HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/11/1991CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 11® 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:00
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: Vice Chairman Harmony.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner MacBride, Vice
Chairman Harmony, and Chairman Schey. Commissioner
Lin was absent (excused).
Also present were Planning Director James
DeStefano, City Planner Irwin Kaplan, Assoc.
Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy City Attorney Bill
Curley, City Engineer Sid Mousavi, Planning
Technician Ann Lungu and Contract Secretary Liz
Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Vice Chairman Harmony requested the Minutes of
January 28, 1991 be pulled from the Consent
Calendar. He requested page 13, sixth paragraph,
be amended to delete the last portion of the
sentence to read "It can be in violation of the
sign ordinance.".
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of
January 28, 1991 as amended.
NEW BUSINESS: Chairman Schey stated the Commission was initially
organized in January of 1990. Officers were
Reorganization selected on January 4, 1990 for a one year term®
During the latter part of 1990, the Council adopted
an ordinance that dictates the Commission chose
their Vice Chairman and Chairman in June, leaving a
six month gap between the one year allotted time
and the mandated time. The Commission may choose
to select a new Chairman and Vice Chairman to serve
a six month period until the mandated
reorganization, or form an interim holdover of the
existing officers until June. Either option is
viable.
C/MacBride suggested the Commission holdover the
present structure until July.
C/Grothe suggested leaving the existing structure
as is.
VC/Harmony stated his confidence in the present
February 11, 1991
Page 2
Irwin Kaplan reviewed the proposal submitted by
Ecotectonic Systems:
1. Gather existing scientific studies of the
biota of Tonner Canyon.
2. Gather and summarize all relevant draft and
final EIR's.
3. Consult with the SEATAC members.
4. Make site visits.
5. Locate and comment on examples from other
comparable studies and proposals.
6. Prepare a series of maps.
i. Utilize existing available development
proposals and studies as reference points,
prepare maps and specific recommendations for
standards for location of types and intensity
of development.
8. Compile the above information into a final
d{
report.
9. Recommend any additional studies that may be
needed.
Irwin Kaplan stated the information is being
Chairman. He suggested continuing the structure as
is, until the reorganization in July.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by
VC/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY that the present
officers be carried over till the ordinance
mandated reorganization in July.
Ecological
Irwin Kaplan reported the SEATAC (Significant
Concept
Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee)
Plan for
suggested there is a need for an "Ecological
Tonner
Concept Plan" for the entire Tonner Canyon, as
Canyon
opposed to evaluating individual proposed
development projects of the Canyon. The developers
expressed support for the idea and offered to
underwrite the cost of'the study. The idea of the
plan is to identify the opportunities of
constraints, relative to the ecological
characteristics of the Canyon, so that whatever
development takes place, the integrity of the
Canyon will be maintained. A proposal has been
prepared by Ecotectonics and distributed to both
the SEATAC and the developers for comments. The
two (2) areas of concern raised at the meeting
relative to the scope of the proposed study were:
1. The plan shouldn't have a level of be
specificity that is so iron clad there would
be no ability for flexibility.
2. The study area should be expanded beyond the
limits of Tonner Canyon to include areas which
are ecologically associated or interdependent
with Tonner Canyon.
Irwin Kaplan reviewed the proposal submitted by
Ecotectonic Systems:
1. Gather existing scientific studies of the
biota of Tonner Canyon.
2. Gather and summarize all relevant draft and
final EIR's.
3. Consult with the SEATAC members.
4. Make site visits.
5. Locate and comment on examples from other
comparable studies and proposals.
6. Prepare a series of maps.
i. Utilize existing available development
proposals and studies as reference points,
prepare maps and specific recommendations for
standards for location of types and intensity
of development.
8. Compile the above information into a final
d{
report.
9. Recommend any additional studies that may be
needed.
Irwin Kaplan stated the information is being
_ ___--_ .�. ��� „��� - ���..�.,�.v,,.-.�.... �, iia,+ -.,. --r�------� r�v��rmn - �. r. r'�*--W�Nr ,.�„r- �+♦IniIHInIb.AIWln YuliHMxnlYiWixWUJYIdNIWuW- _�_.
February 11® 1991 Page 3.
provided to the Commission for advisory purposes,
and to solicit any comments the Commission may
have.
Chair/Schey inquired if -the study is being endorsed
by the property owners within the Canyon.
James DeStefano specified that the project is
endorsed by the developers of the four (4) tract
snaps that is now before the SEATAC. Those
developers have agreed to fund the project. Dr.
Buffington is the local representative for the
development group, known as the Diamond Bar
Associates.
Chair/Schey inquired if the proposal was solicited
by the City.
Irwin Kaplan stated that due to time constraints,
he searched in behalf of the City.
James DeStefano pointed out that the developers
agreed to do the project subject, to a quick
completion of the proposal, so as not to delay the
activities of SEATAC.
