HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/9/1991CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DECEMBER 9, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at
7:07 p.m. in the South Coast Air 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 Mr. Blum.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Harmony, Commissioner Flamenbaum,
Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe.
Commissioner Schey arrived at 7:45 p.m.
Also present were Community Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City
Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz
Myers.
ry MATTERS FROM Dan Buffington, residing at 2605 Indian Creek,
THE AUDIENCE: welcomed Commissioner Bruce Flamenbaum to the
.a Planning Commission.
The Commission also welcomed Commissioner
Flamenbaum.
MINUTES: C/Harmony requested that the minutes be amended on
page 11 to delete paragraph 6 & 7; and page 13 to
Oct. 28, 1991 add to paragraph 6, "...and inquired as to what
action to take to ensure the protection of the
heritage oaks on the western boundaries.".
VC/MacBride requested that the minutes be amended
on page 7, third paragraph, to read °'...a 25%
maximum grade."
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of
October 28, 1991, as amended. C/Flamenbaum
abstained.
Nov. 25, 1991 C/Harmony requested that the minutes be amended on
page 8, last paragraph, to indicate the "present"
staff.
December 9, 1991 Page 2
I--,
VC/MacBride requested that the minutes be amended
on page 7, third paragraph, to clarify irrevocable
offer "to dedicate".
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of
November 25, 1991, as amended. C/Flamenbaum
abstained.
CONTINUED
CD/De5tefano addressed the Commission regarding
PUBLIC HEARING:
the application for Tentative Parcel Map NO.
22102, to subdivide an existing 4.39 acre parcel,
TT Parcel Map
located at 1575 S. Valley Vista Drive in the
122102
Gateway Corporate Center, into (2) parcels. The
site currently contains a two story office
building. The Planning Commission had approved
the tentative parcel map, with conditions, on
September 10, 1990. However, in reviewing -he
conditions, staff found inconsistencies and, along
with the applicant, wish to resolve them. At this
hearing, staff and the applicant wish to present
I
the same map with a list of new conditions. It is
w,-
recommended that the Planning Commission adopt
Resolution 91 -XX recommending approval to the City
Council for Tentative Parcel Map NO. 22102, w�th
Findings of Fact, the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and listed conditions.
C/Flamenbaum, noting that there is about 100 feet
of sidewalk missing from the indicated parcel,
inquired if it would be appropriate to amend
condition #17 to specify that the curb, gutter,
sidewalk, or pavement must be repaired, and
installed where needed.
CD/DeStefano stated that, should the Commission
desire, it would be appropriate to add a new
condition to indicate that the applicant shall
install a sidewalk. However, since the sidewalk
is required to be installed when the development
takes place, it would be appropriate to add the
condition when the project comes in for Planning
Commission review.
Chair/Grothe stated that, to his understanding of
the unilateral contract with the Gateway Corporate
Center, parcels meeting their guidelines do not
December 9, 1991 Page 3
have to come before the Planning Commission for
approval.
CD/De5tefano indicated that, to his recollection,
the City Council accepted the unilateral contract,
with a clause within the Resolution of the Council
stating that the projects had to go through the
City's review process.
Chair/Grothe suggested that staff determine if
there is such a clause, and if not, a provision
should be added that the remainder parcel shall
come under the Development Review of the City.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Charles Blum, president of Specialty Equipment
Market Association, representing the applicant,
stated that they desire to subdivide the parcel
with the objective of selling that parcel of land
in the future. He indicated that they have no
qualms with staff's Exhibit "B" as part of the
Resolution, or to an additional condition of
completing a sidewalk.
CD/DeStefano stated that condition #3 should be
deleted because Gateway Corporate Center is
already a participant in Lighting and Landscaping
District #38.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
DCA/Curley recommended the following changes to
the Resolution: correct all recited dates of
November 25, 1991, as the hearing date, to
December 9, 1991; add the wording "Recommends that
the City Council find...", to finding #2 of the
Resolution; add the wording "Recommendation that
the City Council find..." to finding #3 of the
Resolution; delete findings 5.(h),(i),and (j) of
the Resolution; delete finding #6 of the
Resolution; and add to (b), of The Planning
:
Commission Secretary shall, wording "...transmit
to the City Clerk for agendizing on the Council's
agenda.. "
1
I
December 9, 1991 Page 4
CD/De5tefano stated that, if the Commission so
agrees, it would be appropriate to add a condition
#24 stating that the future development of the
remainder parcel shall be subject to the City's
Development Review process, to be in accordance to
the City Council's Development Review Resolution
#5-1990.
