HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/25/1991CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
NOVEMBER 25, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at
7:14 p.m. in the South Coast Quality Management
District Board Meeting Room 21865 E. Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance
ALLEGIANCE: by Council Elect Gary Miller.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Harmony, Commissioner Schey, Vice
Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe.
Commissioner Lin was absent.
Also present were Community Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, City
Engineer Sid Mousavi, Deputy City Attorney Bill
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that they
also have the option to table the matter, and
require readvertisement when the parcel map is
ready for review.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
_-, Motion was made by C/Harmony, seconded by C/Schey
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to table the matter and
renotice at such time that it is suitable for
hearing.
Curley, and Contract Secretary Lia Myers.
MATTERS FROM
Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig, indicated
THE AUDIENCE:
his concern that he has not received notification
for the Oak Tree Hillside matter.
MINUTES:
VC/MacBride made various corrections to the
Minutes of October 28, 1991. However, upon
Oct. 28, 1991
hearing that C/Harmony had not received a copy of
the minutes, he concurred to continue the matter
to the next meeting.
"-"
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue
the Minutes of October 28, 1991 to the next
meeting.
CONTINUED
AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
PUBLIC HEARING:
request to subdivide a 5.02 acre parcel into three
commercial lots of 1.07 acres, 1 acre, and 2.95
CUP 91-10 &
acres, respectively. The applicant has requested
Parcel 22987-
a two month continuance to allow further time to
work out some fine items. Staff recommended that
the Commission direct staff to reschedule the
public hearing approximately two months from this
date.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that they
also have the option to table the matter, and
require readvertisement when the parcel map is
ready for review.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
_-, Motion was made by C/Harmony, seconded by C/Schey
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to table the matter and
renotice at such time that it is suitable for
hearing.
November 25, 1991
Page 2
TT 22102 CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding
the request for a parcel map to subdivide an
existing 4.39 acre site within the Gateway
Corporate Center. He explained that the City
staff prepared an application, with a
recommendation and conditions, for the
Commission's consideration. However, Mr. Charles
Blum, the owner of Specialty Equipment Marketing
Association, and the specific applicant, Brian
Stirrat and Associates, have requested that the
matter be continued to the December 9, 1991
meeting because they were unable to attend
tonight's meeting.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue
the matter to the meeting of December 9, 1991.
CUP 90-70 AP/Searcy reported that the applicant, Dr. Omar
Akbar, has requested live entertainment night club
use at a restaurant that had been approved under
CUP 90-70. The applicant, as was requested by the
Commission, has provided staff with information
regarding the entertainment uses. However, it was
anticipated that more extensive comments would be
received from responding agencies. Therefore, the
applicant, and staff, requested that the
Commission continue the public hearing to the
December 9, 1991.
CD/DeStefano specified that the restaurant was
approved by the Commission a year ago for property
located on Gateway Center Drive adjacent to the
Days Inn Hotel. The applicant has been
interested in a live entertainment permit for some
time, and has given staff a wide variety of
potential live entertainment uses. Staff is
requesting more time to conduct an appropriate
analysis so as to provide the Commission the
information needed to make a decision regarding
this issue.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Schey, and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to the December 9, 1991 meeting.
CUP 91-11 CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding
the request, from Best Western Hotel, to permit a
seventy-five foot (751) high pylon sign and a
seven foot, seven inch (71711) in height
9
November 25, 1991 Page 3
directional pole sign at 259 Gentle Springs Lane.
In order to gather more information to assist
staff in determining the proper height for the
pylon sign, Cal Trans was contacted for "as -built"
plans for the Prospector Road undercrossing area.
The Associate City Engineer and staff have
reviewed these plans and, as a result from the
estimated measurements, staff has determined that
a sixty foot high sign is an appropriate height
for that location, and is the maximum that the
Commission may approve in accordance with the
recently adopted City sign ordinance.
CD/DeStefano then read the statement, within the
description of freeway oriented signs, in the sign
code. He explained that the applicant is
suggesting that the interpretation of the code is
not necessarily the freeway as measured nearest to
the proposed sign. In addition, the applicant is
requesting a seven foot, seven inch (71'711)
idirectional sign to be located on Gentle Springs.