Chair/Schey stated his
of the SEATAC will be
document that is put
couple of weeks.
concern that the expertise
potentially inhibited by a
together in a period::':of a
Dan Buffington, residing at 2605 Indian Creek,
explained one of the concerns of the SEATAC was the
lack of information on Tonner Canyon as a whole.
The Committee members were concerned that the
Canyon would eventually be piece mealed. The
Development Team offered to fund the study to help
alleviate the concerns of the SEATAC.
Irwin Kaplan stated the SEATAC was comforted by the
idea of the plan and welcomed the approach.
Hopefully, the work of the SEATAC will be completed
at the same time as the study, to allow the
Commission the benefit of considering both pieces
of information.
C/Grothe inquired if it was a reasonably fair
assumption that some level of review of the Canyon
HJT, has been done by the governmental agencies
proposing roads through Tonner Canyon.
Irwin Kaplan stated there has been some kind of
environmental review done for each individual
projects, but none have looked at the Canyon as a
whole, coordinating the individual projects.
February 11, 1991
Page 4
James DeStefano reminded the Commission that the
proposal does not need any formal action. It is
more of an informational issue to provide the
Commission an opportunity for any comments or input
wished to be made in this process.
Chair/Schey stated he would like to reserve the
ability to require more information than might be
able to be generated in this short period of time.
C/MacBride inquired if the four (4) interested
groups would have specific pressures that may, to
some extent® tend to warp or distort this
philosophy, solely because it becomes so specific
to them.
Irwin Kaplan stated that staff suggested the issue
is not churches in C -M zones, but rather quasi -
public uses, which are not necessarily commercial
in nature, in commercial zones. The first thing
recommended is a broader definition to include
other uses allowed in commercial zones, that are
not of a commercial nature.
A. The following definition is suggested:
1. Quasi -Public Use - a use operated by a
private nonprofit educational, religious,
Irwin Kaplan stated he is encouraged by the good
faith of the participants.
Irwin Kaplan noted that the summarization of the
Commission's concerns are that it is too brief of a
study to address the issue in depth, and that the
intent can be subverted. These concerns will be
taken into account on the formulation of the study.
PUBLIC BEARING
Irwin Kaplan discussed the proposal, requested -from
ITEMS:
the last meeting, for a CUP permitting churches in
the C -M zone. He explained that a CUP would allow
Zoning Code
for a use that would not have the right of the
Amendment
zone, and would have to meet certain criteria in
ZCA 91-2
order to be permitted in the zone. The CUP gives
the Commission the opportunity to review these
projects in detail, to determine the type of
conditions appropriate to fit within the basic zone
itself. As a CUP, the Commission has a right to
approve, approve with conditions, or deny a
specific project. Staff has conveyed the types of
criteria' that the Commission could use in
evaluating the appropriateness of a proposal.
Recognizing the primary function of commercial
zones, with a land use and revenue point of view,
it is appropriate that a conditional use be the
procedure for uses which is not commercial by
nature. Staff has prepared a proposal that
recognizes that point.
Irwin Kaplan stated that staff suggested the issue
is not churches in C -M zones, but rather quasi -
public uses, which are not necessarily commercial
in nature, in commercial zones. The first thing
recommended is a broader definition to include
other uses allowed in commercial zones, that are
not of a commercial nature.
A. The following definition is suggested:
1. Quasi -Public Use - a use operated by a
private nonprofit educational, religious,
February 11, 1991
Page 5
recreational, charitable or medical
institution, such use having the purpose
primarily of serving the general public,
and including uses such as churches,
private schools, and universities,
community, youth and senior citizen
recreational facilities, private
hospitals, and the like.
B. The following additional regulations are
suggested:
1. Quasi -public uses should be complimentary
with and subordinate to adjacent existing
and potential commercial development.
2. Quasi -public uses shall be sited in a
manner which is subordinate to existing
and potential commercial development.
3. The Planning Commission shall consider
the direct benefit of the quasi -public
uses to the community, as well as the
cost of any mitigation measures needed.
4. The final action on the Commission's
recommendation shall be incorporated into
a development agreement.
Irwin Kaplan pointed out that virtually every
church in the City is within a residential zone.
Staff is not advocating that this procedure be
applied to residential zones. It would not effect
the proposal if a church is willing to locate in a
residential zone. This is a special case, and the
City has several ways of dealing with it:
1. Rezone it to a residential and allow the
church to be there as a residential use, as
stated in the resolution.
2. If the church is going to be located in part
of the City's commercial uses, recognize that
it is a legitimate use with a right to be
there, but with a responsibility as well.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Scott Brooks, with Downey Savings, referred to the
City Council minutes of November 1990, and the
Planning Commission minutes of January 28, 1991, in
regards to the issue, and inquired why staff is not
responding as requested.
Randy Hurtle, with Majestic Realty Co., stated he
understands that staff has to look at things in a
broader scope, within due process. He agreed with
Mr. Kaplan's description of the CUP process. He
stated they are not looking to get an approval for
a church use on a specific location, but rather
looking to get a shot at it through a one on one
February 11, 1991 Page 6
Gd;! i'
use at a location, and make a determination at that
point. He respectively asked the review be done r�u
within a two (2) weeks process, with a finite piece
of language, that enables it be to voted upon at
the next meeting.
