HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/11/1991CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 11, 1991
CALL TO 01; Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:07
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 City Planner Irwin Kaplan,
Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy City
Attorney Bill Curley, city Engineer Sid Mousavi,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Intern Steven
Koffroth, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
Planning Director James DeStefano arrived at 10:30
p.m.
CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Harmony requested the Minutes of February 25,
1991 be pulled from the Consent Calendar.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe
r -al i and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 25,
1 1 1991.
L-i AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, and
Chair/Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Harmony.
NEW BUSINESS:
Review of Draft
Irwin Kaplan, city Planner, reviewed the
Development Code
Development Code proposal to establish a Design
Chapters 1.1 &
Review Board, which had been submitted to the
1.11
Commission.
Chair/Schey inquired how narrow the scope of review
should be in regards to single homes.
CP/Kaplan suggested that the scope be limited to
height, bulk, basic materials, and landscaping to
maintain the established or prevailing community or
neighborhood character.
Chair/Schey indicated that the level of detail of
design review needs to be defined for the overall
architectural theme of a master plan development.
He questioned how the design review will be dealt
March 11® 1991 Page 2
with in regards to custom
homes in the
Country, or
other subdivisions, that
have their
own design
review process.' The -
=ncept of
maintaining
consistency within given neighborhoods
is important
beyond the scope of size,
bulk, etc.
C/Grothe stated guidelines should be tough and
complete to assure development is of top quality.
Dan Dunham, a principal with the Planning Network,
stated the policy issues for Design:Review are:
11 The level the design review appropriate for
Diamond Bar.
20 The kind of committee that will handle design
review.
VC/Harmony suggested that the committee be a
standing committee that serves at the will of the
Commission. instead of delaying every project for
architectural review, those cases that need more
work can be assigned to the committee and then be
referred back to the Commission.
Mr. Dunham stated that thedecision of determining
which projects will be reviewed is a policy issue
that will have to addressed by the Commission.
VC/Harmony stipulated that a neighborhood with
CC&RIs, that want to regulate their own
architectural processes, should be allowed to
prevail. The Commission should not get involved
with individual house construction, other than to
ensure good standards. He suggested, with the
consensus of the Commission, that commercial and
tract developments should be subjected to
architectural review.
C/Grothe asserted that he is against another whole
body coming up with another whole set of
guidelines. There should be a set of strict
guidelines regulating standards.
Mr. Dunham explained that every attempt has been
made to ensure that the code gives some very
definite standards to give a clear picture. What
is being referred to here is the aesthetics and
some of the other issues that relate to commercial
buildings, to neighborhood character, and to tract
homes. Those are the issues of the development
code that, because of the very nature of euclidian
zoning, is not covered and cannot be regulated.
Chair/Schey is not opposed to putting houses under
the design review because the Commission will
eventually have to deal with the pit falls. He is
concerned with the possibility that a series of
tract homes could be bought up and be replaced by
larger homes.
VC/Harmony inquired if the code addressed the
concept of mansionization, not necessarily on the
big lots but on some of the tract lots and private
smaller lots. He inquired if the issue is an
architectural review concept.
CP/Kaplan replied that the issue would become an
aspect of review if it is a stated objective.
Someone would have to say, as a matter of policy,
there is a concern with the relationship of the
size of the house, to the size of the lot.
Chair/Schey inquired if the purpose of design
review is for architectural design or to encompass
the broader functions of a development review
committee.
CP/Kaplan stated that design review could encompass
all types of residential and commercial uses or
could be limited to certain uses. A fundamental
policy choice would be a determination of,the types
{ of uses and kinds of structures and projects to be
subject to design review. He asked for discussion
of the scope of review appropriate for commercial
structures.
C/Grothe stated the design review procedure could
require the Commission to do a design review on
single family residences. There is not a need for
another organization, or a level of bureaucracy, to
do so.
CP/Kaplan inquired if the Commission wants
architectural review where there is an
architectural review board on the premises, such as
a situation like the B1Country".