The maximum height permitted under the sign code
is six feet for that type of sign. The applicant
will be amending the request to make the sign no
larger than six feet at that location. it is
recommended that the Commission consider all the
factors, and approve a pylon sign at 60 feet in
height, and directional sign at six feet in
height.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
John Heamstra, representative of Young Electric
Sign Co., sign contractor for the Hotel of Diamond
Bar, stated that because Diamond Bar Boulevard is
only facilitated with an off -ramp by the 60
freeway, not the 57 freeway, the height
measurements should be limited to the 60 freeway,
and the 57 freeway disregarded in this situation.
He requested that the Commission approve the 75'
pylon sign, and indicated that they accept the
directional sign at six feet in height.
Wayne Tani, representative for Hotel Diamond Bar,
I
stated that a 75' pylon sign is essential.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C Sche
/ y, concerned with a possible future change
in land use, inquired if the sign can be approved
contingent on the use.
CD/DeStefano explained that should the land use
change, it would require a discretionary permit,
and the sign would need to be removed. If the
November 25, 1991
Page 4
Commission were in a mind to approve this specific
request, an additional condition may be used to
back up the concern regarding change of land use,
to specifically state that if the land use were to
change from lodging accommodations, the sign must
be removed, or made 'to comply with the then
current code.
DCA/Curley indicated that given the nature of the
site, or the existing development on it, any
change would probably ultimately come before the
Commission for review. If' there is a change in
land use', the conditions can be tailored, at that
point, to accommodate the particular parcel.
Upon VC/MacBride's request, CD/DeStefano reviewed
the conclusions of the visual test conducted by
staff.
C/Harmony specified that the sign ordinance
already makes special provisions for food and
lodging in terms of signage. The request before
the Commission is not a request for a variance,
but rather a CUP request.
CD/DeStefano, per Chair/Grothe's request, stated
that wording for an additional condition could
read: "The pylon sign shall be removed, or
modified, upon a change of land use to any land
use which does not permit such on-site pylon
signage, so as to comply with the applicable
zoning regulations."
Chair/Grothe stated that it is not necessary to
specify a 60' height sign, but rather condition it
so that the sign be 25 feet above the nearest
guard rail, of the nearest freeway. He further
suggested that the applicant either install the
sign, or apply for a variance.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by C/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's
recommendation, as amended.
TT 47850, 47851, AP/Searcy reported that the application is for
& 48487 vesting Tentative Tract Map 47850, 47851, and
CUP/Oak Permit 48487; Conditional use Permits 89582, 89583, and
89582, 89583 89584, respectively; and certification' of Master
& 89584 Environmental Report 91-2. The request by the
applicant is for a 120 single family unit
subdivision on 160 acres. The project would be
located east and south of "The Country", and
developed within SEA 15 and northern Tonner
Canyon. He presented a brief history of the
1�1
November 25, 1991 gage 5
project, as indicated in the staff report. As
requested by the Commission, the conditions of
approval have been amended and staff has
specifically addressed various items within the
conditions. The following are specific conditions
drafted for each tract: Item #8 is an outgrowth
from the prohibition of two lots being developed
on tract 47850; item #10 calls for lots #3, #14,
#15, and 019 of tract 47851 to incorporate the
minimum lot and street frontage of 100 feet; item
#17 specifically states that the amount of the
prorata share responsible for the applicant for
contribution in the Tonner Canyon Ecological
concept study as $20,000 dollars; item #23,
relating to the finalization of the development
phasing, is further expanded in exhibit B -1.b
Condition of Approval for hillside development;
conditions #10 through #17 directly relate to
development review which addresses development
standards and criteria for each of the single
family residences that will be developed for each
of those lots; items #17 relates to the
implementation of a lighting plan; item #21
relates to tree removal maps specifically
delineating which tree will be preserved,
' relocated, or destroyed; item #31 states that
applicants for tract 47850, 47851, and 48487 will
contribute their prorata share for the Ecological
concept study; item #35 relates to final map
delineation for all areas designated to be
building rights restricted; and item #39 relates
to the sewer discharge and content of the drainage
water that will result from implementation of the
project. In conclusion, AP/Searcy stated that the
conditions reviewed have been specifically applied
to each of the projects as appropriate.
