HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/1990CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
- SEPTEMBER 10, 1990
'\,o ALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Harmony called the meeting to order at 7:00
p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting
Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Walnut, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance
ALLEGIANCE: by Vice Chairman Harmony.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner Lin, Commissioner
MacBride, and Vice Chairman Harmony.
Chairman Schey absent (excused).
Also present were Planning Director James DeStefano,
Interim City Planner Director Irwin Kaplan, Planning
Technician Ann Lungu, City Engineer Ron Kranzer,
Assistant City Engineer Jack Istik, and Secretary Peggy
Sartin.
MATTERS FROM THE There were none.
AUDIENCE:
CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Harmony presented the Consent Calendar and requested
Item No's 3 and 4 be removed.
C/Grothe moved and VC/Harmony seconded to approve the
Consent Calendar with the exclusion of Item No's 3 and 4.
Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
MINUTES: VC/Harmony asked minutes of August 13, 1990 page 32, be
amended to read, "VC/Harmony stated that the Planning
Commission should follow City Councilman Kims lead and
have Commission policies, like Council policies, be
numbered and recorded."
C/Lin stated,.. page 1 of the minutes,, should show herself
as absent.
VC/Harmony moved and C/Grothe seconded to adopt, as
corrected, the minutes of August 13, 1990. Motion
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Subdivision VC/Harmony requested the report from Staff.
PO -0041 (Vesting
Parcel Map 22102) Interim City Planner Irwin Kaplan, noted the
Subdivision changes the Planning Commission requested in
90-0052 (Vesting the resolution:
Parcel Map 22178) 1. A 3 story height limit for the Gateway Corporate
Center.
2. A floor ratio of 50%.
3. A restriction in uses on site limited to commercial
relatedeuses.not industrial.uses.
Ar 4. The signage to be governed by the sign regulation
of the community.
5. A pedestrian walkway to facilitate pedestrian
`- movement around and across the site.
6. A Trip Allocation Monitoring to assure the center
remains in the existing Trip Budget.
tee_"ma.. �-�� ....._...P,.._
u 1177 71"171 "" 7-- �„ I1� �17
-September 10, 1990
Page 2
1. A review of each project by the City of Diamond Bar
�-
for conformance to the revised regulations
including site plan reviews.
Irwin Kaplan stated the staff has I met with the
representative of the Zellman Development Company and
related to the Commission the recommendations made:
1. There would be a 3 story height limit, throughout
the entire Gateway Center,with the exception of
a. Parcels 1 and 1A - AQMD facility already,
there and one under construction to be
an approximate 5 -story structure.
be Parcel 3 - the Days Hotel already built.
C. Parcel 23 - a vacant parcel opposite the
AQMD fronting Golden springs.
d. Parcel 4 - Dr. Omars Restaurant, at
staffs recommendation, because the
Commission approved at 2 stories.
2. The applicant suggested a corollary increase, in.
density to '65%, for these parcels for which 5
stories 'would be permitted. (a 65% floor area
referring to density and not to lot coverage)
3. The project will conform to whatever sign
regulations the City adopts.
4. No pedestrian walkway system was recommended
because the applicant felt the grade differentials,
`.
the differences between destinations, and the
handicap access requirements limited the usefulness
of a pedestrian circulation system which would
traverse the parcel rather than run along the
perimeters.
j
5. The applicant felt it may be appropriate to allow
the 5 story height limit to be exceeded for certain
parcels, only if approved by the City. By allowing
the option, the City could decide at a later date,
a 9 story building was in the best interest of the
City.
6® The applicant agreed each project would ,be reviewed
by the City.
7. The applicant recommended, whatever is Formalized,
should be embodied in the Development Agreement.
8. Staff felt it would be in the applicants and the
Cit y s long'term best interest if the appropriate
'
uses would be off ice, retail restaurant, hotel and
related uses, which states the intent and
encompasses the intent.
