Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/28/1991CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 28, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Lex Williman. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Lin, Commissioner Schey, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe. Commissioner Harmony arrived at 7:30 p.m. Also present were Community Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, City Engineer Sid Mousavi, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MINUTES: Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded.by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of October 14, 1991. NEW BUSINESS: CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that the Air Quality Management District's (AQMD) Board Room Resolution will be available for the Planning Commission's 91-14 public hearings. It would be appropriate at this time for the Commission to adopt Resolution 91-14 changing the meeting location from the Walnut Valley School District Board Room to the AQMD Board Room beginning at the next meeting. Chair/Grothe requested Resolution 91-14 be amended to properly indicate Jack Grothe as Chairman. .Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept Resolution 91-14, as amended. PUBLIC HEARING: AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the request for approval of a Goodyear Auto Service Development Center building to be located in the Country Hills Review No. 91-3 Towne Center at the corner of Fountain Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd. Staff has requested more information from the applicant regarding the architectural design of the project. The applicant was not able to provide the required information prior to the public hearing. As a result, the applicant has requested a continuance to the November 11, 1991 meeting. Since there will be no meeting held on that date, it is recommended that the Commission continue this matter, to an unspecified date, until such time that the information has been adequately provided, and staff has had time to respond to it. The hearing will be renoticed, and sent back to the Commission for action. October 28, 1991 Page 2 CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission open the public hearing to receive input from the audience, close the public hearing, and direct staff accordingly. The Commission has the option to direct staff to continue the matter to a specific date, or to take this matter off calendar, and request it to be renoticed when it is ready to come back to the Commission for action. The meeting' dates remaining this year are November 25, 1991 and December 9, 1991. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Sandra Jackson, a resident of Diamond Bar, suggested that it would be more effective if public hearings were noticed in the Diamond Bar Highlander. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Schey inquired how it's determined which newspapers are used to notice public hearings. CD/DeStefano explained that the Highlander, the Windmill, the Tribune, and the Bulletin are the four publications available. The Bulletin and the Tribune are used because they are the adjudicated papers for legal noticing. With the Commission's direction, public hearings can be noticed in the Highlander. VC/MacBride recommended that the Highlander be used, and included, for the publication of notice. Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to December 9, 1991, with direction to staff to publish the hearing date in the Highlander. C/Schey requested staff to examine whether the Highlander is an appropriate forum to do ongoing notice. CUP 91-08 AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the request to locate and operate a family billiard establishment in the Colima Plaza, an existing neighborhood commercial center. In review of this project, staff has identified a public hearing notice discrepancy and therefore, must renotice this hearing item prior to conducting a duly noticed public hearing. It is recommended that the project be renoticed for the November 25, 1991 meeting. x„ i October 28, 1991 Page 3 r I CD/DeStefano explained that the County code requires public hearing notice to a radius of 500 feet surrounding the confines of the project. It was learned that the notice was mailed to a radius j of only 300 feet. Therefore, it is recommended that this project be renoticed, and continued to the November 25, 1991 meeting. i The Public Hearing was declared opened. I Max Maxwell, residing in Diamond Bar, inquired if VC/MacBride had reviewed the site and had come up with any additional information regarding this matter. VC/MacBride stated that he reviewed the site, and has gathered information. After the public hearings, and when it is appropriate, the Commission will make a decision regarding this matter. Doug Smith, from Fieler and Associates, indicated that the applicant is willing to continue the matter to the next meeting to allow the hearing to k„ be noticed the required 500 foot radius. Jason Yung, residing in Walnut, in support of the project, made the following responses to VC/MacBride's inquiries: the establishment would attract customers that are close to the owners age, between 30 to 50 years old; it would be family oriented with no alcoholic beverages served; and for the Korean community, the billiard room is a similar type of entertainment as a bowling alley. C/Lin inquired why the age of the client is related