C/Harmony indicated that, as a general policy, he
has a predilection against approving plans for lot
split purposes without a development plan
accompanying it. However, since the application
was previously approved, and the Gateway
Corporate Center has a very heavy emphasis on
architectural review, he is inclined to approve
the Resolution.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Resolution as recommended by staff, with the
T amendments recommended by the City Attorney, and
with the addition of condition #24.
CUP 90-70 AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
request to permit a nightclub, with live
entertainment, within the previously approved
restaurant located in the Gateway Corporate Center
at 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive. The Commission
had previously granted a continuance to the
December 9, 1991 hearing so that additional
comments could be received from responding
agencies, and research of other jurisdictions
could be completed. At the time of this report,
the requested information has not been acquired,
nor has the applicant specified who will be the
restauranteur. Staff recommended that the
Commission direct staff to table the project,
complete the review of other cities, and bring the
project back to the Commission at the conclusion
of the research, and re -notice of the requested
action.
DCA/Curley recommended that the Commission may
prefer continuing the matter to a date certain, as
opposed to tabling the matter, with direction to
the applicant that the requested information must
be submitted to staff, in a timely manner to allow
E
December 9, 1991 Page 5
for processing, or the project would be denied
without prejudice.
C/Schey arrived at the meeting at 7:45 p.m..
Motion was made by C/Harmony, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED to continue the matter to
the January 13th meeting, with notice to the
applicant that unless there's further information
forthcoming, the Commission will entertain denial.
C/Schey abstained.
Development AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
Review 91-3 request for approval of a Goodyear Auto Service
Center building to be located in the Country Hills
Towne Center. The applicant has not been able to
provide the information needed in order to conduct
the public hearing. As a result, staff
recommended that the Commission continue the
hearing to the January 13th meeting.
In response to C/Schey's inquiry, AP/Searcy stated
that, basically, all the essential components of
the application needs be provided, such as the
elevation which would delineate the square footage
of the structure, the height of the structure, and
the materials board. The information was
submitted with the application originally,
however, they have been revised by the applicant
and never resubmitted.
C/Harmony indicated to staff that he would be
interested in seeing how the service bays face the
shopping center, and it's appearance to the rest
of the center looking on the project.
Chair/Grothe concurred with the request.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Schey, concerned with the number of continuances
requested, suggested that the applicant be given a
deadline for getting the information to staff.
CD/DeStefano suggested that, rather than set a
specific deadline, staff will work with the
` applicant to make sure the materials arrive on
,December 9, 1991 Page 6
time, and convey the concerns of the Planning
Commission towards resolving this case.
C/Flamenbaum inquired if the Commission could
create a policy indicating that, barring good
reason, one continuance is all an applicant can
request.
DCA/Curley responded that, if desired, the
Commission could establish a generic policy giving
general direction to staff to convey to the
applicants that the Commission frowns on extensive
continuances. However, the establishment of a
definite policy is problematic given the
circumstances that can result in development.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue
the matter to the January 13th meeting, with the
understanding that the requested information is to
be ready for review substantively before the
January 13th date, or the application will be
considered for denial.
PUBLIC HEARING: PT/Lungu reported that the Commission, at the
October 14th meeting, directed staff to have the
Zoning Code draft tree preservation ordinance reformatted for
Amendment 91-5 the December 9th meeting. Staff recommended that
the Commission adopt a Resolution recommending
that the City Council approve the Tree
Preservation Ordinance.
VC/MacBride, concerned that a situation may arise
whereas a developer may choose to pay the fine for
destroying a forest of trees rather than hold up
development, requested that there be definitive
language in the ordinance indicating that there is
an enormous penalty for such a situation. The
intent of such language would be to influence the
developers to think long and hard before cutting
down a forest of trees.
C/Flamenbaum noted that section 5, of the
ordinance, under Tagging, already indicates that
the City would have a Civil right to sue for
abatement of a nuisance, and damages that result.
--' T r.-. -r—T—ri J 11 . 1 1 e i 111 — - — —71
December 9, 1991 Page 7
C/Harmony, concurring with VC/MacBride, stated
that additional language, emphasizing the desires
of the Commission, helps establish policy for
future administrations and" city attorneys to
pursue these cases when they happen.
