil. Some of this contamination is in a vapor phase and some of it is in a liquid phase. Chevron is proposing to take air into the soil, volatilize the hydro carbons and take them up through the piping and treat them in the compound. They are required by Air Quality Management District to monitor and take samples at the effluent, intermediate phase between the canisters and the affluent to see how effective the system is running and to insure that they are omitting only clean air. They will obtain a permit through the Los Angeles County Fire Department after approval on the Conditional Use Permit. This operation is the preferred method for cleaning up this type of contamination. This process is estimated to take approximately anywhere from 2 to 5 years although they have taken approximately 1 1/2 years for clean up on similar sites. Once the project is deemed complete, the incineration equipment will be removed. All the equipment will be placed upon a 15 foot by 20 foot cement pad. Vice Chairman Harmony stated that in other situations he has noticed that they extract the soil from the site. He asked the applicant what other options were available. The r tid 13 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 applicant stated that they feel that this method is the safest method. Vapors are at a minimum when this method is used. Excavation of the soil will volatilize the hydro carbons into the air, Vice Chairman Harmony asked what the noise mitigation equipment will look like and what will the noise level be after it is mitigated. The applicant stated that the carbon units are not an incineration unit as stated in the staff report. The carbon canisters will be well below the fence. The noise generated from this equipment will be about 70 decibels which is the normal residential noise level. The applicant indicated that they had not yet done studies to determine whether the water table has been affected by this contamination. They will be conducting these studies the following week. If the Regional Water Board mandates the applicants will install a pumping system to clean the water. In the trenches, they will 'provide water clean-up pipes. Also present was Jane Gruin, Chevron USA, Supervisor; Jim McDonald, Harding Lawson & Associates, Environmental Consultant; Don Krigly, Harding Lawson & Associates, and Terry ` Wright, West State Carbon. I Those in favor of the project. There were none. Those in opposition of the project. There were none The Public Hearing was closed. Chairman Schey asked if several months after the beginning of operation the Commission deems that the noise mitigation is unappropriated can the Commission require the applicants to upgrade the mitigation measures. Mr. Kaplan suggested that the Commission make this part of the conditions of approval. 14 II 7TF7 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Motion was made by Chairman Schey to approve the Conditional Use Permit/Variance 90-0087 with the conditions and findings as recommended by staff subject to expansion on Condition No. 4 requiring that noise mitigation be upgraded as necessary to maintain an appropriate noise level for the neighborhood and to approve negative declaration. It was suggested by Secretary Kaplan that the action be taken first on the negative declaration and then on the Conditional Use Permit/Variance. He also suggested that on Condition No. 2 the addition of the wording any other appropriate jurisdiction. Chairman Schey withdrew his motion. Motion was made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Commissioner MacBride to approve the negative declaration as recommended by staff. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. Motion was made by Chairman Schey and seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit/Variance 90-0087 subject to an amendment to Condition No. 2 as indicated by staff with expansion of Condition No. 4 requiring that noise mitigation be upgraded as necessary to maintain an appropriate noise level for the neighborhood. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. 3. Subdivision 90-0052 (Vesting Parcel Map 22178), a subdivision to create 12 lots on 13.35 acres in the CM -BE -UC (Commercial Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral Contract) zone located at 21600 East Gateway Center Drive. Subdivision 90-0041 (Vesting Parcel Map 22102), a minor subdivision to create 2 parcels on 4.39 acres in the CM -BE -UC (Commercial Manufacturing -Billboard Exclusion -Unilateral Contract) zone located at 1575 South Valley Vista. Chairman Schey proposed to open both hearings at the same time and take testimony on them simultaneously, but take separate motions. 15 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Mr. Searcy gave a brief description of both projects. Both of these subdivision cases are continued from the August 13, 1990 Commission meeting. The recommendation for both projects is for the Commission to direct staff based upon the concerns that the Commission may wish to consider. These concerns address the total amount of development that center will at one point mature to, the types of uses permitted in the Design Guidelines of the Development Standards which apply to the projects, the traffic characteristics generated by the project, identification of the known projects which are likely to contribute to the cumulative traffic impact in the affected areas, the cumulative impact of traffic on adjacent streets and freeway ramps resulting from anticipated projects in the area, the types of mitigation measures both on-site and off- site