to the age of the owner. Mr. Yung explained that the reason the applicant is opening this business is because all his friends like to play billiards. David Lee, residing in Rowland Heights, the applicant's brother, explained that the establishment is to be family oriented, especially geared to gentlemen, family type males. The game is for everybody, not just Koreans.. Jim Molina, residing at 20521 Clear Spring Court, located across the street from the lot, stated the following concerns: it's a potential meeting place for undesirable types; there's a potential for mischief and vandalism; there would be more traffic October 28, 1991 Page 4 noise, and more cleaning noise; and there will be an increase in traffic accidents. Phil Henry, residing at 20581 Calped Drive, opposed the project for the following reasons: it is a bad location for such a project; the area is already covered with graffiti; and it is misleading calling the establishment family oriented unless it is going to be limited to just families. Janna Flaghet, residing in Diamond Bar, stated the following: the establishment wouldn't really attract families; it shouldn't be located in a residential area; it will become a hangout; and entertainment should attract a broader range and not just cater to the Korean/Oriental. VC/MacBride stated that after talking to the present store owners in the area, they have indicated that they would rather see an active facility than a vacant area because a vacant area attracts hangouts. David Lee indicated that there is a difference' between pool and billiards. He emphasized that the establishment is not just for Koreans. Sandra Jackson, residing in Diamond Bar, stated that the question is not the game but the location of the establishment. She inquired if there will be restrictions to the use, if it is approved. She stated that catering to a certain age is discriminatory. Phil Henry suggested that the applicant be asked to qualify the term "family". The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Harmony requested staff to explain to the audience how the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process works. DCA/Curley explained that the CUP is an entitlement that the City gives, that allows the City to define how a land use will be conducted to satisfy interest of health, safety, and welfare. If the condition is violated, the City can take away the entitlement. The applicant must then reapply, or attempt to cure the problem. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey, and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the October 28, 1991 Page 5 matter to the November 25, 1991, with direction to staff to renotice the hearing. i Tentative Tract AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the 47850, 47851, request to develop 120 single family units on 160 & 48487 acres. The development requires a CUP to develop in a hillside area, a Significant Ecological Area (SEA), and an Oak Tree Removal Permit. The project consists of Tentative Tracts 47850, 47851, & 48487; CUP 89582, 89583, 89584 respectively; and Master Environmental Impact Report 91-2. The project is before the Planning Commission as a continued public hearing from September 23, 1991. At that time, the applicants had requested the Commission to direct staff to replace the project of record with the preferred alternative project, identified as Alternative 2 in the Alternatives Section of the Environmental Impact Report 91-2. The Commission had also directed staff, at the last hearing, to review the preferred alternative, and to address very specific issues including grading and slope stabilization impacts, park contribution fees and any alternatives, traffic impacts, emergency circulation, how this project fits into the grand �M scheme of the Tonner Canyon area and address what the status is of the Tonner Canyon Study. AP/Searcy reviewed those findings, as is indicated f in the staff report. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt the attached Resolutions recommending Certification of Master Environmental Impact Report 91-2; and recommending approval of Tentative Tracts 47850, 47851, & 48487; CUP/Oak Tree Permits 89582, 89583, 89584 respectively and to forward the project to the City Council for final action. CD/DeStefano requested AP/Searcy to further review the size of the lots, pads, and homes, as well as review the issue of the Oak Tree removal. AP/Searcy stated that the project proposes 120 lots on 160 acres, with an average .lot size in excess of one acre. The pad sizes average approximately one third of an acre. It is recommended that it would be appropriate to place a setback requirement on the pad to deal with the density issue. The configuration of the current design is flat pads with sloping terrains in the back leading to naturally landscaped areas. The size of the homes are approximately 5,000 to 11,000 square feet. The project designer' has worked diligently to see if they could cut down on the removal of the oak tree. All trees will be replaced at a 4:1 ratio. October 28, 1991 Page 6 PD/DeStefano stated that the Commission has received three resolutions from the staff recommending approval of the three separate projects. Contained within those resolutions, is a varietyof conditions from the staff. ' It is the Deputy City Attorney's opinion that changes to those ,'resolutions will 'be needed, should the Commission desire to approve this project. The attorney has 'directed