DCA/Curley stated that provisions in nuisance
abatement type ordinance is already structured, in
essence, to say: "The City Attorney's office is
hereby directed to institute proceedings."
Wording to the effect, " and shall seek to
obtain remedial measures, including restitution or
tree replacement.", could be added to the
provision and could be appropriately placed in
Section 5, of the ordinance, to amplify the
intent. However, the overall legal impact may not
be effective. He reminded the Commission that,
procedurally, the Council must first authorize,
and direct any and all litigation to proceed.
C/Schey suggested, and DCA/Curley concurred, that
it may be more appropriate to place a policy
statement, in the beginning of the Ordinance,
under the Purpose and Intent Section, indicating
that it is the intent of the City to preserve
these trees, and we will pursue to the greatest
extent.
VC/MacBride, in reference to the tree guidelines
manual, inquired if a statement could be
incorporated into the ordinance stating that each
applicant, under this section, shall be furnished,
by the City, with a copy of the guidelines.
DCA/Curley stated that, since the City does not
have certified arborists that can examine each
individual tree and give instructions as to it's
proper care, it is strongly advised that these
guidelines are eliminated to avoid future
potential liability.
C/Schey inquired if it is the City Attorney's
recommendation that the City leave the care and
feeding of the trees as the responsibility of the
� owners, or responsible party, to keep them alive.
f The City would then intervene if the trees should
die. DCA/Curley concurred.
l �eZ
December 9, 1991 Page 8
Chair/Grothe questioned why a disclaimer could not
be placed in the ordinance, stating that the
guidelines is just information gathered to help in
caring for a tree, and is not the full direction
of the City.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission may opt
to send the guidelines to the City Council, with
the understanding of the City Attorney's office's
concerns, and including the Commission's comments,
but ultimately letting the City Council decide
whether or not the guidelines are an appropriate
attachment to the ordinance. The Commission
concurred.
C/Schey, concerned with section 22.56.2080
Definition (J) of the ordinance, stated that, to
his recollection, it was the Commission's intent
to establish an ordinance that preserves all Oak,
Sycamore, Walnut, and Pepper trees, regardless of
size. There seems to be an inconsistency.
Chair/Grothe stated that he was under the
impression that there would be a provision
exempting residential homeowners from the
preservation provision.
CD/DeStefano reminded the Commission that they had
developed the criteria for the size of the tree
appropriate for preservation, after discussion on
the matrix presented by staff, which included
information as to what some other cities in the
immediate area were doing.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Don Schad made the following comments: There are
other significant trees based upon size and
heritage, other than the four indicated trees,
that should be considered for preservation; the
height and circumference limit is bearable as
stated in the Definition section (J).1, but he
suggested adding the word "dominance" after the
word "survival" to (J)3., page 3; a relocated tree
should be given the same care and consideration as
a brand new tree; there is not a specific chart on
tree sizes; and pages 1 through 11, of the
December 9, 1991
Page 9
ordinance, does not identify dimensional sizes for
tree replacement.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Grothe stated that he was under the
impression that the draft tree ordinance referred
to a chart of sizes and quantities regarding tree
replacement.
DCA/Curley suggested that there should be
flexibility on tree replacement ratios because
site sizes may vary, and the trees may or may not
fit as directed. The replacement ratio is
currently at the Director's discretion, so that he
may analyze the site and either determine the
rational replacement ratio, or refer it to the
Commission.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that section 22.56.2160
Tree Replacement Standards item A, should read,
... on the basis of the Tree Report.".
Chair/Grothe stated that he would prefer the
ordinance to include specific replacement
quantities or sizes so that when the developer
pulls a permit he is immediately made aware of the
guidelines he must follow.
C/Schey stated his concern that, the way the
ordinance is written, all tree removal permits
would come before the Director and would not come
before the Commission unless it is under appeal.
CD/DeStefano recommended that, in order to clarify
that the Planning Commission should review not
only the tree removal, but all other environmental
aspects of a project at the time that they are
reviewing the specific project, subsection E.
should be added to section 22.56.2100 Permit
Required, stating that, "The Director, in his/or
her discretion, shall refer the decision to the
Planning Commission in the event that such
application is in conjunction with the
discretionary approval over which the Planning
Commission has jurisdiction.".