Irwin Kaplan stated other considerations include the
parking requirements, a meeting with the City Engineer to
review original conditions in respect to roads and
sidewalks, and the applicants revised set back program
for the proposed parcels.
tee_"ma.. �-�� ....._...P,.._
u 1177 71"171 "" 7-- �„ I1� �17
'September lo, 1990
VC/Harmony asked the Commission if they would like to
proceed and advised, in this case, it is acceptable to
proceed and 'the changes didn't represent much of a
divergence.
VC/Harmony asked the Interim City Planner what the new
map represented.
Irwin Kaplan reminded the Commission it is appropriate to
ask the applicant for specific information.
VC/Harmony, with the consensus of the Commissioners to
continue, asked the applicant to come forward and explain
the changes.
Byron Pinkart, Of Hill/Pinkart Architects. is the master
plan architect on the project for the Zellman Development
Company. He explained there was no original map of Lot
2, therefore, the setbacks shown are setbacks taken from
some of the other lots on the property and, in fact, did
not relate to the setbacks being established by Zellman
Development on the smaller lots. He stated, the setbacks
which are different because the lots are so small, now
have double sided lots with streets on each side but are
only accessible on one side. He explained the difference
between the two maps are; Lots 2a and 21 building setback
remain the same but the parking setback is reduced from
25 feet to 15 feet; on smaller Lot 2, 2b, 26,etc., the
building setback has been reduced from 45 feet to 25 feet
and the parking setback down to 15 feet; and on the
internal drive, the parking setback remains at 15 feet
and the building setback enlarges to 25 feet with the
setback identified between lots to remain the same.
VC/Harmony asked if the City Engineer has been able to
review these setbacks.
Irwin Kaplan advised the Commission it is not appropriate
to review the setbacks now. He stated it is for the
Commissions information only and not an action which is
part of the parcel map approval.
VC/Harmony contended the setbacks come under the
Development Agreement which the resolution only alludes
to or recommends.
VC/Harmony felt, Item VI on through the document, were
essentially boiler plate type of issues, with the
exceptions of Items XVIII and Items XXIV. He wanted to
deal individually with Items I through V, starting at
paragraph 7, Subsection I.
Irwin Kaplan specified Items 2 and 4, under the Planning
Commissions Recommended Actions, are inappropriate and
should be stricken from the resolution.
IT "IFT11177"'
September lo, ,1990 Page 4
As requested from the Commission, each Item is reviewed
for the Resolution,
I. The AQMD, Days Hotels, and the vacant parcels on
Golden Springs will have a floor ratio of 65%
and
all other parcels have a maximum of 50%, and should
also include the aggregate development for Gateway
Center should not exceed a floor ratio of 50%.
II. Height limit of aforementioned parcels could go as
high as nine (9) stories or 150 feet with the Citys
approval.
VC/Harmony clarified the proposed addition to the
resolution provides a mechanism for the applicant to come
back and ask for larger buildings.
Irwin Kaplan explained the addition allows for
flexibility and if deleted, future sites would call for
a change in the Developmental Agreement.
C/Grothe had no problem not deleting the addition to the
resolution but did ascertain it leaves the community of
Diamond Bar with a possibility of a nine (9) story
building without real work, from the developers, of
getting one through.
C/Lin pointed out the loop hole in that eventually the
issue will have to be resolved in order to obtain City
approval.
VC/Harmony emphasized, the importance of the discussions,
was ,to avoid extraordinarily tail buildings and to
establish the appearance of the property for the future.
He asked the Commission to delete the addition.
C/MacBride concurred with VC/Harmonys thoughts and added
the addition implies a willingness to consider it, and
suggests deleting it.
III. Trip Budget and Trip Monitoring Mechanism means the
square feet of every building currently on site,
must be known, and there must be a trip generation
character assigned to determine how many trip
search are generating, to determine how much of the
Trip Budget is being utilized.
IV. All development in the Gateway Corporate Center
shall be subject to the Citys review and approval
process.
V. All buildings, except duly noted parcels, will be
three (3) stories. Story is defined to mean the
floor plate of the first occupiable floor to the
major roofline. (excluding subterranean basement,
or a retaining wall)
September 10, 1990
�E
VI. - XVII. These are all Items requested by other agencies
routinely incorporated into the resolution.