staff to prepare separate resolutions for conclusive actions,'such as the CUP and the Oak Tree Removal Permit, and for actions advising the City Council, such as certification of the Environmental Impact Report and recommendation of approval of the Tentative Map. DCA/Curley explained that the present structure of the ordinances and the attachments is ambiguous as to what conditions apply to what circumstance. It is very critical to have clarity both as to the conditions and the variety ofactions, as well as to be able to respond to certain concerns with the findings. CD/DeStefano stated that staff wishes to correct the original recommendation, and recommend that the Commission provide direction to the staff to prepare the appropriate resolutions that would approve the project. AP/Searcy, responding to VC/MacBride's inquiry, explained that staff is in the process of contracting a consultant to prepare a comprehensive study of the SEA Tonner Canyon. CD/DeStefano, stated that it is anticipated that there will be a project for the City Council to award a contract, at their November 19, 1991 meeting. The study will take between two or three month's. In response to VC/MacBride's inquiry, he explained that the Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC) indicated that though the study was very important, the document could come after this project based on the belief that the project impacted a very minor portion of the SEA with it's characteristics, as well as it's downstream impacts. The SEATAC, concerned with future projects, wanted to be sure the ecological study was done before those future projects came before the legislators. . Cecil Mills, on behalf of Diamond Bar Associates and tract 47850 & 47851, correcting page 4 of the staff report regarding the removal of debris, stated that there has never been any intentions to 11 lk,� '��'Il�; �� - r 7 b, JR _ _— _ _ _ ,___— October 28, 1991 Page 7 remove any of the indicated material, but to store it on site and use it for composting and soil amendment. He requested that the broader Tonner Canyon Study be capped at a cost of approximately $20,000 dollars. He stated that he concurs with the City Attorney's suggestion, and requested that there be some consideration made to the developer's time frame. Dr. LaPeter, resident and developer of tract 48487, stated that he also concurs with the suggestions made by the City Attorney. He suggested that the Commission have a special meeting, specifically to deal with the corrections of the project, in order to speed up the process. Lex Williman, Planning Director for Hunsaker and Associates, highlighted the following items addressed in the project: trying to prevent massiveness; saving as many Oak Trees as possible; incorporated Land Form Grading; attempting to eliminate terracing by undulation in order to r recreate natural slopes; planning on recreating Oak, Walnut and the riparian habitat at a ratio F significant enough to make an immediate impact; attempting to meet zoning requirements; and urban pollutant basins are created to offset impacts related to the hydrology concerns. As an alternative to staff's suggestion, in the condition of approval regarding the size of the access road to the urban pollution basins, he suggested it be changed to a 12 foot graded, 10 foot paved road with a 25% maximum grade. He requested that there be a $20,000 cap to the comprehensive study, and that the applicant be allowed to work with the staff and the City Attorney to work out the conditions of the resolutions. C/Schey inquired how the urban pollution basins work. Lex Williman explained that the water will go into the basins, percolate and evaporate, and the urban pollutants will remain on top. The basins will have to be cleaned out twice a year and taken to the dump. One of the ways to get rid of the first flush is to run the storm water through the -'" vegetation areas. .,..C/Lin inquired if the urban pollution basins were created specifically for the needs of this project. October 28, 1991 Page 8 Lex Williman stated that there is presently drainage coming from the existing development which free flows down'into the Canyon., The basins will mitigate these existing conditions. He indicated, on the displayed map, where the location of the basins,are being proposed. The basins would be no bigger than an eighth, or a quarter of an acre, and will be as natural appearing as possible. Silt will be removed when cleaning out the basins and taken to a hazardous waste dump area. Per Chair/Grothe's request; Lex Williman indicated, on the model,the areas that the basins are being proposed. C/Harmony inquired when 'will it be known how many Oak Trees could be saved. Lex Williman stated that it will be known when the final 40 scale grading plans are developed. Since it is very costly, the plans will not be developed until there is a definite project to proceed with. There will probably be a minimum of four trees and possibly as many as seven trees saved. Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:17 p.m. The meeting was; called back to order at 9:32 p.m. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Don Greely, residing at 22635 Ridgeline, president of "The Country Estates" Association, stated that there was an agreement with TADCO allowing the remaining parcels access through "The Country's" gates, for a fee. The Association Board has decided to honor that agreement. A number of items were discussed with the developers: the development will be fenced around the perimeter; the Schabarum Trail is to be moved outside of the fenced area; if there is an interest to•annex with the Association, there would need to be a 66% vote of the community accepting the annexation; the architectural CC&R's are to meet the Associations guidelines; and problems of traffic congestion could be dealt with in the future because there are many options to mitigate the traffic problems. William Gross, residing at 21637 High Bluff Road, complained that he and his neighbors were not properly noticed. He made the following comments: it is the last tract of open hillside area; staff and Council are operating under the assumption that the project will be approved; there is a L -1 ". ' 4' ��., h,�P,i1„M�u", October 28, 1991 Page 9 responsibility to consider the future of Diamond Bar; the Commission should wait the 90 days to receive the comprehensive Tonner Canyon study; the developers have utilized high 'technology because of the waiting process; and the public is not attending the public hearing because they are forced to wait hours till the item is up on the agenda. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shady Wood Road, made the following comments: there are stili many factors that have not been adequately researched; heavy rains will bring an acre full of water down the canyons; earthen catch basins do fail and pollute drinking wells; there is algae that grows on the catch basins which causes root rot; if water is allowed to collect and percolate in certain areas, it could reach a level of strata causing devastating damage to flora and fauna; 175 year old Oak trees cannot be replaced; many animals on the endangered list are being affected; the EIR is incomplete; the project requires approval from the Department of Fish and Game; the Commission needs more time to review the document presented; and the Black Walnut is expected to be on the endangered list by January of 1992. Max Maxwell, residing in Diamond Bar, made the following comments: the project should not be rushed; the fencing will restrict wildlife; there is too much grading and earth moving; the EIR should be completed; and three months is not long to wait for the Tonner Canyon study. Janice Flaghet stated that the following concerns: she never received a notice on the project; the overloading of the already crowded schools; the increase in traffic; was unaware of a Tonner Canyon project; need more specifics regarding the additional access roads; the project should be continued until it has been properly noticed; and there are too many grey areas. Cecil Mills stated that they hope to eventually annex with "The Country". He reviewed their relationship with "The Country". Lex Williman-made the following rebuttals: the project was noticed the 500 foot radius requirement; the developer has suggested the Tonner Canyon study; the project implements the latest technology; the fencing used will not restrict wildlife; a great deal of the Walnut trees are saved; impact fees for schools are paid per square October 28, 1991 Page 10 j"jhi, Ih feet; they have agreed to mitigate the traffic problems; and the project was first presented two years ago, and is not being pushed through. He suggested that the Commission make a recommendation to staff to create resolutions of approval, and ask the City Attorney to review, with the developers, the conditions of approval. Max Maxwell stated that the two years the developer has waited is ,nothing in comparison to the project's effect,on the future of Diamond Bar for the next 20 years. He, suggested that there be another public hearing. William Gross indicated that the developers offer to pay for a portion of the comprehensive Tonner Canyon Study is on the condition that the project be allowed to begin, then the results of the study will be made available. Additional information is needed on many of the issues. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Schey inquired if the disposition of the two remaining parcels are addressed in the conditions. There is no reason why those properties should not j be dedicated, in some fashion, on a future date. CD/DeStefano responded that the two parcels are not specifically addressed. They will become a part of the project in terms of dealing with the Schabarum Trail, any fire access roads needed, and things of that nature. They could become a part of the project and fulfill the functions in terms of open space or park use. AP/Searcy, upon VC/MacBride's request, indicated, on the map, the location of the fencing. He stated that SEATAC explicitly requested that chain link fencing not be used. They suggested the use of the two tier fencing presently used in "The Country". Chair/Grothe stated that he would prefer more specifics as to what kind of fence will be utilized. He would prefer as little fence as possible. C/Schey requested staff to give a brief outline of the scope of the Tonner Canyon study, based upon the RFP. CD/DeStefano stated that the purpose of the study was to assess the cumulative impacts to the Canyon based upon all the known developments that were October 28, 1991 Page 11 I either recently approved, and/or contemplated. The study was not meant to be a scientific study attempting to mitigate the effects, but rather a cumulative impact type of study of proposed projects. SEATAC had no preconceived notions as to what the study's results might be and/or what the impacts might be