Dan Buffington implored the Commission not to
follow the last suggestion made by Mr. Kaplan to
resume commercial to 'residential® The CUP is a
good idea as long as there is a caveat within, the
CUP that considers the fiscal impact the proposed
project would make. `
C/Grothe suggested staff move forward and place the
issue as the top item on the City Attorney's
agenda®
C/MacBride stated the criteria of staff's
suggestion is excellent, and is impressed it is
viewed on a basis larger than a specific
institution.
Chair/Schey reiterated that the direction from the
City Council was for the Planning Commission to
review a recommendation from staff, in regards to a
CUP process for churches in a C -M zone, and return
a
the recommendation to the City Council, to be
integrated into the Emergency Interim Ordinance per
the City Attorney. The concepts are well founded
and provide a structure by which this quasi -public
use could be integrated in the C -M zone at minimal
b
impact on the City. This seems to be the intent of
the Emergency Interim Ordinance.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by
VC/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to forward the
F
staff's recommendation, based upon the CUP process,
to the City Council with the endorsement from the
Planning Commission, subject to the City Attorney's
�r
corrections.
CUP 90-128
Ann Lundu, Planning Technician, reported this
Video Kiosk
application is continued from January 28, 1991.
The Video Kiosk Corporation has redesigned the
video kiosk to be compatible with the architecture
ry
of the existing shopping center. The proposed
video kiosk is fully automated. It will be
enclosed in a structure that is 18' x 19,51, will
have a height of 131211, and will occupy three (3)
parking spaces. The new proposed location of the
kiosk will be closer to, and in front, of the
Standards Paint parcel. Security measures will be
created to meet the approval of the Walnut Valley
Sheriff's Department and the City of Diamond Bar.
February 11, 1991
Page_ .7
Staff recommended the Planning Commission approve
CLIP 90-0128 with the proposed changes.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Rudy Figueroa, 2002 Locust Ct., Ontario, apologized
to the Commission because the expert, expected to
address the issues of security, had not yet
arrived. He stated a report on the traffic
generation was obtained, as requested. However, he
requested a continuance until all information can
be delivered at the same time.
VC/Harmony stated complaints have been received by
other commercial centers because of the lack of
sign visibility due to obstruction by other
structures. He inquired how the merchants on the
back portion of the parking lot would feel about
the development of the kiosk structure.
Rudy Figueroa responded the reason an alternate
site plan was selected was because of the concerns
received. The merchants are now satisfied with the
new location and have submitted letters indicating
support with the alternate site.
C/MacBride asked if the tape cartons will be
presented in the same fashion.
Rudy Figueroa stated the former design had an open
display in which the tapes could be seen through
the window. Now there is a totally new structure,
built on site, with a structure surrounding the
smaller building. Depending on the shade used on
the windows, it is possible to see some of the
tapes. If the Commission wishes to put a condition
on this, the shading can be adjusted to block
visibility.
C/MacBride inquired if the signage on the major
frontage will be different than the one originally
proposed.
Rudy Figueroa stated the signage will conform to
the new sign ordinance.
VC/Harmony reiterated his discontent with the
original design, but noted the alternate plan has
- been vastly improved. He noted that there is not
much that can be said in terms of security. He
inquired if the Commission can accept the concept
of the "boxy" structure in the center, as well as
the late night customers it will attract.
,_C/Grothe commented, as .long as the -applicant meets
7 a. 1,I IN A.I II!,--III� I _.. — I. iw. uni_III 111,.,1 -
February 11, 1991
Page e
the security requirements of the City and the
SherriffIs Department, as stated in the conditions,
he is satisfied that it is not a significant issue.
He is content that the new site plan has met all
the concerns stated previously by the Commission.
However, he stated he `could like a condition that
there will be a high level of lighting around the
structure.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
James DeStefano stated staff will amend the
Resolution 91-02, condition 3b, to include the
wording "...submitted for this case, identified as
exhibit B for the site plan, and exhibit E for the
architecture.". With respect to the comments from
the Commission on lighting, it will be incorporated
as specific direction to staff, as part of
implementing condition 3f and condition 3j, to
ensure that there is adequate lighting and
security.
Chair/Schey stated he is opposed to the idea of
piece mealing.developments and is concerned with
setting a precedent to these actions..
rye.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED to adopt the Resolution 91-02 as
amended by staff.
AYES: Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner
MacBride, and Vice Chairman Harmony.
NAYS: Chairman Schey.
ABSENT: Commissioner Lin.
CUP 90-0127 Robert Searcy, Assoc. Planner, reported the Public
McDermott Hearing was continued from January 28, 1991 at the
Engineering request of the applicant, contingent upon providing
information to the City of Industry and the City
Engineer concerning the drainage problems on the
site. The applicant is currently in the process of
gathering that information and has requested a
continuance until the next Public Hearing.