XVIII. This should be deleted because it is residual from
the original draft.
XVIV. This is deleted because there is no proposed public
dedication.
XX. This is deleted because there is no public street
which intersects the Gateway Center Drive.
Assistant City Engineer Jack Istik stated, on Item 19 on
the resolution for a 12 unit subdivision, the staff is
comfortable with the street right of way width as
proposed by the applicant shown on the tentative map. It
also provided for 2 lanes of traffic and parking. He
continued to inform the Commission to strike Item 20, as
mentioned, because of the intent to post a 30 mph design
speed a Gateway Center Drive and Copley. He also wanted
a provision for flexibility if the building is set back.
XXI. The generic uses of the property is to be left to
the drafting of the Development Agreement with the
attorney. It is accepted by the Commission for the
resolution.
XXII. The signage conform to the Citys code requirement.
XXIII. Prepare a Development Agreement.
XXIV. Set backs should be deleted and the whole paragraph
is inappropriate for the parcel map.
C/Grothe wanted the pedestrian walkway addressed and
staff directed to work with the applicant to solve the
problem.
Ben Reiling, of the Zellman Development Company of Los
Angeles, stated the problem of a pedestrian walkway is
the stairways with the handicap ramps would be too steep
for comfortable usage. He added that both sides of the
cul de sac have sidewalks on the inside slope of each the
streets.
Mr. Pinkart specified for every 20 foot slope, a 250 foot
handicap ramp is needed, according to the State of
California, and to try and set stairs down the existing
slope is unsafe. He stated the existing plan is not
achievable and as an architect would not be willing to
design it.
C/MacBride asked staff for suggested language to put in
the resolution concerning the pedestrian walkway.
Irwin Kaplan suggested the components of the
resolution read: somebody would develop a pedestrian
September 10, 1990 Plage 6
linkage plan which is consistent to the State handicap
requirements. The objective of which is for minimum
distances between destinations, to review at such time
when grading plans are submitted.'
C/Grothe was satisfied with the components and the motion
was made, seconded by C/MacBride to approve the
resolution with the deletion of Items 2 and 4 of the
Planning Commission Recommends Condition, and of Items
XVIII, XX, and XXIV with the addition of the aforesaid P-,
walkway recommendation. Resolution #PC 90-0052 as o
modified and includes the mitigated negative declairat bn.
Motion CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
VC/Harmony entertained the motion to adopt Resolution #PC
90-0041 according to all the same modifications, as
previously stated, with the additional deletion of Item
19. Motion made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/MacBride
AND CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
Tentative Tract
VC/Harmony stated the request from Don King,
47722 and CUP/
representative of Frank Piermarini, for a continuance Oak
Tree 89-338
of the Public Hearing till September 24, 1990.
_(cont. hearing)
Motion made by VC/Harmony and seconded by C/Grothe to
allow the continuance' until September 24, 1990 and
CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
Draft Sign
-VC/Harmony stated, the updated sign ordinance, calls
"Ordinance
for a discussion to focus on the proposed sign routes.
(conn., Nearing)
The standards are to include basic sign programs, general
regulations and their variances. He reminded the
Commission, of the synopsis of the sign ordinance, mailed
out by the Mayor to various civic Organizations. He also
apologized to the various civic organizations, for the
failure of the Commission, to mal out to them the
Y
Memorandum and the Draft Ord nance as was requested the
east meeting. He directed staff to make sure every group
present receives a copy of the Draft with all the
revisions as well. He further requested staff a
Legislative Digest Approach be used, with tonights draft
being the standard.
Mr. Kaplan reminded the Commission the ordinance before
them is not yet an Draft Ordinance but a discussion
document. He stipulated it is a conservative document
cutting back on many types of signs now permitted and
prohibits some entirely. He stressed the importance of
the Commission, to understand the concerns of the
different interests in the Community.