December 9, 1991 Page 10
C/Schey, regarding the drafting of the tree
report, noted that a situation could arise whereas
the impartiality of the arborist ' could be
questioned. He suggested that the arborist be
employed by the City to ensure that he/she has the
City's, and the tree's, best interest at heart.
DCA/Curley concurred that the present structure of
the ordinance looks to the applicant to employ the
arborist. It could be modified whereas the
applicant up fronts the cost, and the City would
then employ the arborist who would analyze the
situation impartially.
C/Harmony noted that there is no provision in the
ordinance protecting heritage trees that are
significant because of size, age, or historical
event, other than the four trees indicated.
DCA/Curley suggested that the Commission may
consider separating cultural significant
attributes, versus the broader environmental
significance, and designating those attributes
within a separate culturally significant
ordinance.
CD/DeStefano indicated that, at this point and
time, staff needs specific direction from the
Commission as to how the Commission wishes staff
to proceed on this issue. It is difficult for
staff to determine historical events recognized by
the City.
C/Harmony stated that the historical value can be
certified by the Planning Commission and/or the
City Council, or the historical committee being
formed. He would like heritage trees protected in
the ordinance.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the ordinance be
approved, with the recommendations and corrections
made. If the Commission desires historical items
to be preserved, then a separate ordinance should
be created. The Commission concurred.
, Tm
C/Harmony stated, for the record, omitting
reference to heri-age trees, within the tree
December 9, 1991 Page 11
ordinance, limits the scope of the ordinance, and
is therefore, not a complete ordinance that way.
C/Harmony, referring to the civil remedies,
section 22.56.2180 Tagging subsection 5., stated
that it is not clear what kind of civil remedy the
City would receive if the developer destroyed, for
example, a 600 year old tree. There should be a
clearly stated penalty that the developer will be
responsible for replacing the tree, and that a
neutral arbitrator will be utilized to appraise
the tree, if needed.
DCA/Curley recommended that the wording of
subsection E not be altered. The provision gives
full flexibility to pursue whatever remedy is
deemed appropriate by the City Council. it is
understood that the City would seek replacement or
replacement costs.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Chair may wish to
appoint a sub -committee, of the Commission, to
kta_x work out the specific details and assist staff in
bringing the matter back to the full Commission in
January of 1992.
C/Schey recommended that the subcommittee limit
their discussion on the following two issues that
remain unresolved: the delineations of the
penalties; and the minimum replacement standard.
C/Schey and VC/MacBride volunteered to be on the
subcommittee.
C/Schey recommended that the matter be continued
to January 13th, with the subcommittee working
with staff to reconcile these matters, and
bringing it back to the Commission in final form
on that date. The Commission concurred.
VC/MacBride requested staff to appropriately
revise section 22.56.2090 Exemptions subsection D.
so that it is more clearly stated.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:35 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 9:44 p.m.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the Commission
recommend to the City Council to consider the
,December 9, 1991 Page 12
establishment of an ordinance taking into account
all historical items within the City confines.
The Commission concurred.
Development CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding
Review 91-4 the request, by the applicant, K -Mart, for a
tenant improvement with, exterior changes. The
Commercial Plan Development, CPD zone, that the
project is located within, requires a CUP for all
development within that zone. The City Attorneys
office has advised the staff not to recommend any
action of the Commission this evening until such
time that the previous approvals on this property
have been analyzed, and until such time that an
amendment to the original CUP has been advertized,
and concurrently process along with the
development review.
DCA/Curley explained that the concept of the
Development Review is to go in tandem with the
other entitlements. Looking at the existing CUP
Resolution, it speaks to an existing site plan and
development in conformance thereof. We must make
sure that the conditions listed by staff do not
conflict with the details of the pre-existing
entitlement of the CUP.
C/Harmony requested staff to verify if the K -Mart
sign would meet the new sign ordinance. He
further requested that staff look into the water
flow coming from the Peterson pump station.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Mike Tyson, with the K -Mart Corp., stated that, as
noted by the Commission, there is no outside
exit/entrance from the Little Caesar proposed.
Furthermore, the main entry is to be relocated 30
feet to the left, not the approximate 160 feet as
indicated by the staff report. K -Mart will be
discussing improving the conditions of the parking
lot with their landlord. He inquired if the
equipment located on the K -Mart building could be
situated behind the existing mansard canopy, and
if additional canopy space would then still be
required.