Chair/Grothe recalled that the Commission had
requested that the "not a part" portion was to be
specifically identified, either as open space or
deeded as a park, with the intent that it have
building rights restricted so a new subdivision
could not be developed at a later date. Also, it
was his understanding that the developer's
contribution toward the Tonner Canyon study was
open ended, and they would pay whatever the fee
would be.
AP/Searcy stated that the only way that areas
labeled as "building rights restricted" would be
eligible for having any type of construction,
would be to come before the discretionary bodies
for discretionary approval. In order to do that,
it would be a revision of a condition placed upon
November 25, 1991
Page 6
a final map, which cannot be done''''4'hA
administratively.
The Commission concurred to accept the wording of
item #35. 'Also, regarding the contribution of the
developer's prorata share for the ecological study
of Tonner Canyon, the Commission concurred to
accept the $20,000 dollar figure after hearing
that staff was satisfied it was an appropriate
share amount.
C/Harmony requested that staff insert wording on
item #21, B -lb, CUP 89582, to specifically state
that the seven (7) Oak Trees, located in the
ravine, are to be protected. The Commission
concurred.
CE/Mousavi, responding to the concern regarding
the proposed roadway, explained that as staff was
developing the conditions for the tract map, it
was realized that the development of Tonner Canyon
may be inevitable. As a result, the possibility
of an access road from Diamond Bar Blvd. into
Tonner Canyon was considered. After reviewing;
possible alternatives, it was determined that the
road easement was the most viable alternative.
The intent is not that the road will be build as
the project is being developed, but rather that
the road, as a condition of the map, would be a
safeguard if in the future there is a need for
access to the possible Tonner Canyon development
or the proposed golf course.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Schey's inquiry,
stated that generally the developer contributes
50% of the cost of any public road abutting the
development area. In response to C/Harmony's
inquiry, he stated that determining who would pay
50% of the cost of the road, from Sugar Pine
through the condominium complex and adjacent to
the neighboring tract, will be determined as new
tract maps and projects are submitted to the City.
There would be substantial grading in developing a
road in that area. The road way would impact some
of the now protected oak trees.
VC/MacBride stated that there has never been any
discussion on imposing, on the developer, a dollar
burden for the plans, or construction, of a��,`
roadway. If there is going to be "discussion
regarding actual construction of the roadway, and LJ
the bearing of costs, it would be appropriate for
the Commission to know more of the relationship of
-_ 11 - a�,. .,"._-, -� ►, ..K�
,.1..., I w. 1'! E � ' -a I, 'I'u,.r h ,,`.. Ss sl Li,�16�.,. Pli�"`�+x'N�ln.hl�-; NH��r� )i �, a.v ��'t.�l
November 25, 1991
Page 7
the mitigation of adverse features to these
tracts.
C/Schey suggested that, since the Commission does
not seem opposed to a dedication of an easement,
or right of way, the developer pay an appropriate
share of the roadway construction, if and when it
is ever built, by requiring a participation in an
assessment district.
CD/DeSt fano explained that there has been
discussion regarding the .potential for two
linkages into Tonner Canyon. One is the potential
future Public linkage between Diamond Bar Blvd.
and Tonner Canyon Road, and the other is a short
term immediate impact linkage for emergency
services vehicles down to the valley of Tonner
Canyon.) The emergency service road is contained
within the conditions of approval. The future
public road is one that was not raised at the
previous meeting, and has been developed since
that time. The Commission appears to be
interested in securing an irrevocable offer for
this future road, that may or may not be needed.
If the Commission is concerned regarding the
appropriateness of the costs associated with the
road, or the appropriateness of the sharing of
those costs, the Commission could send a message
to the City Council with a decision package that
could include a time cap, a cost cap, or a
monetary dollar cap. The mere fact that staff is
recommending that an irrevocable offer to
dedicated be placed, and that the developer
contribute towards the development, does not mean
that the road is going in. It means that staff is
trying to plan for the future, if and when, the
road does go in.