needed to minimize the adverse traffic impacts, Gateway Center's pro rata share of the cost of this mitigation based upon what the threshold currently is and what it may evolve to in the future, and the extent to which costs have already been underwritten and contributed by the Gateway Corporate Center. If the Commission feels that they have the available information that is adequate for them to make a decision on these projects, staff directs the Commission to approve these parcel maps and direct staff to create the conditions which will guide the implementation of these parcels. No development is proposed at this time and it is expected that any forthcoming development will be submitted to the City for review. Vice Chairman Harmony asked the City Attorney what kind of review the Commission would have over these parcels if they approved the subdivision before the development is proposed. Mr. Curley stated that he has not yet had an opportunity to review the resolution that was passed by the City Council for the Gateway Center. It is his understanding that the requirements for site development will come back before the Commission for review and approval. Vice Chairman Harmony asked if a restrictive sign ordinance would preclude any CC&R they might pass. Mr. Curley stated that a City ordinance would take precedent over any CC&R's. -7171711111III�IwIf�1I,T�.3Q.w�".� 16 -7171711111III�IwIf�1I,T�.3Q.w�".� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Mr. Kaplan read the section of the resolution which states that the City Council ratified and reaffirmed the Design Guidelines for Gateway Corporate Center. The resolution also states that business associates of the organization shall provide to the City of Diamond Bar any proposed amendments, modifications or changes to the Design Guidelines or Master Declaration. Mr. Kranzer stated that all public improvements are existing other than what might be needed in the way of expanding the driveway in common with the adjoining developed parcel or whatever might be deemed for future development on the property. Also excluded are the improvements for the 2 streets proposed for the 12 lot subdivision. Chairman Schey asked if the street improvements for both of the proposed streets could be required to be implemented as a condition of approval of the map. Mr. Kranzer indicated that this was correct. Chairman Schey asked Mr. Kranzer if his recommendation was that the street section be modified to be wider. Mr. Kranzer stated that this was the Traffic and Transportation Committee's concern. He finds the street section more than adequate for the particular use. The Traffic and Transportation Committee was concerned with the secondary point of ingress and egress at the westerly end of r the project. They were concerned with the possible restrictive sight distance and stopping distance problems. Mr. Kranzer feels that these can be mitigated. He feels that the secondary access will provide for better circulation. He felt that the traffic report was too general. He feels that with the 12 lot subdivision, the greater number of parcels will spread out the peak hour problem and help alleviate the traffic congestion. He feels that the truck lane which will be added to the freeway will help alleviate some of the traffic congestion also. The Public Hearing was opened. The applicant for Subdivision 90-0041 was not present. 17 �� r,lt,...��.a�1�....�w._.,a.µ—.w.._..LL._.._._.�7i� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 w_--' Mr. Reiling stated that they added up the square footage of those projects which have been built or committed to in the planning stage. They calculated that they have use 65 percent of the land and have used 46 percent of the trip budget. The proposed streets will subtract an acre from the site which will reduces the traffic generation for the site. Van Keener stated that the curve radius is 350 which will allow for about 35 MPH. The CC&R's require a 25 foot landscape setback. Those in favor of the projects. Darrel Snyder, resident of Walnut, stated that he has been looking for a site to build an office building near his residence. He has looked in the surrounding cities and did not find an available 1/2 acre parcel in a suitable location. The proposed subdivision will provide lots in the location and the size that he was looking for. Those in opposition of the projects. There were none. The Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Kaplan stated he was concerned with implementing a pedestrian program which would cross the site to enable tenants to use the surrounding facilities. He was also concerned with reevaluating the traffic study. He would like to see an update on the traffic study that recognizes that there are specific cumulative impacts, projects that were not proposed at the time the study was done but are now being proposed, and to recognize that staging is important so that the improvements are in place when they are needed and a procedure that monitors the trip budget. Mr. Reiling stated that he felt that he had contributed the necessary funds and had met these requirements. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Commissioner Grothe stated that the amount that the Zelman Company has contributed is not the entire amount of the cost of all the mitigation measures that need to be implemented. At some point the City will have to find funds to complete these additional improvements if other development has not come along to contribute their share of the cost. If the City does not have the funds the improvements will not be done, and if the improvements are not completed then the Commission may not be able to approve this project. Vice Chairman Harmony asked Mr. Kaplan as to whether this project was good planning. This piece of property was intended for a major tenant. He was concerned with what might happen to the marketability of the center. Is the applicant only subdividing because it is less expensive for them and will those smaller buildings be viable for the community and would they generate the kind of revenue that will pay for the share of the mitigation measures and their share of being part of the community. Mr. Kaplan stated that some of these lots will be recombined into larger parcels. with the smaller parcel size, the applicants have the ability to play the market whichever way it leads. The Commission was concerned with whether they will have the opportunity to review the development at the time it is proposed if they approve the subdivisions now. Mr. Kaplan felt that this should be held over to the next meeting to allow the City Attorney time to review the ordinance thoroughly. He felt that the Commission's questions should be addressed prior to approval to the subdivisions. Commissioner MacBride stated that he was in favor of the smaller parcels. He was also in favor of the provision for pedestrian traffic. He felt that the Commission should take action tonight and let the Design Guidelines govern the project. Mr. Kaplan stated that if the Commission acts tonight on the subdivisions, the resolution for both projects will be brought before the Commission at the next meeting. They will then have the opportunity to refine the resolution. t i 19 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Mr. Curley stated that after reading the City Council resolution, it is clear to him that the City Council intended the Design Guidelines to be applied. The process by which this will happen is not entirely clear. In his copy of the Design Guidelines, the site diagram for the proposed lots are not included in the document. The applicant stated that this should be included. Mr. Curley stated that the resolution as it controls this project will have to go before the City Council because the Commission does not know what the Design Guidelines specify for this Lot. The Council resolution states to apply the Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines does not regulate this lot. Therefore, the Commission cannot implement the Council's resolution. To implement the Council's resolution it would have to be taken back before the Council for the approval. This lot was planned for a large density. If this is the Commission's guidance, the map should be denied because it does not meet the density that was planned for this area. Motion was made by Chairman Schey to continue to the August 27, 1990 meeting and ask the City Attorney to come back at r -w that time with a procedure that is appropriate give the CC&R's, Design Guidelines, City Council Resolution and any other pertinent documents that may pertain to these projects if the Commission is inclined to approve the projects. Mr. Curley asked the Commission if they were still considering the Environmental Impacts of these projects. The Map Act states that subdivisions must be acted upon within 50 days after the environmental issues have been resolved or the application is deemed approved. The Commission stated that they were still considering the environmental issues. Motion was made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Vice Chairman Harmony to amend the motion to continue Subdivision 90-0052 to August 27, 1990 pending ongoing concerns about environmental issues that have been raised and development of a set of procedures by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. Motion was made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Vice Chairman Harmony to continue Subdivision 90-0041 to August 27, 1990 pending ongoing concerns about environmental issues that have been raised and development of a set of procedures by the City Attorney. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. The applicant asked that they be scheduled first on the next agenda. The Commission agreed to this request. 20 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 may. 4. Conditional Use Permit 90-0070, AR Investments, Inc. -- Family Dining Restaurant designed with maximum occupancy of 285 persons on a 104,700 square foot lot located in Gateway Corporate Center at 21671 East Gateway Center Drive. Mr. Searcy gave a brief description on the project. The restaurant does not currently propose live entertainment. The interior of the project is approximately 9,650 square feet. It is a single story structure with a bar and lounge area of approximately 1,425 square feet, a dinning area of approximately 2,340 square feet, large enough to accommodate approximately 156 guests. There is a mezzanine level of approximately 430 square feet which will not have any facilities which will allow for seated guests. Access for this area is taken from the eastern end of the project by an exterior staircase which will lead to the top and overlook the 57 Freeway. The site is approximately 2.5 acres in size. The pad is graded and slopes down to Golden Springs. This area is currently landscaped. Along the boarder of Gateway Center Drive. Pine trees are currently located along this area. Concerns pertaining to this project, as discussed at the One '{ Stop meeting, are compliance with the Development Standards for the Gateway Center Design Guidelines, setbacks, lot coverage, height (approximately 80 feet from the bottom of the retaining wall to the crest line of the structure), parking, landscaping, signage, architectural design, materials and features. Traffic and Circulation have been addressed. The concerns of the Fire Department were pertaining to the 26 foot driveway at the opening of the subject site unobstructed from ground to sky. This has been taken care of. Lighting for the site has been focused which will now allow complete lighting of all sides that have access to parking and pedestrian access. A sidewalk will provide access to the Days Inn. The project includes a monument sign at the entrance and flags and banners which will be located along the northern entrance. The Final EIR, completed in 1980, identified one restaurant as an allowable use within the complex. This is the only restaurant proposed for this complex other than the eating facility at the Days Inn. 21 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 One of the concerns of staff was that the mezzanine area was not taken into account as far as parking. It seems logical to staff that at some point this mezzanine area may evolve into a seating area based upon its aesthetic view and the way it will be used. If such a conversion were to take place, one of the conditions would be that approximately 8 additional parking spaces be provided to absorb the additional capacity that this area would create. Additionally, there is a concern based upon the configuration of the site, it seems to allow itself to an eventual lot split. Staff feels at this time, if the Commission desires, that they condition the project so that the lot will always maintain its current configuration. Further concerns are that under the current design it conforms to the landscaping or to the portion of the site to the west which is now proposing no development with the Design Guidelines that portion brings it up to the allowable 50 percent lot coverage with a 50 percent landscaping. Any lot split will then bring either or both parcels into noncompliance with the design guidelines. There is a condition in the CC&R's that this site will always be used a restaurant facility and for no other use. Chairman Schey asked the City Attorney if the Commission could condition the site to restrict the property from further subdividing. Mr. Curley stated that they could not. The subdivision process is set forth in the State Law. They could, however, place a note in the staff report so that if they come back proposing a subdivision they will know that there was a concern about doing so. The Public Hearing was opened to the applicant. Mr. Valasquez, Representing Dr. Omar, presented the architectural design to the Commission. He stated that the roof will be constructed of fire retardant material. The windows will be tinted. The entry will be paved with natural brown tile, the exterior will be paved from the access of the hotel to the main entry of the restaurant. The interior will be of natural browns and maroon. The theme of the restaurant is pseudo Moroccan and the banners represent this particular type of architecture. The application is for a 98,000 square foot restaurant with 285 occupancy. \ 22 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ( AUGUST 13, 1990 Commissioner MacBride asked how many banners are proposed for the project. The applicant stated that there will be 18 banners. Six of the banners will be facing the freeway. The banners will be approximately 2 feet by 3 feet and will be made of nylon. The roof materials will be highly visible but will not be glaring for traffic traveling the freeway. The restaurant will not have a dancing area provided, but they will have a room which can be used for weddings, parties, etc. Chairman Schey asked if the process is different for restaurants proposing live entertainment as opposed to those which are not. Mr. Searcy stated that he would have to research the Design Guidelines to see if they would have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. He would also have to determine if this use would be in excess of 99 persons. If, so they will have to submit a special request proposing a night club. If the Commission approves this project tonight, it would have to be with the condition that there will not be any live entertainment. Those in favor of the project. There were none. Those in opposition of the project. There were none. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Grothe felt that he would like to see colored elevations before making his decision. He was concerned with the mezzanine area being enclosed in the future and that the roof materials might create too much glare onto the freeway traffic. Secretary Kaplan stated that the Commission does not have the authority to approve banners under the existing code. Vice Chairman Harmony asked if the City Engineer has had the opportunity to review the project. Mr. Kranzer stated that he had reviewed the project. ,., 23 G PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Commissioner MacBride stated that he would like to see the colored elevations and he was also concerned with the banners. Chairman Schey stated he was concerned with the legality of the banners. He would like to see more information on the sign program and the parking plan. He feels that they have to include in the parking configuration the probability that the mezzanine area will be converted into dinning. Mr. Searcy stated that, according to Section 22.52.9.90 of the code, banners are prohibited. Motion was made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Vice Chairman Harmony to continue Conditional Use Permit 90-0070 and the Mitigated Negative Declaration to August 27th, pending the receipt of colored elevations, a detailed sign plan and a revision of the parking plan to accommodate parking for the mezzanine deck. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. 6. Zone Change and Conditional Use Permit 89-440, A request for a Zone Change from M1 (Light Manufacturing) to C1 (Restricted Commercial) and a Development Agreement to allow a 135 room hotel with a conference room, a 5,000 square foot restaurant, three retail structures totalling approximately 25,000 square feet and five (5) freestanding signs with a height in excess of six (61) feet. Commissioner Grothe excused himself from the hearing due to a possible conflict of interest. Mr. Curley stated that the Commission approved the change of zone to accommodate the project but the zone selected did not permit the project as planned and approved. The zone only permitted 2 story hotels and this project proposed 3 stories. The project is back before the Commission with the same development proposal but with a development agreement accompanying the Zone Change request. The project will be controlled by the Development Agreement which will give the City more control over the project. 24 a PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Mr. Searcy stated that this project is back before the Commission based upon an appeal by the City Council directing the project back to the Planning Commission to address concerns based upon intensity of use, internal circulation and an appropriate zone to allow the hotel to be constructed. This project is accompanied with a Development Agreement. This Development Agreement will govern the configuration of the project, architectural styling, materials, and specific uses that the project will be able to attract to the center as tenants. There is also specific timing and term of the Development Agreement which is very restrictive. When the project was initially approved by the Planning Commission, the project included a fast food restaurant, sit- down family restaurant, two commercial retail buildings and a 3 -story, 135 room hotel. As the project comes back to the Commission, it is in its previous form except it has slightly been rotated in ,its configuration to allow for better circulation and toladdress the concerns regarding parking and pedestrian circulation to the eastern portion of the project. The family restaurant and pad B have not been revised. Pad C has been changed from a fast food restaurant to a 4,500 square foot commercial retail building and the shop building has been 1 decreased in size to a current 14,535 square foot structure. Signage for the project is the same as approved by the Commission at the previous meeting. Included in the sign program are 3 monument signs for Pads A through C. The total square footage for, these signs is 131.25 square feet. They will be 6 feet in height and will have a 3 foot by 7 foot configuration. The Fairfield Inn will have 3 wall signs which total 172 square fleet. There are two directional signs for the Fairfield Inn.l One at the entrance of the project site taking access from Brea Canyon the other at the northern elevation of the Fairfield Inn. There is also a freestanding 39 foot high freeway oriented sign which will be 182.25 square feet. 25 '77717,17 77, ;Ilul ar,. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES t AUGUST 13, 1990 The zone change request is for a C1 zone. The Development Agreement allows for the three story hotel which is not presently allowed in the C1 zone. A variance request is not applicable because there is not the findings of a topographical difficulty and such which would allow a variance to be approved. The uses, as stated in the Development Agreement, are primarily C1 zone uses other than the allowance of the development of the 3 -story hotel. There is a reduction in the parking spaces which is a result of the provision of an access to the parcel to the north which was a concern of the City Council. There has been an access to the rear of the shop building that serves the 15 foot easement along the flood channel. Provision of these two access points has resulted in a reduction of the parking. Per the requirements, the applicant is still in excess of the required number of parking spaces. Shared parking will evolve out of the use of the hotel and the shopping areas due to the difference in the peak hours of the facilities. The Sign Program, as submitted by the applicant, will require that each owner to obtain permits through the Planning and Building Departments at the time that they occupy the buildings. Landscaping and open space for the project is approximately 22 percent of the gross square footage of the project. Landscaping along the flood channel will be implemented with 24 inch box trees and an eight foot block wail which will provide adequate privacy and blockage of any type of negative aesthetics that the neighbors to the north of the project might experience. The traffic mitigation is basically the same. There is a reduction probably in the intensity of traffic generated based upon the reduction in the type of uses that have implemented into the project. The mitigation conditions are the same and the Architectural composition is the same. They will be using the same colors and materials. Staff recommends review and will take direction from the Commission as to the conditions that may be additionally addressed. The Commission has received a copy of a letter