on the SEA. The estimated cost is $24,000 dollars. C/Lin requested staff to explain how notification was sent out regarding the project. CD/DeStefano stated that notification was sent to those residing 500 feet from the project's boundaries. Additionally, there has been two or three notices published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, and the Daily Progress Bulletin over the past 6 months. He explained that the notices are based upon the latest property tax assessors role, which is distributed to the City six months after it is last updated. Chair/Grothe made the following comments: is there, any list in our requirements regarding tree �. replacement sizes; explain the s-etback requirement for the pads; is it a condition that the project needs a letter of approval from the architectural committee of "The Country"; which value is used in calculating the fees required for the fair market value; and there should be a clear open easement for an access gate. CD/DeStefano responded that the conditions state that the developer should be planting younger trees, 5 to 15 gallons, at a 4:1 ratio; the set back requirement for the pads is to avoid massiveness; the City does not get involved with enforcing private CC&R's in any part of the community; there needs to be direction from the City Council as to which land -value in Diamond Bar is used to determine the fair market value. C/Harmony inquired if there are funds for upgrading the Fountain Springs pump station, -and the expansion of the lines. CE/Mousavi stated that the County will be paying .. for the cost to operate the pump station. C/Harmony inquired how the monetary contribution to the signal at Shadow Canyon was formulated. CE/Mousavi stated that the proposal indicates that it will be a partnership between these October 28, 1991 Page 12 developments, existing developments, and the City for the installation of a traffic signal at Shadow Canyon Road. The cumulative amount for these three tracts comes to about $60,000 dollars. C/Harmony requested an explanation of the statement that the proposed sewage pump station will be owned by the City. He is concerned with the possibility that the City will be held responsible for maintaining the pump station. CE/Mousavi explained that generally pump stations are owned and maintained by municipalities. The developers, under contract, will be responsible for maintaining the pump station after the project is completed. Chair/Grothe, referring to the condition that lights be installed at the intersections, suggested that the City should look into developing standards I� for future street light in "The Country", if it is determined, in the future, that there should be lighting in that community. DCA/Curley stated that this type of specificity is needed in the resolution and the conditions. Chair/Grothe stated that it would be appropriate J that the conditions specify an exact amount indicating the developer's obligation to contribute to the comprehensive study of the Tonner Canyon area.. C/Schey indicated that there has been a rational and reasonable level of mitigation incorporated into the designs of the project. There should be a condition that the parcels listed "not a part" be dedicated to the City, or at least credited for permanent open space. There is a need of a comprehensive study of Tonner Canyon, however, the results will not provide information that is really going to give cause to modify the project in any degree. He suggested that staff be directed to craft the conditions of approval, with the various modifications that the City Attorney might deem appropriate, as well as modifications made by the Commission. C/Schey, responding to Chair/Grothe�'s inquiry, stated that he is willing to accept SEATAC's recommendation regarding the 4:1 tree replacement ratio. There could be an ongoing planting program implemented that would plant trees when they reach an appropriate size. _.6_ d A.. tin H -. �G-'": `.k6 n}NI SA,� �AE,}Ih: e.r%u�C{sP October 28, 1991 Page 13 Chair/Grothe suggested that the developers be required to make an access road/easement as a future option for the City. C/Harmony suggested that one more catch basin be built into the "not a part" parcel and be maintained by the Association. C/Schey stated that his one concern regarding the "not a part" parcel is to assure that there is not development pressure for the parcel later on. The parcel could be deemed to the City, or in some manner be assured that it will remain as open space. C/Harmony strongly requested staff to explore the option of another catch basin at tract 47850, bordering the parcel that is "not a part" of the map and inquired as to what actions to take to insure the protection of the heritage oaks on the 6 western boundaries. { Chair/Grothe suggested that one of the conditions should also require that the indicated Oak Trees are to remain. i Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to prepare the appropriate Resolutions of approval for the three tracts, with the amended conditions, as stated by the Commission, and direct staff to address these thoughts, and have it brought back at the November 25, 1991 meeting. CUP 91-10 & AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the Parcel map 22987 request to subdivide a 5.02 acre parcel into three lots of 1.07 acres, 2.95 acres, and 1.0 acres respectively, and to obtain .a permit to allow shared parking for all lots on the subject site. The site is