VC/Harmony requested that staff explain the
condition eliminating two of the construction
sites.
CD/DeStefano stated that tract 47850 has two lots,
#27 & #28, at the intersection of Steeplechase and
Hawkwoodl. Should a future road be given
consideration, and should the Commission and City
Council agree that an irrevocable offer to
dedicate,be placed, staff is recommending that no
development be permitted on those lots, in order
to accompany a future road. In lieu of
prohibiting development, staff is recommending
that onellot be moved to the middle tract, and one
lot be m'ved to the most easterly tract.
November 25, 1991 Page 8
DCA/Curley noted that, in reviewing the Minutes of
October 28, 1991, the Commission closed the Public
Hearing. The motion made was to amend and modify
the resolutions, and bring it back at this meeting
for the Commission's action.
C/Harmony suggested that the Commission take
public testimony, regardless, since there has been
a significant change made which was never directed
by the Planning Commission. Also, since the
public hearing was closed, he questioned if such a
dramatic new, change can be added since there was
no public testimony regarding the roadway.
DCA/Curley stated that this particular condition
is simply looking for an offer for perspective
potential. It does not take or enforce any
action. It just creates the opportunity, if and
when it is deemed necessary. From the simplest
point of view, we're simply looking toward the
future by taking no specific action to define or
otherwise delineate.
C/Harmony, disagreeing with DCA/Curley, stated
that he sees it as a very definitive step taken.
The developer of the property is being obligated
to assessment districts and costs that are
unknown. It is very significant to them, and to
the condominiums and the neighborhood adjacent to
the property. There will also be significant
traffic impacts from the potential golf course.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Cliff Moukie, resident, made the following
comments: cutting the trees in the Diamond Ridge
Tract would make the area look like Pomona; the
Deputy City Attorney may have ulterior motives for
suggesting the installation of a roadway; and
Diamond Bar incorporated to protect the City
against over development.
Bill Gross, residing at 21634 High Bluff Road,
stated the following concerns: the project was
not properly notified; the roadway would
significantly impact the neighborhood; the
development is too high in density; there is no
provision for fire protection; and the developer
should be made to pay assessments.
C/Harmony interrupted the public hearing, due to
heckling from the audience, and explained that
present staff has not proposed the roadway, but
rather is reporting on it.
L
November 25, 1991 Page 9
,Toe Ingram, resident, made the following comments:
Judge Mills had assured him that the project was
to be approximately 50 homes developed and there
was no mention of a roadway, he did not receive
notification; and the residents will have to pay
for the road.
Dave Araujo, residing at 3206 Falcon Ridge Road,
stated that the schools are already overcrowded.
The City must guard against unmitigated growth.
Todd Chavers, residing at 23816 Chanuk Place,
member of the Traffic and Transportation
Commission (TTC) made the following comments: the
EIR should address the proposed roadway or
easement; it should be addressed in the
Circulation Element of the proposed General Plan;
he questioned the appropriateness of the Planning
Commission to consider such a roadway as part of
the development proposal; and the General Plan
specifically precludes a Tonner Canyon. He
suggested that the Commission separate the roadway
consideration. He would like City staff to inform
the TTC on the roadway so that they could have
input as well.
Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shady Wood Road, made
various comments regarding the destruction of the
ecological area. The development is not
compatible with the area and will be obstructive.
Tom Van Winkle, residing at 21103 Kerndall,
suggested that a moratorium be placed on building
until the General Plan has been adopted.
Max Maxwell, resident, commented that the project
is being ramrodded. He complained that there has
not been adequate publicity regarding the General
Plan or this development.