from Commissioner Lin. She stated in a conversation with Mr. Searcy that her main concern, in addition to the letter, is the internal circulation of the project. The main entrance to center off of Brea Canyon is approximately 28 foot driveway aisle that will have to be crossed in order to get to the main commercial building. There may be some safety concerns pertaining to the pedestrian traffic crossing this area. The hearing was opened to the applicant. Ken Spear, Cahan Crisel Properties, the applicant, stated that 26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 they have undergone several changes and he feels that they now have addressed all of the concerns of the City Council and the Planning Commission. In converting Pad C from a fast food restaurant, they were able to lengthen the entry before there is any cross traffic. All of the circulation patterns are contained in one area without conflicting with the main entry. Most of the tenants will be front loading uses. There was still a concern pertaining to loading areas. As a result, they have created a back loading area which will enable trucks to make a 3 point turn and exit the area. They wanted to create an entry which would not create conflicts with the traffic circulation. They will install a continuous curb so that the traffic that enters will not have many opportunities to make turns in the entry area. The reason that they shifted the hotel was because they wanted to push it back on the site to allow for more parking. They have another scenario which will create additional parking, but will elements the continuous landscape barrier. They took pictures of the surrounding residences at a height which one would be at if standing on the third level of the hotel to show what the line of sight would be. They have traffic study which addresses all of the off-site mitigation measures which they are in agreement with. They have also enhanced the elevations to introduce additional architectural treatment. The building used to have a longer elevation which is now broken up with some accent towers. 27 ------------ "�� 711I Ili IIII VIII' I'lliVklC"'II'CI�� PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 The existing sign for the RV lot is in a similar location as to the sign that is being proposed. The Fairfield Inn will occupy the top portion of the sign and the area below that will be used for the other users. This is important due to the fact that the site sits considerably below elevation. They are proposing 3 monument signs not to exceed the 6 foot height limit for the three pad users. There will also be some signage on the hotel itself. The signs proposed for the retail building will be 2 feet high with individual channel letters and will be one of four colors. These colors are red, white, blue and yellow. All of the buildings will be of white stucco with blue and grey accent. They are proposing a metal roof on both the retail and hotel buildings. There were some concerns with a metal roof so they are proposing a tile roof as an alternative. As long as the tenants conform to the regulations of the Sign Program which requires signs to be-nogreater than 24 inches tall, individual channel letters, and one of the four approved colors, they will not have to have special approval. If they deviated from this criteria, they would be required to come before the Planning Commission. For the pylon sign, they would have to establish who would be the major tenant for the retail building and this would be the tenant whose name will �WUV be placed on the sign. Vice Chairman Harmony asked if the easement would have to be fenced off. The applicant stated that they own the property and the Flood Control District have an easement over 15 feet of it. Mr Searcy asked the applicant if there was a reason for the 32 foot height of the commercial buildings. - The Architect indicated that the 32 height limit was only at the towers and is not throughout the entire building. The average will be 26 feet and it will step down to about 22 feet. This is proposed to attract attention at the entry to the center. 28 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES / AUGUST 13, 1990 Rock Miller, Traffic Engineering Consultant, discussed the traffic study. He stated that they are down approximately 500 trips from the last presentation they gave the Planning Commission due to the deletion of the fast food pad. He is not concerned with pedestrian circulation. Over 50 percent of the demand for the retail buildings will be met by the parking on front of the buildings. These buildings require 4 parking spaces per 1000 square feet. Two of these spaces are provided in front of the building. The third space is employee parking which normally is not in front of the buildings. The fourth space is for overflow parking. This typically only happens for an hour or two per day whenever any individual generator peaks. Due to this, he does not see the need for the outer tier of parking or the need to cross the aisle occurring when the hotel is generating a lot of traffic. Moving the first entrance further back from Brea Canyon helps traffic entering the site. The off-site mitigation measures are identical to those previously submitted. Vice Chairman Harmony asked, since the whole project is centered around the hotel, what kind of traffic problems will this create and have they recommended any mitigation measures. Mr. Miller stated that this helps by allowing all of the parking to be used. It may somewhat decrease interaction between buildings. If the easement was not created to be