Additionally, the applicant has provided a letter
outlining a meeting they had with the homeowners
association. Some of the concerns of the Planning
Commission were addressed at the meeting. Staff is
requesting a one (1) month continuance to allow for
adequate review of the information.
Chair/Schey inquired if it is safe to assume, by
the applicants request for a continuance, their �+s
acquiescence to any waiver of timelines.
Bill Curley, Deputy City Attorney, stated there
would be a defensible argument if it ever came to
February 11, 1991 ,.;Page 9
court. To be entirely safe, the Commission could
articulate that they're doing it with the
understanding it is a waiver.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
VC/Harmony requested there be a special notice to
the homeowners association stating the date of the
continuance.
Robert Searcy stated the applicant can be held
responsible to do so.
Chair/Schey inquired if one (1) month was
sufficient time for staff to review the
information.
Sid Mousavi, City Engineer, specified that one (1)
month is needed to review the information after
completion of all the documents.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by
C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to the meeting of March 11, 1991 with the
j caveat if staff doesn't have sufficient -time to
i review the information submitted, it would be
c subjected to an additional continuance that
time, and that there is an effort ensuring proper
notice of the affected homeowners association.
ZCA 91-1 dames DeStefano reported that all the handwritten
Sign Ordinance changes made from the last text have been typed
into the sign ordinance. Staff reviewed church and
civic organization type signage and decided it is
best to allow it at a height of 6 feet and at a
maximum sign face area, as outlined on page 21,
throughout the City, regardless of zone. This
allows a little more sign face area, although it
does not exceed the other commercial sign face area
and height allowed throughout the City. After
reviewing the signage of buildings over 3 stories
in height, staff feels there is a need for more
direction from the Commission. The issue of signs
on buildings, or monument signs adjacent to
buildings over 3 stories in height, is discussed in
two (2) parts of the sign code. In both areas they
reflect a very minimal size signage allocation. If
the direction is to allow a broader base sign, then
F.> staff would need direction along that line. He
i stated staff's availability to answer any
questions.
Bill Curley noted that there will be an adjustment,
in the ordinance, changing roman to arabic, as
requested.
February 11, 1991 Page 10
Irwin Kaplan stated the memorandum was brought to
�����i''
the Commission because there was a need to address
freeway oriented signage. The Commission's
intention was not to open the door to freeway
signage, but to keep it restrictive with the
understanding that there may be special
circumstances. The Ordinance basically states that
freestanding pole signs would be for lodging only,
and that places dispensing fuel, or serving food
could have wall signs facing the freeway. It may
be the Commissions intent to allow a situation,
such as the Ramada, to be able to come to the
Commission and state a need for a freeway oriented
sign. The Ordinance drafted may or may not meet
that need. Staff took the initiative to invite the
Ramada, informally, for a comparison of the
proposals. The Ramada's proposal is for a sign
that is 751 from the base of the box to grade, 15'
in height for the sign box itself, and 221 across;
the sign letter varies from 40" in height to about
24"; the lettering would be visible for 24 seconds,
for a distance of 2100 feet going at a rate of at
60 mph, and visible from both directions; they
propose the height of the sign clears the trees;
and include a read -a -board as part of the sign.
There are several characteristics of their proposal
.LL,
the Commission may'want to discuss as to whether or
not it is consistent with what the City wishes to
do. The proposal is a good discussion item for the
Commission.
C/Grothe concluded the freeway signs should be
architecturally pleasing and does not need to be
readable a million miles away. The Commission
seems to have relatively established guidelines
that 20' above freeway grade is plenty high.
Irwin Kaplan inquired of the Commission's attitude
to the principal in the draft that limits only
lodging as opposed to food, fuel and lodging.
C/MacBride stated the three (3) seem to be a
composite for the traveling public on a control
access facility. He finds if difficult to argue
against it. The particular description in the
draft is very careful and it will be called
restrictive. He noted that perhaps that is the way
the Commission feels.
C/Grothe stated a lot of freestanding signs could
be eliminated by incorporating the uses with one
large sign.
VC/Harmony stated the concept of a variance or a
CUP creates an impression that a motel, a food
_.._ . ,. 0 w, -",,H 1--,-,- �- . , Mw ,
February 11, 1991 � Page'11
distributer, or a gas station, has a right to have
their own sign with a CUP process. We are creating
a de facto freeway zoning to allow for pole signs.
He pointed out that the Commission did not
specifically direct staff to develop criteria that
would make the exceptions. It is not inherent in
here. The Commission is developing a standard to
allow for review of special circumstances. He
stated a variance and a CUP is conceptual and that
there needs to be further clarification and further
development.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Jack Williamson, residing at 259 Gentle Springs
Lane, representative from the Ramada, presented the
Commission with photographs taken of a 4' sign in
various heights (from the level of the freeway up
to 901) to indicate it's small appearance. A new
sign is being drawn that will be architecturally
pleasing. The intent is to be able to place it 15'
above the guard rail on the 60 freeway. The read -
a -board has also been eliminated. The letters are
approximately 4' in the Ramada name and range from
24" to 36" in the Classics name. He stated the
Ramada will conform to the code and are willing to
work with the Commission in any manner desired.