Cecil Mills, of Diamond Bar Associates, Tracts
47850 & 47851, stated that he objects to condition
#30, condition 135 and condition #31, as related
to tract 47850. He objected to approval of the
development standards in exhibit B -lb, #14b&c. He
objected to the issue addressed in the development
standard and the fire standard with respect to the
requirement of the relocation of the heli pad only
to the extent to make that objection of record so
that the owners of the property does not lose any
prescriptive rights we may have by virtue of not
raising an objection. He complained that he was
told of the City's intention to impose such a
public road easement on the Friday before the
meeting. With respect to the issue of the
November 25, 1991 Page 10
C/Schey stated that there should be language added
to condition #40, the requirements for maintaining
and designing urban pollutant basins, indicating
that these designs would not only be approved by
the City Engineer, but also meet the,requirements
placed upon the City as a co -permittee under the
MPDES requirements. Also, the pollutant basins
should be designed in such a way that they can be
maintained by City forces, and paid for by some
sort of funding mechanism.
Chair/Grothe suggested that condition #31, of
tract 47850, be deleted.
VC/Harmony requested that staff remove all
references of that roadway, and delete the
exchange of the lots, and the 1500 feet of
sidewalk on Diamond Bar Blvd, and include language
specifically preserving the Oak Trees in the
ravine.
•7 .^.t=�
roadway, he submitted a copy of the Robert Rohn v.
City of Visalia case, and requested that it be
made a part of the record. He summarized the
findings of the case to indicate that the
appellate courts of the State of California said
that where there is no reasonable relation,
between the required dedication and the use for
which the building permit was requested, it could
not be permitted. He requested that the
conditions relating to the granting of the
easement, for the obligation of this development
team to pay for any portion of such a roadway, be
entirely deleted. Additionally, he requested
condition #30, requiring the building of 1500 feet
of road down Diamond Bar Blvd., be deleted. He
requested that the condition, requesting two lots
to be taken from his development, be deleted. He
stated that the Commission does not have
jurisdiction over -the "not a part" portion and
advised that the city attorney review the land use
laws in that respect. He urged that the
Commission grant the CUP, the variance, and send
the tract map to the City Council with approval,
with the requested deletions.
Al La Peter, residing at 3020 Windmill Dr., owner
of tract 48487, stated that they have made every
attempt to make this development a good project.
He objected strongly to the roadway.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 10:05 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 10:28 p.m.
C/Schey stated that there should be language added
to condition #40, the requirements for maintaining
and designing urban pollutant basins, indicating
that these designs would not only be approved by
the City Engineer, but also meet the,requirements
placed upon the City as a co -permittee under the
MPDES requirements. Also, the pollutant basins
should be designed in such a way that they can be
maintained by City forces, and paid for by some
sort of funding mechanism.
Chair/Grothe suggested that condition #31, of
tract 47850, be deleted.
VC/Harmony requested that staff remove all
references of that roadway, and delete the
exchange of the lots, and the 1500 feet of
sidewalk on Diamond Bar Blvd, and include language
specifically preserving the Oak Trees in the
ravine.
•7 .^.t=�
November 25, 1991
Page 11
Chair/Grothe disagreed that the 1500 sidewalk
request should be deleted.
C/Schey noted that the dedication of the sidewalk
is not a new issue. The three tracts are each
individually conditioned to dedicate a total of
$18,000, and in no place is the length of the
sidewalk specified. The Commission concurred to
leave the condition as is.
CD/DeStefano stated that there are 6 Resolutions
that the Commission is being asked to take action
on. Two Resolutions for each project. The first
Resolution deals with the approval of vesting
Tentative Map 47850 and certification of the
Master Environmental Impact Report. The
Commission has requested the following: eliminate
condition #8, from the Community Development
Department; eliminate condition #31, of the
Engineering condition for that tract; recommending
that condition #40, exhibit B -lb, conditions of
approval for the CUP for tract 47850 and for Oak
Tree Permit 89-582, be amended to read "Based on
soils and hydrology studies, the applicant shall
provide a plan for review and approval by the City
Engineer, and the co -permittees related thereto
pursuant to the MPDES."; amend condition #41 to
read "The urban pollutant basins should be
maintained by the developer or it's successor in
interest in conformance with, and to all
applicable standards. The developer shall convey
to the City the nonexclusive right to maintain at
it'.s sole election such urban pollution basins in
the event the party responsible fails to so
maintain said basins."; amend condition #21, of
the Resolution regarding CUP 89582, to read that
the maximum number be 27, and that the specific 7
trees, that have been illustrated in a graphic
prepared for this case, located on the west side
of tract 47850, be saved.