Larry Weisman presented the Commission with the four
groups of signs that have been proposed:
'September 10, 1990 Page 7
1. The Basic Sign Program - this group can be approved
at staff level. They consist essentially of wall
signs up to a maximum of 100 sq, ft. per use; a
variety of temporary signs that can exceed a 100
sq. ft., including political, grand openings,
subdivision, and model homes; these signs are
limited to the number allowed on the site and the
must be non illuminated or lighted.
2. The Plan Sign - this group has to come before the
Planning Commission for review and approval, and
require a higher level of discretion in their
review. They consist of wall and window signs for
multi -use buildings or commercial centers; free
standing monument signs some of which can exceed
100 sq. ft. limitation per use; name plate signs up
to a limit of 30 sq. ft. in height
3. The Exempt Signs - this group does not require a
permit to be issued as long as it is consistent
with the limitations set forth in the ordinance.
They consist of traffic and directional signs;
warning signs; small building identifications; real
estate; official city entrances signs; and
incidental signs. There are limitations on the
number of flags and trespassing signs.
4. The Prohibited Signs - this group needs to be
discussed to determine exactly what will be
_ -prohibited. As of now, the signs that are
prohibited are:
a. off premise or outdoor advertising signs or
billboards.
b. signs without constant lighting prohibited
such as flashing, moving or rotating signs,
C. any signs that interfere with the traffic
control devices.
d. the use of animals or humans to detract
attention away from the activity.
�I e. loud speaker or signs emitting sound, odor or
visible matter other than the menu board.
f. signs with mechanical movement.
g. roof signs.
h. projecting signs extending more than 12"
perpendicular to the wall.
i. permanent pole signs.
Weisman summarized each commercial Center will probably
have at least one sign that will not comply to the
policy.
VC/Harmony asked if noncomplying signs would have to be
removed.
Mr. Weisman stated the issue would become a policy
decision and suggested developing an amortization program
wherebysigns must be replaced within a specified time
frame.
p, -
September 10, 1990 Page 8
Mr. Weisman stated the issue would become a policy
decision and suggested developing an amortization program
whereby signs must be replaced within a specified time
frame. VC/Harmony stated the policy issue, of sign
removal, has not been identified in the draft proposal
nor has the concept of amortization.
The Public Hearing is open to the audience to hear their
concerns and recommendations.
Dan Buffington, of 2605 Indian Creek, concluded many
signs will be nonconforming according to the draft, and
suggested listing all possible businesses and notifying
them.
Brian Styrat, President of Brian A. Styrat and Associate,
stated he is a potential new tenant in the City and is
confused as to which sign limitations he should follow;
the Basic Sign Ordinance, or the Interim Ordinance. Mr.
Styrat agreed to call the Planning Commission Office in
the morning to receive better information as to the route
to be taken.
Ben Reiling, of Zellman Development, asked if the
entrance into the Gateway Center is within the limit
proposed in the draft. He was assured the specified
development plan allows an over ride to the draft.
Jack Williamson, 259 Gentle Springs Lane, the Ramada and
Classics Restaurant, hoped there would be some
considerations for site disadvantage businesses to
advertise their business with signs about 15 ft. above
the freeway.
Tom Taylor, with --the Sealy Company, the commercial
leasing agent for the Gateway Corporate Center, wanted to
comment that a 16 sq. ft. commercial real estate sign is
inadequate and most firms wouldn't have anything less
than a 24 sq. ft. sign. He stated most firms would work
with an 80 sq. ft. sign and a pole sign of 5 ft. by 7 ft.
Don Nardella, representative liaison for the City and the
Council from the Chamber of Commerce, 23444 Coyote
Springs, listed draft problems he noted:
1. no definition of a political sign
2. not allowing for individuality such as twinkling
lights at Christmas and may allow a 30 day
exception without the permit process.
3. confused by site and off site signs
4. many small businesses couldn't afford new signs for
conformity
5. requiring street addresses for public safety
purposes
6. is it 25% of one window or all windows totalled
7. special considerations such as the Ramada.
September 10, 1990
Page 9
Bob Velcar, 2839 S. Diamond Blvd., stated 3 concerns:
1. if he follows the guidelines, he would have 91' high
letters for a frontage of only 22 feet.