F
December 9, 1991
Page 13
Steve Ah Mon representing .Clemens and Clemens
Architects, representing K -Mart, stated that they
will present a general plan taking into account
the Commission's comments regarding the need to
improve the parking lot and the appearance of the
whole project.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue
C/Schey stated that it would be helpful to review
the mechanism that formed the TTC in order to get
a better idea of exactly what conditions and tasks
the TTC was formulated. His orientation is to
limit the TTC's action more towards long range
planning and traffic and transportation policy
issues.
Chair/Grothe stated that he was under the
concurrence that the TTC was responsible for
developing engineering standards and guidelines
for the traffic and transportation for the City.
the matter to the January 13, 1992 meeting.
INFORMATIONAL
CD/DeStefano stated that the City Manager's
ITEMS:
memorandum, regarding the desire by the Traffic
and Transportation Commission (TTC) to coordinate,
Coordinating the
more closely, projects and their review with the
Planning & the
Planning Commission, suggests that input be
Transportation
obtained from the two Commissions, as well as from
Commission
the City Engineer and the Community Development
Director, and a response be provided back to the
City Manager. The TTC has been working on a
policy statement as to when they would wish to
see traffic reports and review projects. They
have created a series of levels, and any project
exceeding that level would require their review.
CD/DeStefano recommended the following two
actions: Respond to the City Manager's request;
and, unless there is specific information that the
Commission desires to send to the City Manager
tonight, postpone the matter to allow the
Commission time to respond, not only to the broad
issue, but to respond to the TTC's suggested
policy. _
C/Schey stated that it would be helpful to review
the mechanism that formed the TTC in order to get
a better idea of exactly what conditions and tasks
the TTC was formulated. His orientation is to
limit the TTC's action more towards long range
planning and traffic and transportation policy
issues.
Chair/Grothe stated that he was under the
concurrence that the TTC was responsible for
developing engineering standards and guidelines
for the traffic and transportation for the City.
r `1
t
!December 9, 1991 Page 14
C/Flamenbaum noted that guideline 5 & 6, of the
policy written by the TTC, is broad based and
should be precisely defined.
VC/MacBride stated that the Commission should not
respond until they have had a chance to review the
mission statement of the TTC. He Concurred that
he thought the responsibility of the TTC was that
of long range planning.
C/Harmony indicated that each Commission is
appointed by the City Council to give their input.
It would be beneficial to have the Commissions and
the committees communicating with each other.
VC/MacBride, and C/Flamenbaum concurred, that the
issue is not communication, but rather the
guidelines established determining when the
Commissions communicate.
C/Schey suggested, and the Commission concurred,
to continue the matter to the next meeting to
allow the Commission time to review the guidelines
drafted by the TTC, and to allow staff time to get
the Commission copies of the establishment
resolution of the TTC.
CD/DeStefano indicated that he will request
CE/Mousavi to be prepared to respond to some of
the thoughts and concerns of the TTC.
Discussion of CD/DeStefano stated that the City Manager's
City issues memorandum requests each Commission to develop a
White Paper describing issues perceived to be
addressed in both short and long term regarding
the upcoming budget session. There will be an
annual retreat January of 1992, and a joint public
meeting with all the Commissions and the City
Council to discuss both the short term and long
term issues, given due consideration of the City's
finances.
VC/MacBride, indicating that he will not be able
to attend the public meeting, presented a copy of
his ideas to staff and the Commission.
I
After discussion, the Commission concurred to
respond to the memorandum individually.
__.—__,_u-- �wyre`"Wi. ,m"I NP641,,,';'I" `t.. T...-1— — - - "'-- - -
..�. �� �.. , r.�.r..........�......�,.....�.w...—.-....-..-...v...,-.v.+..r.....�.. �.. _...n..,,,{✓..-«..,._.., �....,,-� _-..-._ ,.,-.. .- Min,vr'�.dn lM.�+IJ�NNIidtl.lulrtWhidamd ..u.. _,-_ _• _ _
December 9, 1991
Page 15
ANNOUNCEMENTS: CD/DeStefano reminded the Commission of the
Holiday Party on December 18, 1991.
Chair/Grothe requested staff to notify the
Commission when there is a change in the Planning
staff.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the
meeting at 11:06 p.m.
Respectively,'
Ja es DeStefano
Secretary/Planr,iing Commission
Attest:
ck Grot-fie
hairman