open at each end, it would provide enough area for a two -axle vehicle to turn around in an extreme manner. It also will not be a problem for a vehicle to back out of this area. Each pad will have provision for its own trash enclosure. Vice Chairman asked the applicant if he would object to adding sidewalks under the freeway. Mr. Spear stated that he would because he does not see how this will impact the project. They would have to traverse Cal -Trans property and would have to obtain their approval to do this. Because they are providing an exclusive right turn lane into the project traveling north on Brea Canyon, they would have to come on the interior of the site and into the landscape area in order to provide a sidewalk. They could provide a sidewalk to the end of the project. He felt that the Commission would be burdening them to put a sidewalk when there are no houses in that area. 29 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Vice Chairman Harmony felt that these improvements will need to be done sometime and the Commission is taking action on the last developable site in the area. Mr. Spear stated that they are in agreement with the Development Agreement and the Conditions of Approval. The time table in the Development Agreement requires that the applicants complete construction work within two years. The rough grading of the site, in accordance with the approved plans, must be completed within 45 days of the effective date. The effective date will be the date of the adoption of the resolution. The resolution will go into effect 30 days after the second reading. Those in favor of the project. There were none. Those in opposition of the project. There were none. The Public Hearing was closed. Vice Chairman Harmony stated that he was pleased with the project and the traffic study. He felt that the sign was reasonable for the site. He would like to see sidewalks provided but would not hold the project up for this if the Commission was not in agreement with him. Commissioner MacBride liked the original entrance proposed for the project. He was very please with the entire project. Chairman Schey was concerned with the signage relative to what they have been working on with the sign ordinance. He feels that there are too many wall signs on the Fairfield Inn and that there may also be too many monument signs. He was in favor of not approving the sign program, subject to it coming back to the Commission for further review. He felt that requiring the sidewalks to be installed would be over burdening the applicant. 30 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Commissioner MacBride felt that the height of the freeway oriented sign was not excessive. The existing sign for the RV lot shows that there is a need for a sign of this height. Chairman Schey felt that maybe they did not need the freeway sign when the wall signs on the Fairfield Inn will be 35 feet to 40 feet high. Wayne Sant, Marriott Corporation, stated that they will have 2 signs that will be facing the north and west and one sign which will be on the east end of the building facing the freeway. Motion was made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Commissioner MacBride to approve the Environmental Determination and findings as recommended by staff. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. Motion was made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Commissioner MacBride to recommend approval of Zone Change 89-440 subject to the omission of the freeway sign and its reconsideration at a later date and approval of the Development Agreement. MOTION CARRIED unanimously. VI. INFORMATION ITEMS: 1. South Coast Air Quality Control District Report, a report highlighting the actions of their June 28 and July 6 meetings. VII. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Commissioner Grothe stated that he would like to make a motion to direct staff to draft a resolution eliminating compact parking spaces and making the standard parking stalls 9 feet x 20 feet. Secretary Kaplan stated that 9 feet by 20 feet would make it difficult to provide aisles. The Commission was in agreement to eliminate compact parking spaces and to further the discussion on the dimensions of standard size stalls. 31 i PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 13, 1990 Secretary Kaplan stated that the City Council has proposed to pay the Commission members $60.00 a meeting and has asked Mr. Kaplan to find out what the Commission's feeling is toward this. Vice Chairman Harmony asked if a memo has been sent to the City Council regarding the televising of the Planning Commission meetings. Chairman Schey stated that he had not but he will. Vice Chairman Harmony asked staff if they notify Jones Intercable of the Commission's agendas. Staff stated that they have not, Vice Chairman Harmony asked that this be done in the future. Vice Chairman Harmony stated that City Councilman Kim recommended that policies created by the Commission be numbered and recorded by the Council. For example, requesting that Jones Intercable be notified of the Planning Commission agendas. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, Motion was made by Chairman Schey and seconded by Commissioner MacBride and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 12:20 p.m. to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission on August 27, 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 S ey Chairm ATTEST: ❑ Sign Here ❑ Initial Herev Secretary, Planning Commission ❑ Notarize He ❑ Return 32 ❑ Post -if" signature request pad 7669