currently developed with a Best Western Hotel in one unit and a restaurant in another. Staff recommended that the Commission review the draft resolution. Staff will bring the appropriate condition or conditions back to the Commission as directed. AP/Searcy responded affirmatively to C/Schey's -, conclusion that there will be no access from any of these lots to Prospectors Road, and that lot 3, in essence, becomes a flag lot. The only access that would serve this site would be the access along the existing building. October 28, 1991 Page 14 fJ +- k C/Schey inquired if there is adequate setback from the existing building to that property line. AP/Searcy explained there is no required setbacks from the flag lot access to any accessory or main building that are located to it's proximity. The } zoning on lot three would be C-1, allowing primarily light commercial office buildings. VC/MacBride inquired if the'31 'foot width, of the access, gives adequate legal width to sustain property development, and access to lot three. CE/Mousavi responded that the 31 foot width provides adequate access for two way traffic. The Public Hearing was declared open. Carl Cobin, residing at 26790 Indian Creek, the Civil Engineer on the project, stated that all the conditions have been read and the applicant does not have any problems with the Conditions of Approval. i C/Schey inquired what is the purpose for sub- dividing. Carl Cobin explained that it gives the owner the flexibility to lease or sell any one of the three 11 parcels. There has been no decision as to what will be placed on lot three. Wayne Tany, architect, also concurred with staff's recommendation. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Chair/Grothe, noting that lot three is currently landscaped, requested that one of the conditions be that it is to remain landscaped until it is developed. He also indicated that it is fine to have shared parking, but it should be contiguous to where the building is located. Motion was made by-VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to draft an appropriate resolution, with the conditions of approval, and brought back to the Commission at the next meeting, with the requirement that parcel three be maintained as a landscaped area until such time it is approved for development. Chair/Grothe called a recess at 12:05 a.m. The meeting was called back to order at 12:10 a.m. Id _.i1 October 28, 1991 Page 15 CUP 91-11 CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the request, by Best Western Hotel, to permit a 75 foot high pylon sign and a 7 foot high directional sign. CD/DeStefano presented the Commission with photographs, taken by staff, of helium balloons, equated to a 5' by 8' shape, and photographed at various angles from the 60 and 57 freeway to see how a 75 foot high sign would look like. Staff recommended a continuance of the matter until the applicant has submitted the requested visual study. John Heamster, with Young Electric Sign Company, the sign contract for this property, stated that f the Sign Ordinance provides for permitting a 75 foot high sign in a very limited area of the City. This happens to be one of the areas. The applicant is in a hole, and the 75 foot sign would merely place them 25 feet above the freeway. He submitted photos presenting a line of sight survey of the sign from various locations. He indicated that he could design an effective sign and stay within the specified 128 square feet. The directional sign F . has been reduced to 6 feet high and 12 square feet, to be located just ahead of the driveway. Wayne Tany, representing the applicant, stated that the applicant has waited three years for the sign. j He requested that the Commission consider approving the sign today, The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Schey requested staff to review how the sign ordinance addresses pole signs in uses that are technically not on site. CD/DeStefano read that portion of the sign ordinance requested by C/Schey. C/Schey then indicated that if the parcel map is approved, then the Classics restaurant is on a separate parcel. He inquired if it would still be allowed to be on the same sign. It would appear to be off site advertising. CD/DeStefano explained that if the Commission takes action on this, then it has the potential for being -'T implemented prior to the map being recorded. It then becomes non conforming once the map is recorded. C/Schey indicated that he is concerned about specifically creating a pre-existing, nonconforming use by default. He requested a definitive i Ii- -- a -- - — October 28, 1991 Page 16 recommendation and analysis from staff regarding the ramifications of allowing a sign for a use that is not on the site. C/Harmony stated that because of the late hour, the matter should be tabled to the next meeting. CD/DeStefano suggested separating the property into four lots, yet somehow allowing them to be a single site with the signage lot being the common area for the other three lots. Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the next meeting, pending staff's analysis of the applicant's submittal, and analysis of the potential problems of the subdivision and how it relates to the sign code. I ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 12:45 a.m. to the AQMD Board Room on November 25, 1991. Attest: J Grothe airman Respectively, Ja es DeStefano Secretary/Planning Commission 1.,R.,lk..__,.,,.. � .,;�.N.,T��. f ��,�;-��;,m M, 4.n':,i��