Chair/Grothe requested a condition specifying
that, if and when there is ever a road in the
Tonner Canyon area, a third gate will be installed
at one of these three cul-de-sac, to allow access
through "The Country" for the purpose of providing
an easement for secondary access to the Tonner
Canyon area.
CD/DeStefano indicated that such a condition
should be placed on all three maps, with the
specifics to be determined by the City Engineer,
the Fire Department, and the Sheriff Department.
November 25, 1991 Page 12
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Resolution for Tentative Tract 47850,•subject to
the revisions of the appropriate conditions as
outlined.
CD/DeStefano stated that the word "vesting" will
be eliminated in the heading on CUP 89582.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve CUP
89582, subject to the conditions as amended.
CD/DeStefano stated that the next two Resolutions
deal with Tentative Tract 47851 and the Master
Environmental Report. Exhibit B -1a, the Community
Development condition, is to eliminate condition
18. The Commission concurred to leave condition
#21 as it is written. Eliminate the word
"vesting" from the CUP 89583 heading in the
Department of Community Development condition; add
verbiage in condition #40 identical to the
previous CUP Resolution; and add the new condition
#41 identical verbiage as the previous CUP.
Motion was ,made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride, and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve
Tentative Tract 47851, subject to the corrections
to the conditions as noted.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve CUP
and Oak Tree Permit 89583, with the corrections of
the conditions of approval as noted.
N CD/DeStefano stated that the final two Resolutions
deal with vesting Tentative Tract 48487.
eliminate condition #8 of exhibit B -la, Department
of Community Development conditions; as well as
the identical changes discussed previously with
the rest of the Resolutions and the CUP
Resolutions.
CUP 91-08
y
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride, and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve
Tentative Tract 48487, with conditions amended as
previously noted.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
CUP 89584, with amendment to the title and
amendment to the conditions as previously noted.
AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding a
November 25, 1991 Page 13
r�
r
i`
request, from the applicants Jung Ho and Yeon Ho
Kim, to locate and operate a family billiard
establishment located in the Colima Plaza, 20627
Colima Road. This application is a continued
public hearing from the October 28, 1991 meeting.
Staff has conducted a review of the project in
comparison with other similar billiard/pool halls.
The analysis has indicated that no other
jurisdiction contacted has placed conditions on
this type of use to the degree that the condition
have been prepared for this project. The Sheriff
Department has reviewed the floor plan and
conditions, and finds them to be acceptable.
AP/Searcy read the letter received from the
Sheriff Department, to the Commission. Staff
recommended that the Commission approve CUP 91-8
with the findings of fact and conditions as
listed.
Doug Smith, of Fieler and Associates Engineer,
prepared the application for Jung Ho and Yeon Ho
Kim, stated that the applicants accept the
conditions of approval as listed by staff.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
The following individuals gave testimony in
support of the project: Jason Yeon, residing in
Walnut; Mary Lou Streep, owns business located at
20627 Colima Road, Unit K, residing in Whittier;
Hal Caleeb; Don Schad; David Lee, residing at
27370 E. Lake Hanna Dr.,. Walnut; and Craig
Kurkalee, residing at 10951 Oso Ave, Chatsworth.
Basically, it was felt that billiards is a
gentlemen's sport of skill that is very popular to
the Koreans and can be enjoyed by everyone.
Sunny Martindale, residing at 1333 Rapid View Dr.,
objected to the project for the following reasons:
There is no need to have another billiard hall
since there is one 3 miles down the road; it is
inappropriate to locate such an establishment in a
residential neighborhood; there is a liquor store
that is easily accessible; and there is no
guarantee that it will attract the 30 and up age
group, as indicated.
r7 Steve Rosen, residing at 1349 S. Lemon, objected
f to the project for the following reasons: There
will be heavy gambling on skills; the area has
many children because of the school bus stop; and
the residents in the area strongly opposes the
project.