Dan Buffington stressed that the Commission should
be cautious against using the CUP requirement to
avoid creating a de facto agreement. A variance
process should be used because it is more
restrictive.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Schey requested staff to restate the items
that need further direction from the Commission.
James DeStefano stated one of the issues, on the
bottom of page 13, 106 A.1., is determining if the
Planning Commission wishes to review all wall signs
in a multi -use building or commercial center, as is
so stated in the current sign draft, or delegate
the responsibility to staff.
C/Grothe stated if the sign meets the Commission's
criteria, and it is a single sign for a single
tenant, then staff could approve the sign.
C/MacBride stated, to his recollection, that the
Commission had already agreed it would not be wise
to review each request and that it would be a more
efficient function for staff.
February 11, 1991 Page 12
Chair/Schey stated the draft is specifically
addressing wall signs in a multi -use center where
they are purposing more than one sign. It does not
just address revisions to an existing sign, but
also signs on a new project. The intent of
requiring it to be brought back to the Commission
was to place it under the plan sign program. He
requested staff amend the draft to clarify that one
wall sign could be done at staff level if it
conforms to the ordinance, but multiple wall signs
on a building'or a commercial center would come
under a plan sign program to be reviewed by the
Commission.
James DeStefano stated another issue, on page 22,
sub section 8, is clarifying if it is the intent of
the Planning Commission to review the condominiums,
subdivisions at all signage or delegate it to
staff. Based upon the current criteria, the
Planning Commission would review all signage
whether it is a wall or freestanding sign.
Chair/Schey clarified if staff is questioning
whether it should be under the criteria of the plan
sign program or whether it ought to be a basic
sign.
James DeStefano stated it is staff's opinion it
should be a basic sign to be handled by staff.
Chair/Schey contended that the signage is
instrumental for identifying areas of the community
for a long period of time. Typically the signs are
put up by the developers in order to sell property.
The goals of the developer may not necessarily
conform to those of the community, or the potential
residents. The Planning Commission would be
responsible for protecting their future interests
by the design and operational characteristics of
the sign if it remains under the basic sign
program.
C/Crothe reminded the Commission of the request
made by the Diamond Bar Congregational Church to
permit two (2) monument signs in front of their
church. He suggested the church be allowed to do
so because they are putting up two (2) signs that
are single face, equating the same signage area
currently allowed in the code.
Chair/Schey asserted that the jest of limiting
these types of signs is to control the size and the
number to be permitted. The suggestion made limits
the area of the signs but not the number of signs.
As an example, if the maximum sq. ft. signage area
I
w._ ...... ..
February 11, 1991 Page -13
is 72 sq. ft., then it would be possible to have
numerous 12 sq. ft. signs. The definition of
determining the maximum sign area and the number
allowed should be consistent.
Robert Searcy stated that if there is, for example,
a total of 24 sq. ft. on one facia of a sign, then
there would be a total of 48 sq. ft. for the total
sign.
C/Grothe recommended a statement that leaves the
Commission the opportunity of splitting the sign,
for architectural purposes, but not changing any of
the sign criteria.
Chair/Schey inquired if it is possible to put up a
single sign face with the maximum square footage.
Robert Searcy explained that if it is a one facia
sign, it can not exceed one half of the total.
C/Grothe asserted that the churches proposal is not
at all out of line. He would like to permit the
signs in such a manner .without granting an
excessive amount of signs in Centers.
i�
VC/Harmony stated a CUP could be allowed that would
give commercial consideration for churcheseand
civic institutions with the criteria of a major
arterial included in the CUP.
Chair/Schey inquired if there are any sections of
the plan sign program that would give some latitude
in approving a sign outside the general criteria,
other than a variance.
James DeStefano explained that if it is outside the
size and shape parameters, it would be a variance.
Chair/Schey questioned if the Commission would want
staff to include language that would permit
variation of some of the criteria in the interest
of aesthetics.
VC/Harmony contemplated that language of that sort
could be added to the arterial requirement. He
suggested shaping the church sign sideways, so if
it is increased on one side by no more than half
the face it would create a wedge shape that would
be readable. He stated he wouldn°t want to go
beyond such a formula.
Chair/Schey declared that he is inclined to proceed
with the ordinance with the minor changes, and deal
with the issues as they arise. There is no way
February 11, 1991
Page 14
every circumstance can be met.
Chair/Schey inquired if there was a concern from
the Commissioners in regards to the height
requirement.
VC/Harmony noted that commercial establishments are
allowed a sign six (6) foot in height, which is
consistent with the Council's Interim Ordinance
which replaces pole signs. However, when reviewing
civic organizations and institutions, the intent
was to establish less than what is offered to
commercial. He stated that he agreed with the four
(4) foot height requirements in that case.