C/Grothe stated that in that situation, it should
be determined that it would become an architectural
review body that is advisory to the Commission.
Regardless of their approval, it is still to be
reviewed at the Commission's level.
CP/Kaplan inquired if for larger projects the
�.9 Commission prefers a freestanding review board or a
function of staff level review.
VC/Harmony suggested that it should be a standing
review, consisting of professionals, meeting
occasionally,. at the request of the Planning
Commission when additional help is needed.
March
11, 1991
Page
3
concerned with the possibility that a series of
tract homes could be bought up and be replaced by
larger homes.
VC/Harmony inquired if the code addressed the
concept of mansionization, not necessarily on the
big lots but on some of the tract lots and private
smaller lots. He inquired if the issue is an
architectural review concept.
CP/Kaplan replied that the issue would become an
aspect of review if it is a stated objective.
Someone would have to say, as a matter of policy,
there is a concern with the relationship of the
size of the house, to the size of the lot.
Chair/Schey inquired if the purpose of design
review is for architectural design or to encompass
the broader functions of a development review
committee.
CP/Kaplan stated that design review could encompass
all types of residential and commercial uses or
could be limited to certain uses. A fundamental
policy choice would be a determination of,the types
{ of uses and kinds of structures and projects to be
subject to design review. He asked for discussion
of the scope of review appropriate for commercial
structures.
C/Grothe stated the design review procedure could
require the Commission to do a design review on
single family residences. There is not a need for
another organization, or a level of bureaucracy, to
do so.
CP/Kaplan inquired if the Commission wants
architectural review where there is an
architectural review board on the premises, such as
a situation like the B1Country".
C/Grothe stated that in that situation, it should
be determined that it would become an architectural
review body that is advisory to the Commission.
Regardless of their approval, it is still to be
reviewed at the Commission's level.
CP/Kaplan inquired if for larger projects the
�.9 Commission prefers a freestanding review board or a
function of staff level review.
VC/Harmony suggested that it should be a standing
review, consisting of professionals, meeting
occasionally,. at the request of the Planning
Commission when additional help is needed.
March 11® 1991 Page 4
Chair/Schey stated that a particular case will
either meet a set of criteria that triggers the use
of the board, or the case will go directly to the
Commission. His concern was the potential delay of
projects while being reviewed by staff.
CP/Kaplan, recapping the Commissions statements,
stated the desire appears to be that all projects
going to the Commission beaccompanied by a staff
level -desiqn review. If the Commission requires
further design review advice, it can request the
assistance of the professional design review board.
C/MacBride questioned if there is sufficient budget
constraints for staff to perform the design review
function without ongoing reliance upon the design
review board.
CP/Kaplan stated staff will develop a proposal to
reflect the Planning Commissions desire for the use
of a committee, -Wher, needed, to review projects..
otherwise it will be part of the normal staff
review process.
C/MacBride added to underscore the Commission's
concern that the Commission is not enthusiastic
about creating an additional level of bureaucratic
supervision.
Chair/Schey announced the next discussion of the
development code will be at 6:30 p.m., March 25,
1991. A recess was called at 8006 p.m. The
meeting was called to order at 8:16 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Intern Steven Koffroth presented a report on the
request for an extension of five (5) years to
CUP 1634-(1)
finish the third phase building of the sanctuary
Evangelical Free
for the Evangelical Free Church. The request will
Church
require modification of condition 118 of CUP 1634 -
(1). Staff recommended that the Commission adopt
the attached resolution granting a five year time
extension to the original CUP and require that any
changes on the project come back before the
Commission for a new CUP approval.
Chair/Schey inquired if there are plans to change
the scope of the original phase three plan.
I/Koffroth stated that no plans to change phase III
have been submitted as of yet.
C/Grothe inquired if upon granting the extension,
would there be a design review process to ensure
that the project stays in conformity to the code.
I
I
I
March 11, 1991 Page 5
I/Koffroth replied that at this time the applicant
has not completed the development of the plans.