--
November 25, 1991
Page 14
Lewis Moral, residing on 1457 S. Lemon Ave.,
objected to the project for the following reasons:
There will be gambling; there will be a
maintenance problem; and the riff raff will come
in.
Art Fritz, residing at 20635 Larkstone Dr.,
objecting to the project, stated that the bus stop
for both High Schools are on that corner. There
should be sufficient control to guard against
loitering.
Max Maxwell reiterated his displeasure of how the
Commission is handling all issues, and ignoring
the public's responses.
Li Kon Pok, in favor of the project, stated that
children will not want to play billiards because
it requires high mentality.
Daisy Del Via, residing at 901 Golden Springs,
stated that the project deserves a chance.
Steve Salas, residing at 23554 Prospect Valley
Dr., requested examples of similar billiards. The
conditions should be in writing to assure that
they remain unchanged. The Commission needs more
facts. The effects of such an establishment needs
to be studied further.
Yeon Kim, residing at 23581 Coyote Springs,
applicant, stated that the reason he is interested
in establishing a billiard hall is because he
enjoys playing billiards.
Ted Benson, residing at 20617 E. Trust Court,
opposing billiards in his community, stated that
billiards has no socially redeeming quality.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Schey stated that there is nothing in the police
report, or evidence from facilities visited, that
indicates any rational expectation that the
business is a problem. He sees no reason to
disapprove of such a project.
VC/MacBride stated that he sees no reason to
disapprove the project. The conditions upon the
use of the CUP are stringent, and the Sheriff
Department doesn't foresee any law enforcement
problems.
C/Harmony stated that he is impressed by the
November 25, 1991 Page 15
police report. The applicant has a right to put
in a business that is acceptable, low profile and
does not create problems. The CUP already
prohibits drinking on the premise. He requested
that the CUP include a condition addressing
gambling and loitering.
DCA/Curley explained that the penal code already
prohibits gambling, and loitering. If the
Commission desires, there could be a provision to
the effect that all State, County, and local law
shall be adhered to.
C/Harmony requested that he would like the
condition to specify that the City is able to pull
the permit if loitering, harassment or fighting
becomes a nuisance. He sees no reason to deny the
project.
Chair/Grothe requested that the conditions specify
that pool tables are not permitted. He further
requested that conditions #5 and #6 be joined by
the word "and".
i
VC/MacBride suggested that condition #4 include
the prohibition of gambling.
DCA/Gurley stated that condition #10 should be
stricken in that there is no permit and there is
no defined special events.
Chair/Grothe stated that the concern was for
publicized tournaments that would draw large
crowds to public places out of the ordinary.
CD/DeStefano made the following amendments to the
conditions: Add "no pocket pool tables shall be
permitted on the premises" to condition #1; add
that "gambling is also prohibited" to condition
#4; link condition #5 and #6 by the word "and";
add the wording "Tournament play or similar
special events shall be required to have the
proper permits .. " to condition #10; and include
a new condition #12 stating that "the applicant
shall conform to all applicable State, County and
local laws in respect to the use and operations of
this billiard facility. The applicant shall not
permit, suffer, allow or tolerate the existence or
causation of any nuisance or similar disrupting
a influence as arises from the use and operation of
this facility."
DCA/Curley noted that on page 1 of the Resolution
in recital iii, there's a reference to 65302.5bi
November 25, 1991 Page 16
Mr. Salas, residing next to the proposed site,
opposed the project for the following reason: The
proximity of the project would adversely affect
his home and the surrounding area; it is
architecturally incompatible with the surrounding
community; the schools are already overcrowded;
and the project is too dense for the area. He
requested that the Commission carefully consider
the appropriateness of this project.
-i}
that should be 65360. On the next page, in
'1
paragraph numbered 4, the second to last line has
the same number, and should be similarly changed.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Resolution as submitted by staff, with the
amendments to the conditions of approval as
outlined.