Chair/Schey stated with, the other criteria of
square footage and the number of signs, he does not
have a problem with the height requirement.
C/MacBride inquired, if the draft is accepted as
presently stated, and there is an example such as
the church coming before the Commission with a
specific problem, how would the request be handled.
James DeStefano noted that it is good to consider
the church situation as an example for future
dilemmas. However, after a brief discussion with
them, the church does not plan on requesting for a
variance under the new code. They will probably be
processing the sign it needs under the existing
sign code. The Commission, under the same
circumstances, would not be able to grant anything
beyond the confines of this criteria.
C/Grothe asserted that there was a time when there
was a distinct difference between a sign that could
be applied for and received with a permit
application, and a plan sign program for a
development site. It appears a program has been
written that doesn't require a plan sign program
anymore, but just needs the criteria of the
ordinance.
Chair/Schey explained that even commercial centers
have a maximum square footage and numbers of signs
requirement. Under those circumstances, the
Commission is basically concerned with the
aesthetics of the signs.
C/Grothe argued that the Commission spent a lot of
time being progressive and forward thinking on
being fiscally concerned about the commercial
property in the community. Yet, we are being so
restrictive in a sign program that is destructive
and backwards looking to our fiscal businesses and
i
K„
February 11, 1991 1 Page 15
i
operations in the community.
Chair/Schey countered that at what point will it be
enough to satisfy the number and size of a sign.
C/Grothe contended that it needs to be reviewed on
an individual case by case bases. The community
has such a diverse topography. He argued that the
City is a major cross road of freeways into Orange
County and the inland empire. Eventually high
rises will enter our community. The Commission is
writing something that is adequate for a community
that remains somewhat rural, but that does not
appear to be the future for Diamond Har.
VC/Harmony asked if the Commission wants to make an
exception for the height requirement on civic
organization and institutions located within
residential areas.
Chair/Schey stated he does not feel the stated
requirements are obtrusive if located within a
residential area.
Chair/Schey declared the sign ordinance has
apparently covered most issues to the satisfaction
of the Commission, with the exception of freeway
and pole signs. Unless there are other issues that
need discussion, the Commission can proceed with
the ordinance and include a provision for freeway
signs, or proceed with the ordinance and leave the
freeway sign issue in advance. He stated his
inclination is to proceed with the latter.
C/Grothe stated he would like to see the freeway
oriented signs included in the ordinance.
VC/Harmony noted there are provisions in the
development code that deals directly with signs.
He inquired if there is any conflict with the
definition of a sign written in the sign ordinance.
Fames DeStefano stated that the issue of the
definition of sign and sign area will be reviewed.
If there is a change made, the Commission will be
informed.
C/MacBride stated he is comfortable with the
r-1 suggestion made in the memorandum concerning
freeway signing. The memorandum examines the
issues carefully, and upon inclusion of the
Commissioner's comments, it should be inserted into
the document.
Chair/Schey inquired if the freeway oriented wall
February 11, 1991
Page 16
signs for restaurants and fuel services should be
expanded to lodging also.
C/MacBride stated his willingness to go with the i
restrictive premise as outlined in the memorandum.
VC/Harmony asserted that he is not prepared to go
with the memorandum as it is.
James DeStefano inquired if the Commission wants
the staff to review the issue and examine the
potential for minimum lot size, or a minimum
freeway frontage.
Chair/Schey stated the issues are nebulous and he
would be concerned with having staff reviewing it.
The issue appears to be more architectural and
textual.
C/Grothe stated if a wall sign is visible, pole
signs should not be allowed, freeway oriented
business or not. If other signs on the site are
not visible, then you start fitting in the criteria
into the ordinance,
Irwin Kaplan pointed out that in the case of the
Ramada, a wall sign can be seen but at only one
part of the freeway.
Chair/Schey suggested that the Ramada situation
would fit into the criteria specifying that the
wall sign be visible under certain criteria. If a
wall sign can be seen from the freeway but not
within the criteria that's specified, then a pole
sign might be substituted.
Chair/Schey suggested directing staff to proceed
with the balance of the ordinance, and put
iterations into the memorandum that would permit
pole signs under certain circumstances, wall signs
under certain circumstances for food, fuel and
lodging.
VC/Harmony stated he is still unclear as to the
concept of a CUP versus a variance. He also stated
the criteria for which a sign is approved is not
stringent.
Chair/Schey asked Mr. Kaplan if he felt he has
enough information to manipulate the memorandum to
draft an ordinance that meets most of the issues
that are being raised.