2. Store location has an overhang and he wondered if
he would be allowed to hang a sign.
3. wants a back of building sign as well as a front
sign because of the poor visibility to the street
He felt the draft will be inundated with variances.
Ms. Marshall, representing the Wherehouse, notes the
stores poor visibility and stated each site should be
looked at individually.
VC/Harmony asked the Commission if there are to be any
changes and expects the draft to be modified.
Mr. Kaplan suggested the Staff take each one of the
considerations stated by the audience, bring it back to
the Commission with an adenum statement.
Irwin Kaplan stated the staff will analyze the particular
illustrations; -and come back to --the Commission with a
revised and improved ordinance for consideration. He
further stated the intention of notifying all appropriate
people a document is available ahead of time for their
review. The Commission will then receive a staff report
with specific recommendations, hopefully adequate to
accommodate the business people and the Commissioners
trends of signage.
C/Grothe emphasized the need to establish a minimum as
well as a maximum signage; was uncomfortable with the 100
sq. ft. maximum sign limit, especially for larger
buildings; questioned the 12" by 12" sign policy; would
like to see a clearer definition of a wall or a roof
sign; stated this ordinance outlaws all banners; and
suggested taking -.pictures of -.signs around town and :,trite
down the dimensions to get a clearer picture of what the
Commission will be approving.
VC/Harmony directed staff to develop an adenum, taking
into account the public comments and the Commissioners
comments, to be continued on October 8, 1990.
C/Lin warned the Commission they will hear a lot of
complaints from people against the Draft Ordinance
C/MacBride stated he was interested in business addresses
for the public safety.
September io, 1990 Page 10
WFORMATION ITEMS:
locus Draft EIR VC/Harmony stated it to be a comprehensive
"For Tentative environmental report for tentative tract application
Tract 45290 and for 29 lots on 20.67 acres located north of Autumn Glow
Oak Tree Permit and Fern Hallow Drives. He informed the Commission
87-549. the technical reports are available at City Hall.
James DeStefano requested a date be set for review of the
EIR and the Oak Tree Permit for the various tracts
identified. He asked the Commission to allow staff to
determine the next Planning Commission Hearing date, in
order to allow them to review and reevaluate the work
load and individual assignments.
VC/Harmony directed staff, with the consensus of the
Commission, to establish the Public Hearing date.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Grothe suggested, to the Commission, to develop a
master list of issues, define a standard for our
community, with the help of input from the engineering
department, fire and police department, etc., and follow
those standards. He suggested Study Sessions dealing
with individual departments to develop standards, before
issues come before the Commission.
James DeStefano proposed forming a memorandum, outlining
the staffs thoughts, on these issues, and possibly
suggesting categories for the Study Sessions. He
requested the Commission give him their list, on the
types of topics, that interest them, to help formulate a
master list of prioritized issues.
VC/Harmony noted the City Council hired a consultant firm
to create aDevelopment Code. He would like a good
definition of the Development Code and what it entails,
to help the Commission establish policy.
The Commission is reminded of the General Planning
Committee Meeting on September 22, 1990 at the Ramada.
Chair/Schey is concerned about not having the present
minutes available to confer with and is willing to allow
staff to condense the minutes and develop a new style to
assure the minutes are presented on time.
Ji
'September 10, 1990
Page 11
C/Grothe asked if the Commission is through with
processing projects originally filed with the county.
James DeStefano replied that some sub divisions, approved
under the County, may have received extensions.
C/Grothe would like a standard staff report package
developed with the necessary information.
James DeStefano will be developing a new package composed
of staff reports and information, hopefully to the liking
of the Commission.
VC/Harmony commended Irwin Kaplan for his talented,
skilled, and wonderful job as Planning Director and
requested the commendation be recorded in the minutes.
Irwin Kaplan appreciated the commendations from the
Commission and stated they are left in good hands.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by Commissioner
Grothe, and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
10:15 P.M.
Saha• RAIL H/41�op
Chairman Vic
`,,,,,�,- Attest :
4W11
Jaes DeStefano
Secretary/PlAnning Commission