PUBLIC HEARING: AP/Searcy reported that the application is for
Tentative Tract 50519, Development Agreement 91-3,
TT 50519/DA 91-3/ and 'development Review 91-2. The request is to
DR 91-2 subdivide a 2.3 acre site into six lots, and to
construct 80 condominium units within five
buildings, with underground parking. The parcel
is zoned for Restricted Commercial (C-1) and the
Development Agreement seeks to create a
classification of uses deemed appropriate for the
site. The Development Review application is
required to determine the aesthetic compatibility
with surrounding land uses. It is recommended
that the Commission direct staff as to the
appropriate action.1,
w
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission first
resolve the issue of land use before discussing if
the proposal contains the proper density,
architectural statement and proper package of
amenities that one finds in multifamily uses.
i
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
I Dr. Ron Crowley, residing at 1700 Rain Tree Road,
Fullerton, distributed notes, to the Commission,
highlighting the features of the proposed project.
He reviewed the following features: Goals;
suitability of site for residential vs. commercial
use;'design consideration; density; coverage/open
space; parking; access to property; amenities;'
security; tract map/6-lot subdivision; traffic;
sewage; fire prevention; handicap accessibility;
and economic factors.
Mr. Salas, residing next to the proposed site,
opposed the project for the following reason: The
proximity of the project would adversely affect
his home and the surrounding area; it is
architecturally incompatible with the surrounding
community; the schools are already overcrowded;
and the project is too dense for the area. He
requested that the Commission carefully consider
the appropriateness of this project.
-i}
-yun.�n•r.,-.,...m....�,�n:i�,..n.,�-,..r "--_•.-,� - "-- n�,� __—__,_-____ _-. *M.0 N, uanwHnW.�.pn�..iuNN.�wi...�..
November 25, 1991 Page 17
r—I
I
i
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Grothe stated that given the current
condition of the property, he cannot justify
changing the zone.
C/Schey indicated that he requires more time to
think about the project. He is not inclined to
approve a new 30 plus unit per acre project based
upon a Development Agreement.
C/Harmony stated that the area should be light
commercial. The project is very creative,
however, it is the wrong kind of use.
VC/MacBride requested that 'there be additional
study with respect to: What percentage of
commercial property available would be used if the
2.3 acres is used; what would be the difference in
impact if this were employed for use for offices,
or similar purposes which seems to be consistent
with the zoning and the growth in that area; and
what would be gained from the commercial taxation
fas opposed to the high density occupation. He
indicated that this type of high density project
may be the cutting edge of innovative development
that is needed for the future. He would like more
time to think about it.
C/Harmony stated that he would concur to continue
the matter.
CD/DeStefano recommended that the Commission
continue the project for at least 30 days to allow
staff time to hire a consultant and bring the
information back to the Commission. He further
recommended that the Commission reconsider
discussing this vital issue on the December 23rd
meeting date because it is a difficult date for
the public to attend.
Chair/Grothe stated that Diamond Bar does not
desire to be a high density City like Ventura. He
would not continue the project, however, if the
Commission is so inclined, he would request the
following: Some true renderings of what this
project is going to look like in the community;
the architectural style of the
y project needs to
I match the community; and information regarding how
high the project is as a residential unit,
measured at the average grade of the lot.
C/Schey stated that he is not favorably inclined
toward the density, as proposed. He would like
November 25, 1991 Page 18
P'
additional time to think about the project, ''''`
specifically'concerning if condominiums should be
on the site, what should there density be, and if
they should not be on the site, what is the
alternative use.
The applicant, Dr. Crowley, consented to continue
the matter to the January 13, 1992 meeting.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue
the matter to the January 13th meeting.
INFORMATIONAL CD/DeStefano distributed the final report on the
ITEMS: Economic Development Workshop.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair/Grothe requested that staff look into the
following items: The Grand Ave. apartment complex
Commission has too many signs on their lot; the gray block
wall constructed on the car wash project is ugly;
and the surface light fixture around the shopping
center around Coco's should have shields.
VC/MacBride inquired if the ecological study of
Tonner Canyon is now underway.
CD/DeStefano responded that a notice to proceed
will be given to the consultant this week, and
should -begin next week.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn at 2:02 a.m.
Respectively,
Ja s DeStefano
Secretary/P=anning Commission
i
A"tt�est :
ck Grothe
Chairman