Motion was made by / ys Chair Sche seconded b
Y
C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
� :--. — —1 P, , .X". I$-,. 11 1 , 111A-11 11 -IA 1 110 �,_, A# X JR,._, , , " , -'A _„ t-iI I.t 1. L, �,- , ,,-,r i, -mN'N Fx „16j41, n.1,-', xNIu RP&UMka IAMI* W1,319111ka
February 11, 1991 Page 17
r
Public Hearing to March 11, 1991, and direct staff
to take the comments offered and rework the
proposed criteria on pole signs, to be returned to
the Commission on the meeting of February 25, 1991
for discussion and possible inclusion in the draft
sign ordinance on the Public Hearing of March 11,
1991.
Development James DeStefano reported the document is not ready
Agreement DA91-1 for review and indicated that staff would prefer to
take the issue off the calendar. When it is ready,
staff will go through the proper motions for a
Public Hearing.
The Public Hearing was declared open and upon
receiving no comments was declared closed.
VC/Harmony inquired if there are any implications
that could occur in the absence of concluding this
agreement.
DeStefano stated there is nothing currently under
way but there could become projects submitted for
review.
VC/Harmony inquired how such projects couldryA be
L—) dealt with.
James DeStefano stated some could be approved by a
CUP, or by right based upon the unilateral
contract. The City is operating under a set of
County codes we are compelled to administer, which
are the exact same County codes we tried to get
away from. Regardless of the issue, if it meets
the County codes, and the review processes of the
County codes, then we the permits must be issued.
VC/Harmony expressed concern that the City is
issuing permits that would not be approved under
the new code. If a sign appears to be in clear
violation of proposed rules, the approval should be
delayed until the ordinance is passed, denied, or
submitted to the Planning Commission.
James DeStefano stated the City has no legal
authority to deny a permit permissible under an
existing code because it may not be permissible
under a proposed code.
r7 VC/Harmony contended the Planning Commission has
been doing so under a CUP bases.
C/Grothe stated the problem could be solved if the
City Council insisted all signs need a CUP or the
Planning Commission adopts a new sign ordinance.
6 1411 11 111 111'
February 11, 1991
Page 1S
Chair/Schey inquired if the plan being discussed is
a specific pian that would be developed by the
applicant and submitted for approval to the City,
or City initiated specific plan.
James DeStefano stated it is a City initiated
specific plan -to resolve the problems occurring
with the development agreement. The specific plan
and the development agreement would incorporate the
best of the unilateral contract standards and all
the other issues and standards discussed to be
incorporated into the new document.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to take the matter off
Calendar and have it renoticed at such time as it
can be intelligently done.
CUP 90-0125 James DeStefano reported the application was
submitted to the City to be processed in
coordination with a lot line adjustment
application. The applicant has requested
additional time to meet with staff to discuss other
possible alternatives. Staff is prepared to
continue the item to February 25, 1991 as opposed
to the March 11, 1991 date stated.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
VC/Harmony requested the matter be continued to
March 11, 1991 to allow time for his participation.
Chair/Schey inquired if there is a potential
problem with the time table by adding this
additional two (2) weeks.
Bill Curley responded that since staff originally
set the date of March 11, 1991, there should be no
grounds to challenge.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter
until March 11, 1991.
ZCA 91-3 James DeStefano reported that within the County
code there is a wide variety of projects, that
require Public Hearings, with a wide variety of
advertising requirements. Staff would like to
return to the Commission a proposal for a
consistent method of advertising Public Hearing
items, in an ordinance format. The principal
purpose is to manage the County code and do so
ahead of the development code because it effects
projects processing. Staff recommended that the
February 11, 1991
Page 19
Commission continue this item pending further staff
review and analysis.
VC/Harmony inquired if that would include special
notices.
James DeStefano replied that staff can deal with
special notices in any way so directed.
Chair/Schey asked if there is a date staff would be
inclined to continue the matter to.
James DeStefano stated his recommendation would be
to continue the matter to March 11, 1991, as
opposed to tabling it, in order to save advertising
expenses.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to
March 11, 1991.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
James DeStefano reported -the Development Code is
presently broken out into, eleven (11) separate
Staff:
chapters. He recommended the eleven (11) chapters
Review of the
be divided into five (5) separate Planning
Development Code
Commission meetings to be reviewed a couple of
chapters at a time. The comments from the
Commissioners concerning the chapters will be
immediately forwarded to the consultant for
incorporation, in a way that allows getting through
the administration first. There is a possibility
the administrative section will be adopted out of
context, with the purpose of cleaning up a variety
of problems with the Los Angeles County Code. He
proposed the review of the Development Code not be
done in a Public Hearing session setting, but
instead staff would send out an informational
notice, to be published in the newspaper, that
lists the chapters to be reviewed, with the time
frame included. Public input would be invited but
not in a formalized public hearing process. The
first meeting would be February 25, 1991 involving
a presentation from the consultants. Staff will
present the same proposal to the City Council in
about a month, including the input from the
Commission. In turn the City Council's input will
then be presented back to the Commission, and so
on, with the intent of maintaining revolving
information as to the thought process of each of
the different chapters.
VC/Harmony inquired when the formal Public Hearing
process will be for both the Planning Commission
and then the City Council.