However, the applicant has indicated a desire to
change the scope of the third phase, at a later
date, by eliminating one of the classrooms,
relocating one of the classrooms to the rear,
increasing the size of the sanctuary to be moved
back towards the center,, increasing the parking
area, and gaining an additional access on to
Diamond Bar Boulevard.
VC/Harmony inquired if there were any objections in
the original approval, or currently, to the
project.
I/Koffroth responded that he did receive telephone
calls from surrounding residents who were concerned
about the expansion.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Bob Huff, representative of the Diamond Bar
Evangelical Free Church, requested extra time for
the project. He stated that nothing changed in
regards to the original purpose.
E_ Christine Pry, residing at 3155 Cherrydale,
inquired if the present trees will be destroyed
because more grading will occur on the hill in
order to increase the size of the sanctuary.
I/Koffroth, Intern, stated that it is anticipated
that the knoll will be graded to provide for
additional parking. The trees will be eliminated,
but will be replaced on the site.
VC/Harmony noted that the trees are not scheduled
to be taken out on the current plan. The
applicant, therefore, would be required to submit
another plan to be returned to the Planning
Commission as part of another Public Hearing
process.
Chair/Schey inquired if there are any requirements
under the County approval that would not meet the
current codes.
I/Koffroth responded that the parking to be
provided under the CUP is less than would be
required under current codes.
C Grothe stated he would
/ prefer letting the CUP
expire with the intent of making any returning
project conform to the current codes and
regulations of the community.
March 11, 1991 Page 6
C/MacBride indicated that he is comfortable with
permitting the extension, but acknowledges the
importance that the project meet current codes.
His concern is with what would be advantageous to
the community and the church.
VC/Harmony inquired if there are any other
significant changes from the original approval, and
son -Le of the new ordinances and concepts currently
being considered.
CP/Kaplan replied that, as previously indicated,
parking is more restrictive, and though not a code
issue, there is a change in the philosophy of the
day care center. hlowevpthe request was
evaluated as an axtenslovi of a CUP and was not
analyzed in terms of the applicant's verbal request
for a new project. Staff cannot give an
appropriate recommendation.
C/Grothe stated the only reason for needing an
extension is to build the existing project to
whatever was approved ten years ago. He reiterated
his desire to review these projects.
Chair/Schey concurred with C/Grothe, and noted that
the sanctuary is the single largest facility on the
site. He is, concerned with the parking
capabilities after the extension. It should be
looked at more definitively as a developmental
project.
Mark Harper, pastor, residing at 1125 Grubstake,
asserted that the reason for the extension is to
maintain a permit to develop the property. He
acknowledged that parking is a valid concern but it
can be mitigated. He explained that the landmarked
trees will be preserved during grading. He would
like the plan to remain until it can be refined to
the Commissions satisfaction.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Grothe stated regardless if there is a change
made on the site or not, the project needs to come
back to the Commission for review.
C/MacBride inquired when the CUP would lapse.
I/Koffroth responded that it would have lapsed in
November of 1990, had they not requested an
extension'.
N
I
March 11® 1991 Page,_--
Chair/Schey stated that when there is an
opportunity to do so, the Commission should have
all developments conform to our current codes.
VC/Harmony stated his appreciation for what the
church is trying to do. He concurred that the
standards are going to change, however, looking at
the situation and looking at the church as a one
day use, he is inclined to approve staff's
recommendation. Staff has reviewed the project and
there has been sufficient discussion of the
tentative changes.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by
Chair/Schey to deny the extension.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Chair/Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride and Harmony.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
The motion fails.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by
C/MacBride to continue the matter until the next
-a
regular meeting and direct staff to review reports
of the existing plans and diagrams.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony and MacBride.,;:,
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Chair/Schey;.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
The motion fails.
DA/Curley explained that as a function, the request
for extension is denied.
CUP 90-0127 Associate Planner Robert Searcy presented the
report for a request to complete in two phases the
addition of twenty nine pads for the placement of
mobile homes. Staff recommended the Commission
approve the Resolution of Approval as submitted or
amended.
VC/Harmony inquired if the hydrology report was
received and studied.
City Engineer Sid Mousavi replied that the report
was just recently received and there has not been
adequate opportunity to review it,
VC/Harmony requested a characterization of the
issues involved in the study.
March 11, 1991 Page
CE/Mousavi stated that it basically refers to the
to
The
mitigation of the drainage situation. area
be subdivided is presently the sump for the balance
of the site. The backside is to work as a
retention basin,
chair/Schey asked if there is any standard for
guest parking at the mobile home property.
AP/Searcy stated that the standard for a multiple
family dwelling type development is used for guest
parking, which is currently a 1e4 ratio.
Chair/Sohey inquired if, when the original CUP was
approved, these areas were contemplated as being
part of a future phase.
AP/Searcy stated the CUP originally approved 147
units to be completed within three phases over a
ten year period. This was not done and the
applicant is now applying for a cup to complete
phase one and two.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Simonian, general partner of the mobile
Richard
home park, stated that the retention basin will be
in a smaller area, to hold the same amount of
water, so that the additional spaces could be used
to bring in additional revenue. The back of the
park is presently a nuisance area. The sound wall
will be moved back to incorporate the retention
basin to the interior of the park and will be
maintained by the park.
VC/Harmony questioned if phase three proposes that
the water will naturally go elsewhere because
cities or counties may have developed some
additional storm drains in the future.
Mr. Simonian stated that the City of Industry has
plans to develop major storm drains. However, the
City of industry has not presently granted
permission to drain on the property.
Tom Pepper, residing at 21217 E. Washington,
president of the homeowners association, stated 92
of the 118 residents responded to the site survey.
All issues have been resolved. The majority
indicated that a designated play area was not
imperative.
Mr. Simonian stated the existing recreational area
is large enough to accommodate the residents.
March 11, 1991 Page 9
Chair/Schey inquired if there is an on going flow
of water in the area presently acting as a
retention basin.
Mr. Simonian asserted that there is a very
negligible flow of water. The water that does
drain in the area is percolated through the ground.
Chair/Schey inquired what the approximate size of
the proposed revised sump area is.
Mr. Simonian stated that it is approximately an
acre and a half, and that the depth is geared for a
50 year 'IQ".
CH/Mousavi indicated that if the area designated
for a sump is reduced and the depth increased, as
stated by the applicant, the time for the water to
leave would be longer.
Mr. Simonian stated that he will comply to whatever
the requirements are stated by the engineer.
C/Grothe requested evidence be given to staff, at a
later date, indicating that the conditions": -of
agreement have been addressed and resolved.
i_2
Kathleen Rose, 21259 Cottonwood Lane, inquired.,,if
there will be provisions to maintain the property
on a regular basis.
Chair/Schey explained that this issue would need to
be part of an abatement procedure to be dealt with
through the staff.
VC/Harmony stated he visited the site. The sump
area needs to be cleaned up and presently the area
is not in proper living condition. He requested
the project be return to the Commission, to include
proof there is adequate abatement of the water
going into the City of Industry.
C/Grothe indicated his desire for the project to go
forward, with the condition that all problems
regarding the homeowners association are resolved.
The area must also be maintained.
Mr. Simonian, to alleviate the concerns of
VC/Harmony, explained that the entire retention
basin would be on the inside of the park and will
be landscaped and maintained. He indicated that
the conditions resolved with the homeowners
association will be met.
—�-7 11 i'.. IImi i i III?_. — -- -
I i.. '. i 111 111 P ii ia. 11 , I n
March 11, 1991 Page 10
A
frequently used as recreational areas. He is
Chair/Schey stated that retention basins are
satisfied that, if the retention basin is included
as part of the park, and the requirement to keep it
maintained is followed, the project should go
forward.
CE/Mousavi stated that the idea of retention basins
as recreational areas have been used in numerous
projects in the past. However, the type of soil
needs to be considered. Some soils do not absorb
quickly, creating a pool of water, and a nuisance.
C/Grothe emphasized that the approval would be
subject to the engineers approval that the area
will be safe. He recommended a four or five foot
easement between two properties, to include
sidewalks, with landscaping, in order to facilitate
pedestrian movement, thereby making the
recreational facilities more accessible.
CP/Kaplan suggested staff prepare a list of
proposed conditions for the Commission.
Chair/Schey requested staff to check if permits,
such as the EPA, DFG, or corps of engineers, are
necessary since the existing sump has been
receiving water and will no longer be serving in
the current capacity.
C/MacBride requested that the sound barrier meets
with the code requirements of the City, and that
there is a reference that it meets the satisfaction
requested by the homeowners.
Mr. Simonian stated the sound barrier was designed
to eliminate the sound by bouncing it back to the
other direction. He indicated that he has the
acoustical reports.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to
the meeting of April 8, 1991 to include a staff
report on the engineering requirements, an easement
walkway, the sound barrier, and the recommendation
of the necessity of a recreational area and guest
parking.
Chair/Schey called a recess at 10:06 p.m. The
meeting was called to order at 10:12 p.m.
March 11, 1991 Page 11
CUP 90-0130 AP/Searcy presented the request to construct a two
story structure totaling 8,352 square feet to
Mt. Calvary provide additional classrooms for a parochial
Lutheran Church school (grades K-8). Staff recommended approval of
the project.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Dennis Stueve, pastor at Mt. Calvary, reiterated
the need for the expansion of the building.
William McNeal, residing at 23315 E. Gold Rush,
objected to the project because the neighbors below
him will be looking into the project. He suggested
that the parking plans be reversed.
AP/Searcy read a letter, submitted by C. Baldwin
Lowe of 23305 Gold Rush, objecting to the project
if it does not comply to the County code. AP/Searcy
noted that the ridgeline would not exceed the
existing grade of most of the residential
surrounding properties. It meets the standards of
the Conditional Use Permit conditions.
C/Grothe inquired if there is a way to eliminate a
couple of feet off the top of the structure.
Jerry Busse, architect, residing at •704 S.
Primrose, indicated that it would not be feasible.
Chair/Schey stated that he does not believe that
the building will have undue impact on the
neighbors. He suggested a condition that would
mandate a submittal of a landscape plan for the
street frontages of the property, that would be
approved by the City, to be included in the overall
development plan, and maintained as such. The
drainage area should be maintained as well.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by Chair/Schey, seconded by
C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Resolution of
Approval as submitted with the inclusion of an
additional condition mandating submittal of
landscape plan on the frontage and it's
maintenance, modification of item #9 whereas the
shrub does not exceed 20 feet, and amendment of
item #12 to include the categorical exemption
number 15314.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, and
Chair/Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Harmony.
March 11® 1991
Page 12
CUP 90-0125 C/MacBride requested to be removed from the
proceeding because of his proximity to the project.
Upon the advice by the City attorney, he
disqualified himself from the hearing.
AP/Searcy stated that the public notice was mailed
February 13, 1991. He presented the request for a
CUP to construct a two floor office building
located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and westerly
of Sunset Crossing Road at Navajo Spring Road.
Staff recommended the adoption of the Resolution of
approval and the attached conditions.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Fred Janz, applicant, residing at 2683 Shady Ridge,
requested the CUP to build the other building, and
specified that 'it would 'not affect the existing
building.
VC/Harmony noted that the area is very congested.
Mr. Janz explained that the County mandated the two
parcels be used as one to provide and ensure
maintair-ing adequate parking. He would like a CUP
t.c builld an office building on the remaining
portion site,
C/Grothe requested drawings of the building to be
set into photographs to get a better idea of the
proposed project. He stated he is concerned witb
the increase of traffic and the availability of
parking. He would=like the traffic issue addressed
by the Traffic 'Commission, a traffic study, if
necessary, and assurance that there is adequate
parking®
VC/Harmony stated his concerns that parking and
traffic are a problem, and sees no reason to
approve further construction. He asserted that the
building itself is in violation of the goals and
intent of the Hillside Ordinance.
David Ayala, designer, stated that the reason for
the siting was to preserve the forest like setting.
He stated upgrading parking would widen the
building, more trees will be planted in the rear,
it does not block the view of existing homes, and
there are plans for further landscaping.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
A.. - � - - , - I A --- . . 11- , - . I . *I . " , ,, 11 �_-, A ,M,"I L- A , '41 1 If, , I � I XI 11.1 . , ... ...... . ..... -11,114-11-- A.M.
March 11, 1991 Page 13 --- —
Chair/Schey requested further review by staff in
regards to the traffic increase. He inquired if
the applicant would concur if the Commission is
inclined to continue the project.
Mr. Janz gave his concurrence.
VC/Harmony asked the City Attorney to advise the
Commission, when the project is returned, as to
whether there is a mandate to allow further
development of the property, or if the denial of
development constitutes some sort of a taking.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by
Chair/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to the second meeting in April pending
submittal by the applicant of a traffic analysis
specifically oriented towards the traffic safety
issues relating to the project as prepared under
the scope of the direction of the Traffic
Commission.
zCA 91-1 CP/Kaplan reported that all amendments were
_ included in the sign code ordinance. He brought to
a Sign Code the attention of the Commission that the require -
ordinance menta for menu boards and at�tracriox. boards seems
excessive.
The Commission decided to limit attraction board to
theaters only.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Jake Williamson, residing at 259 Gentle Springs
Lane, offered his approval of the draft sign
ordinance.
VC/Harmony inquired why the abatement of signs is
after 15 years.
Ball Curley, City Attorney, explained that it is
better to implement discretionary actions as
opposed to mandatory action, from an ordinance
structure standpoint. The abatement can therefore
be structured in whatever manner is suitable to the
City in the future.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by
C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend to
the Council to approve the ordinance with the
( revision restricting menu boards to theaters only.
�_
-- - _�<_._,..�...»..._....� I 1 11 1111111[ o 11 Iff -- — — I III II IP I!i ul [,I — —'—`_.
March 119 1991 Page 14
ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/NacBride shared a story found in the Harmony
Report of a store owner who, upon. feeling badly
Commissioners because of a sign ordinance, paint -'ed- a mural in the
cafe.
VC /Harmony
/Harmonv discussed, the issue of parking
standards. He would like to eventually vote on the
issue to create a policy confirming the Commissions
request.
James DeStefano, Planning Director, stated staff
utilizes a running list of Commission policies.
The list would be brought back to the Planning
Commission for the purpose of adopting a code
amendment. This is also done for policy pertaining
to the development code.
VC/Harmony requested that standardized parking be
brought to the Commission for discussion and
consideration of a vote at the next regular
meeting.
Chair/Schey directed staff to come up with a
recommendation on how best to deal with the issue,
with the°intent to eliminate compact spaces, to -'be
brought back at the next regular meeting. IF
C/MacBride requested staff to pursue data regarding
oak tree preservation and replacement, with the
purpose of looking at and embracing a generic tree
ordinance.
Chair/Schey noted the follow up letter from
FlIllumination"I wanting to be rescheduled for
presentation before the Commission. He directed
staff to indicate the commission is not interested
in rescheduling.
Staff PD/DeStefano stated staff has not received the
traffic report requested by the Commission in
regards to the car wash issue.
Chair/Schey directed staff to put in a
recommendation for continuance if data is not
received within the appropriate timeline.
PD/DeStefano stated that earlier this evening he
spoke before a subcommittee of the board of
trustees to determine the use of surplus school
property known as site 91DIIa Staff presented a
recommendation for a community park. The Walnut
School District proposed a housing development.
There was substantial support for the community
park. PD/DeStefano presented the Commission with a
copy of the park schematic plan.
'IR Ik A" I A114"-, "'W",Ml
"! , � ; -, 11� I'll 11, ', I IT 1111_.._�
March 11, 1991 -Page-15
ADJOURNMENT: motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
12:18 a.m.
Attest-.
James
Secretary/Planning Commission
Ir I -! I III , 1 7-1 -
f-- l% - (;(�
David Schey
Chairman n