February 11, 1991
Page 20
James DeStefano stated that, depending upon the
amount of additional work that may be needed, he
would approximate the date to be around late June,
1991 or July, 1991 for the Planning Commission, and
one month later for the City Council.
C/MacBride suggested the item to be discussed not
be placed last on the agenda because the majority
of the audience will not remain.
James DeStefano inquired if the Commission would
prefer to set up a study session prior to the
regular meeting or if the Commission would prefer
it to be a business item that would be placed early
on the agenda.
Chair/Schey, after the Commissioner's concurrence
to placing it early on the agenda, suggested an
effort be made to schedule it in such a way so
there are not too many other large controversial
issues on the agenda.
C/Grothe suggested placing a time limit on the
discussion.
James DeStefano stated a time frame could easily be
accomplished and advertised with a starting and
concluding time included.
The suggested review of the Development Code: i
February 25 - chapter 1.1 (Administrative) and
1.11 (Definition) 58 pages
March 11 - chapter 1.2 (Permits and Approval)
44 pages
March 25 - chapter 1.3 (General Development
Standards) and 1.4 (Residential
Districts) 35 pages
April 8 - chapter 1.5 (Employment Districts),
1.6 (Special Districts), and 1.7
(Specific Use Standards) 41 pages
April 22 - chapter 1.8 (Parking) 16 pages
May 13 - chapter 1.10 (Land Division) 46
pages
Chair/Schey asked if the draft development code was
developed by the Planning Network specifically for
the applicability of Diamond Bar.
James DeStefano stated the draft document was given
to staff approximately a month ago. Staff reviewed
it quickly and deleted and added pertinent items
relative to Diamond Bar. it is all subjected for
additional change by the Planning Commission and
the City staff.
1l.... R.III m,.,, M,. R,..,_, — 1 --op -4 -A-- 1—,,--A—, r .r"-,,ei i +'-�,, nlr .i,'1.. _R'III'Mw1,,",MY ', a.',
February 11, 1991 Page 21
General Plan James DeStefano reported that the City Council has
Status asked for a General Plan Status report to be placed
on their next regular agenda of February 19, 1991.
Staff proposes the Planning Network will make the
presentation to bring the Council up to date.
Staff is inviting the Planning Commission, as well
as the other Commissions, to attend the meeting.
Planning VC/Harmony received a complaint describing the City
Commissioners to be in "a state of confusion" in regards to
Comments building ordinances and regulations. He requested
there be a follow up report to discover if the City
is at fault, and the circumstances surrounding it.
Chair/Schey suggested staff be polled on any
complaints received.
James DeStefano warned that complaints may be
received because the answer presented was not what
was desired.
C/Grothe suggested it would be prudent for the City
to mail out a one page questionnaire to the last
six (b) month permit applicantees asking their
opinion of the service received by the contract
building department.
VC/Harmony approved of the idea and noted that
other cities do the same thing at almost every
level of city service.
James DeStefano cautioned that there must be
careful review of responses received. Staff has
developers, daily, who are used to the LA County
style of implementation. The interpretation of the
code by the County is different than ours, even
though it is the exact same code. This leads to
dissatisfaction regardless of the way the
information is delivered.
Chair/Schey stated there may be some value, not
discerning if they were happy with the response,
but whether they felt they received a clear
explanation of what the issue was and the reason
for the interpretation.
VC/Harmony stated he does not put a lot of weight
on individual complaints but he has heard this
complaint enough that he is concerned there is a
public image of poor administration. He stated he
rt _ would like to identify this particular criticism.
Chair/Schey inquired if there has been a traffic
study indicating a need for the traffic signal,
recommended by the Traffic and Transportation
February 11, 1991 Page 22
pry,.
Commission, at Grand and Rolling Knoll Drive, as
well as a study determining a need for the "no left „v
turn" sign designating a time restriction. He
asked if those type of traffic actions are due to
some reasonable traffic issues or because those
residents are complaining.
Sid Mousavi, City Engineer, explained the traffic
signal was a study as part of the Chino Hills
opening to the Grand Avenue. The funding for the
construction of the signal was already paid for by
the County of San Bernardino. The installation was
postponed until the study was done determining if
there is a need for a closure in the area for the
traffic that was cutting through the neighborhood,
or a need for the traffic signal. The Traffic
Commission determined the cut through situation is
a separate issue than the traffic and recommended
to Council to go ahead and install the traffic
signal. The left turn situation is to prevent the
cut through situation through the Rolling Knoll.
Chair/Schey asserted unless there is a legitimate
proven traffic hazard, the street should remain for
public use.
Sid Mousavi stated the issue is not a traffic ^tim
hazard but rather if the street is being used as a
cut through. A study has indicated that it is
being used as a cut through and several mitigation
measures were suggested.
C/Grothe suggested the egress and ingress of the
Lucky Center on Grand Ave. be reviewed as a hazard.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
10:50 p.m.
David Schey
chairman
Attest:
y`
JamesDeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission