Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/25/1991C/MacBride requested the Minutes of March 11, 1991 be amended on page 3, paragraph 2, to read as "budget constraints" as opposed to "skills", and page 11, fifth paragraph to add "with the purpose of looking at and embracing a generic tree ordinance" to the end of the sentence. Chair/Schey suggested that the approval of the minutes be placed as a separate agenda item before the Consent Calendar. Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED to continue the matter for the purpose of clarifying the Minutes of March 11, 1991, and setting the tone for future minutes. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, Harmony, and Chair/Schey. NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Lino 1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 25, 1991 1I CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 6:35 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 arrived late at 6:50 p.m. Also present were City Planner Irwin Kaplan, Assoc. Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy Attorney Bill Curley, City Engineer Sid Mousavi, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: Planning Director James DeStefano requested item #2 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. VC/Harmony requested the Minutes of March 11, 1991 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. VC/Harmony indicated that the Minutes of March 11, �— 1991 were condensed to a point of not being wholly comprehensible. He requested the minutes be held over until the next meeting to allow further discussion with staff on the merits of this particular set of minutes. C/MacBride requested the Minutes of March 11, 1991 be amended on page 3, paragraph 2, to read as "budget constraints" as opposed to "skills", and page 11, fifth paragraph to add "with the purpose of looking at and embracing a generic tree ordinance" to the end of the sentence. Chair/Schey suggested that the approval of the minutes be placed as a separate agenda item before the Consent Calendar. Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED to continue the matter for the purpose of clarifying the Minutes of March 11, 1991, and setting the tone for future minutes. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, Harmony, and Chair/Schey. NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Lino 1 Marcia 25, 1991 Page 2 Resolution of James DeStefano suggested that the Commission with - Denial for the hold action, at this time, in consideration of the extension of Resolution for Denial regarding a request for an Evangelical Free extension of time for the Evangelical Free Church. Church Chair/Schey was concerned that the wording of the Resolution of Denial implies an active action of denial. It could be taken as too positive -of an action, in terms of denial of the project, and may create an, impression that is not accurate. The project was neither approved nor denied, and expired on it's own accord. Deputy Attorney Bill Curley explained that there was an affirmative request to allow an extension of the existing resolution on the existing terms and conditions. The request was not granted regardless how it is characterized. It appears to be a standard form of denial. VC/Harmony ascertained that substantiating or confirming an action taken previously at a public meeting is a reconsideration of that action and does not follow parliamentary procedure. C/MacBride noted that the resolution does not indicate the reasoning behind allowing the expiration, only the final result of the decision. He would like wording to indicate the why I s and wherefores of the Commission's actions. Chair/Schey directed staff to work through the issues stated, come back with an appropriate document for the Commission's reconsideration, and include consideration for the concerns stated by VC/Harmony. This is to be brought back to the Commission at the next meeting. OLD BUSINESS: City Planner Irwin Kaplan indicated that, at the March 11, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission Review of the considered the establishment of a separate design Development Code review board to advise the City on the design Chapters 1.1 & aspects of a variety of projects. 1.11 According to the Commission, the design review 3 process should2 3 1. Not create another level of "bureaucratic intervention". 2. Not create further delays to the approval process. 3. Be handled by staff as part of the normal review process. 4. Call upon a citizen's board of design professionals to review projects, "as needed", when design guidance is required beyond that which staff can provide. I I March 25, 1991 . ... .. VC/Harmony specified that he is not opposed to delaying any project until it is fully evaluated. He suggested that the architectural review committee should be appointed now. It should only be called in if additional information is needed. The following are his suggestions to some of the responsibilities of the standing committee: 1. To develop the guidelines, and recommend to the Commission their level of involvement. 2. To deal with issues of art public places, and it®s initiation processes. 3. To be composed of a mixture of professionals and nonprofessionals, to include perhaps an architect, a landscape architect, and an artist. Each committee member would have an alternative. 4. To have a review authority and a reporting responsibility to the Commission. They would be purely advisory to the Commission, work side by side with staff, and meet on a regular bases to keep up with the level of activities. C/Grothe indicated that the design review committee need not be on-going. He suggested :that professionals are preferred so that the Commission may receive the technical aspects to a project. The board should be advisory to the Commission- Chair/Schey questioned if there is enough activity to warrant a standing committee. PD/DeStefano confirmed that, based on the present volume of projects, the committee will be on-going. They will probably meet once or twice a month in order to maintain the timelines mandated by a variety of California codes. C/Grothe questioned if the intent of the Commission is to develop another level of bureaucracy, or develop a set of guidelines and standards for architectural design. He suggested the Commission request to the City Council to consider the hiring of an additional staff member for the purpose of assisting the planning staff to set up and follow appropriate guidelines. C/Grothe inquired if all cities have a design review committee. CP/Kaplan explained that more and more communities are having a design review. The question the Commission needs to ascertain is what problem is trying to be resolved. Marah 25, 1991 Page 4 Chair/Schey stated that the Commission has not had adequate time to look at architectural review in great detail. He would feel more comfortable with a committee based in the community that will take the time to look at these projects. VC/Harmony stated that there is a general consensus that there is a need for a subcommittee to review architectural standards. He stressed the importance of having a community involved committee of professionals that can give technical expertise to the Commission, on an "as needed" bases. The Commission has avoided architectural review and must start at some point. C/Grothe concluded that the Commission has done a fine job on architectural review up to date. He does not agree there is a problem. He would like to see the design review looked at more specifically and sees no reason to add further bureaucracy. There needs to be an establishment of proper guidelines to aide the Commission in the process of their review, to include better input from staff. He reiterated a need for one more staff member toassist the planning staff. C/MacBride requested staff to define if there is a design review problem, to include information on the quantity of cases reviewed, and how extensive the review is being done presently at a staff level. He does not have a desire to interlace the Commission's activities with another bureaucratic level. Chair/Schey directed staff to present to the Commission, at the next meeting, a synopsis of the degree of review presently being done by staff. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Technician Ann Lungu gave a report concerning the request for approval to open a dry CUP 91-2 cleaning establishment, located at 1155 Diamond Bar A request to Boulevard in the Standard Brands Shopping Center. establish a The applicant will maintain a dry cleaning and dry cleaners. laundry plant on the premises. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and CUP 91-002 with the Findings of Fact and conditions listed. The Public Hearing was declared open. Don Chapman, residing at 1801 E. La Vida, City of Orange, applicant, offered to answer any questions. .C/MacBride inquired what term is used to designate "Pere". I I March 250 1991 Page 5 Mr. Chapman responded that the chemical is called tetrachloroethylene, but that "perc" is the accepted trade name. The Public Hearing was declared closed. chair/Schey indicated he has no problem with the project as long as it meets the 11AQMD11 standards. Notion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve staff's recommendation and resolution as outlined in the agenda with the modification of item 113d" of the resolution to read '"...shall be obtained and maintained from...". Development PD/DeStefano gave a report reviewing the issues Agreement 91-2 discussed by the Planning Commission on the continued from February 25, 1991 public hearing. The following Feb. 25, 1991 are the issues addressed concerning the proposed project: 1. Traffic and Safety. 2. Architectural Style. 3. Convenience Store or Snack Shop. 4. Development Agreement. Staff recommended that the Planning CommisEdon approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Agreement 91-2 with the stated concerns mitigated and with the conditions listed. Chair/Schey inquired if the City Engineer is comfortable with the analysis and the mitigation measures recommended in the revised traffic study. City Engineer Sid Mousavi responded that the traffic study was satisfactory. However, staff's additional requirements of an extended auxiliary lane, and the mitigation measures on Golden Springs and Colima, were not addressed as part of the traffic study. VC/Harmony inquired on the safety of crossing lanes of traffic on to Golden Springs, coming out of the development, and heading east. CE/Mousavi explained that a site distance of 600 feet is required for a speed of 50 mph. That distance is available for a left turn. However, if there are slow moving vehicles, such as a truck, and the speed of the traveling vehicle is greater than 50 mph, there may be site distance problems. March 25, 1991 Page 6 The Public Hearing was declared open. Gary Clapp, residing at 21055 Glenbrook Drive, Diamond Bar, addressed several issues: 1. Internal Traffic - he referred to the letter from UNOCAL, solicited from their traffic engineer, which approved the site and the turning movement the truck will make on the site, as wel]- as the restrictive delivery hours. 2. Visibility - he emphasized that their traffic engineer determined that there is sufficient visibility.' The traffic is made safer with the inclusion of the right turn pocket. 3. Acceleration Lane - he deferred discussion to the traffic engineer. Paul Wilkensen, a principal of Lyn, Scott, Long Greenspan, traffic engineer, accompanied by Jay Nelson, addressed the issue of the acceleration lane. The concern for the lane is that it encourages a movement to enter the traffic stream without there being an adequate gap. This causes them to be placed in a weaving situation because of the various traffic maneuvers needed, and creates a rear end accident potential. it is safer for the motorist to wait for a gap long enough to pull out. Gary Clapp continued to address some issues: 4. The additional 11 foot street dedication ac•�c'.T.-:-Y!odatinq another eleven feet would requLre at least a 12 foot high retaining wall to hold the soil, which would be against city ordinance. The other alternative would be to build out on a 2:1 grade slope. However, this action, coupled with the request to add another 15 , foot setback, would result in eliminating the building because a total of 39 feet would have to be -moved out. This stops the project then and there. 5. Pullout Traffic - the traffic on Golden Springs will not be as busy during peak business hours. However, there can be a restriction of a left turn out of the site but allow a U turn at the Gateway Drive. 6. Street improvement - there will be 605 of total landscaping of the property. Since there will be little pedestrian movement in the area, he questioned the demand for sidewalks. 7. Concerns of the AQMD - the building will not block, much of the view of the AQMD. He illustrated such by photos, presented to the Commission, taken on the third floor of the AQMD building. March 25, 1991 8. Clock Tower - the clock tower was an idea of the applicant as a gift to the City, and will include the Diamond Bar logo. 9. Concession Stand - purpose is to sell packaged candy, chips, etc., as a convenience to the customers. C/Lin inquired how steep the driveway will be going out of the project. Mr. Clapp explained that the driveway will feather out and will be level with the street when exiting the property. Chair/Schey recessed the meeting at 8:52 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 9:07 p.m. He requested speakers in favor of the project. Dan Buffington, residing at 2605 Indian Creek, commented that sidewalks should not be given up; direction of the tanker should be changed to avoid crossing lanes; the left turn should be allowed until a traffic problem is indicated; keep the 11, foot street dedication; there is, a need to the 15 foot setback for the building, and the,:, CC&Rls require a sign into Diamond Bar -,on that property, and it should be ensured that one will placed there. Frank ank - Arciero Jr., of Arciero and Sons, stated that the 11 foot easement is an additional request that will cause lost of parking and building; there is an interest in the development and will ensure it is first class; and any new buyer must be approved by them. Pat Bell, 23460 Coyote Springs, stated his desire for a car wash. Sidewalks are not important because part of the aesthetics of Diamond Bar is it's rural qualities. Frank Schabarum, from West Covina, in behalf of the property owner and the applicant, commented that the applicant has been diligent and cooperative in processing his development,- agreement. He noted that approval of the car wash would allow for restaurants. He distributed a letter to the Commission from a restaurant owner who might be interested in the site. Chair/Schey requested speakers in opposition of the project. March 25, 1991 Page 8 Bob Burbon, residing at 1200 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, homeowner and realtor, is appalled by the project., He noted the location of the project and stated that it does not project a good image for Diamond Bar. The project will create traffic difficulties resulting in problems to attract future users within Gateway. There is no need for 3 car washes in south Di-aipond Bar and suggested placing one in the north s`!.de to attract customers from the surrounding cities forgreaterrevenue. John Brewster, residing at 4071 Second Street, was concerned with the on site traffic movement; the incompatible design of the building in comparison to the area; and the 25 --foot above grade signage allotment.' He quest --Lone,_',. the wisdom of allowing one mile distances between car washes and stated the area will not support two. He pointed out the costs already expended by himself and Honda. His car wash projects now in plan check and will be in construction within 30 to 60 days. The location for a car wash at Grand has a safe egress and ingress. Jack Wesso, of SCAQMD, was concerned with the traffic circulation problem; the on site traffic; the lack of trees in the parking area; and that the theme of the building is not in conformance with the neighborhood. Ben Reiling,, of Zelman Development, representing Gateway, stated that the left turn should not be allowed coming out of the project at Golden Springs. He questioned the determination for $50,000 for traffic mitigation indicated in the traffic report. CE/Mousavi stated that a pedestrian sidewalk is desirable and should be enforced keeping in mind possible future developments in the area. The left turn issue does not have to be a condition at this time because it can be anytime in the future. The $50,000 is based upon construction cost of today,. He disagreed with the opinion in opposition to the acceleration lane. It would be ideal to have the lane go all the way to the traffic signal, however, the minimum of 100 feet is deemed allowable to accommodate 50 mph traffic. C/Grothe stated that 11 feet for sidewalks seems excessive. _111.-_1--_____. I 1-1,11- �.JA',, — ­ ­ 1, n WO"'M; ", ":WHANV11 March 25® 1991 'Nkge- 9 if CE/Mousavi explained that there is presently 12 feet of parkway area at Golden Springs. The addition of 11 feet of new lane is needed in order to maintain continuity of the parkway area. Mr. Wilkensen asserted that the road is currently 34 feet in width. The width needed is already there. VC/Harmony inquired if there is 40% compact parking. He further questioned if the requirement was changed to 100% standard parking, would there be adequate space. PD/DeStefano replied that presently the parking requirement exceeds the minimum allotted by a space or two. There would not be adequate space for 100% standard parking. VC/Harmony noted the possibility for traffic backup due to the inside traffic circulation pattern. CE/Mousavi explained that if there was traffic backup, it would back up into the auxiliary lane. C/Grothe discussed the positive aspects -sof the project. These aspects included the style of architecture; the use of the convenient store; and the landmark sign with the Diamond Bar logo. The issues he found to be a problem are the traffic; the rigid site design that have not included any revisions requested; and the lack of a total site plan. He would like the total site plan to indicate if, with grading, it could be a viable option to extend the roadway and align like a private street, turning with that bottom intersection signal. The left turn problem would be solved with the use of the traffic light. Currently, the traffic is so dense it would be impossible to egress without a traffic signal. His recommendation would be to deny the project or to continue it with a redesign. C/Lin agreed that the acceleration lane can cause more problems and would prefer to see cars egress one at a time. She inquired why the 11 foot setback is significant. PD/DeStef ano explained that the setback issue on the building is intended to draw the buildings away from the street with the purpose of creating the same type of aesthetics seen throughout the majority of Diamond Bar. A 15 foot set back seemed appropriate for the size and scale of the buildings being proposed. - March 25, 1991 Pace 10 VC/Harmony stated at present a car wash is not permitted in the zone; the traffic patterns are a confusion; the monument sign issue should be turned over to the Council's Monument Entryway Sign Committee; wants mature trees planted; concurred with the traffic mitigations recommended by the City Engineer; will not give up any right of way and easements; will not yield on the setback requirements; want standard parking stalls for all developments; and sidewalks are essential. The property must be developed for it's highest and best use. He would consider reviewing the project again, however, it must be redesigned to meet the stated guidelines. C/MacBride stated he would like to see a further possibility of what can yet be done to this site that could answer the question of the left turn problem; the preservation of right of way, sidewalk, and set back area; foreclose the scrambled propensity for the interior traffic; and maintain the arch.irectural harmony of the interior community. C/Schey is concerned by the functionality of the site plan. The site is not being used as efficiently and properly as it should be. His main concern is the method the project is being pursued through the utilization of the development agreement. This particular method of doing a use variance is legal but not appropriate. If these uses are deemed appropriate to the site, then the proper method of operation would be to submit an application for a zone change to the appropriate zoning designation and pursued accordingly. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Grothe disagreed with the concerns stated by the chairman in regards to the development agreement. He has a oroblem with asking the applicant to request a ions change because the zoning change would remain as a C-3 zone if the project is not developed for whatever .reasons. The development agreement is specific and requires changes of the site. He would not totally deny the project at this point. Chair/Schey stated that his biggest concern is not with the development agreement as an entity but with it's use in this case. In essence what is being done is using a development agreement to approve a car wash in a zone that does not allow a car wash. He is inclined to make a motion of denial. March 2w,• iggi Page il C/Lin stated that a zone change creates a wider variety of business or other types of commercial centers, which could create more traffic problems than we are faced with today. The use of the development agreement is more favorable than a zone change. Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by Chair/schey and CARRIED for recommendation of denial for the development permit. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, Harmony, and Chair/Schey. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. PD/DeStefano stated that staff will prepare a specific resolution with findings denying the project for the Commission's consideration. ANNOUNCEMENTS: PD/DeStefano informed the Commission that the new listing of phone numbers for all the departments in Staff City Hall will be distributed to the Commission. Planning PD/DeStefano explained that the item is a follow Commissioners: up, resulting from a previous discussion, for the need of including such items on the agenda for open a. Policy Manual discussion. VC/Harmony explained the need to codify particular issues that have the Commission's consensus. If the Commission votes on an issue, staff is better able to send signals to developers that the Commission has taken a particular position regarding such issues. Chair/Schey agreed that there are policies that might not be in the code yet, would be beneficial to staff to have the Commission's consensus in writing. Staff could then advise the applicant to be prepared on particular items because the Planning Commission will request it. The Planning Commission Manual could be modified to incorporate those type of policies. VC/Harmony requested that staff also include policy statements for the Commissions consideration on such issues. Chair/Schey stated that when these policy issues become apparent, the Commission will direct staff to draft the policy statement to be adopted by the commission and included in the manual. March 25, 1991 Page 12 DA/Curley inquired if the ultimate purpose of these policies is to eventually convert them to an ordinance. Chair/Schey 'stated that this, was not really the intent. The ",ommission would like to have an actual writing ::)f ssues that concern them, and would like to be kept, informed of these issues in certain circumstances, VC/Harmony explained that the purpose is to send a signal to developers of the Commission's position. The developer can of course ignore staff's recommendation and. still. apply, but he has been made aware of the Commission's position and may possibly respondaccordingly. Chair/Schey declared that in the case of an issue that the Commission feels so strongly about, the Commission ought to recommend an ordinance change. PD/DeStefano stated that this interim step is being created with the acknowledgement that there are many issues that just cannot , be addressed as quickly as is desired. Chair/Schey stated that the Commission needs to acknowledge that this interim step is questionable,-' as to it's enforceability in some cases. VC/Harmony suggested staff and the city attorney prepare a preamble that takes into account the flexibility of these rules and allows that these are general guidelines. Chair/Schey recapitulated that the commission is in consensus that the formulation of policy statements is a good addition to the Commission's manual. The Commission will direct staff accordingly as those issues arise. b. Discussion of Chair/Schey stated the Commission does not want any current parking more compact stalls. standards VC/Harmony specified if the commission is requesting staff to come -back to the next regular meeting with a study, or a report on standardizing these stalls. PD/DeStefano stated that staff requires discussion on this item. The new development code is looking at parking quite extensively and will be ready for public hearing in 4 to 5 months. Anything more than an interim step is really going back to the whole development code process. I I March 25® 1991 ,Pace 13 Chair/Schey directed staff to come back to the Commission at the next meeting with a policy statement that can be added to the Planning Commission manual indicating the Commission's disinclination to approve any further compact stalls, and our inclination to see a great deal more parking lot landscaping than that is currently mandated under the code. VC/Harmony stated that, at the legal session in Monterey, he got the impression that there was some legal binding which prohibits Commissioners to meet with developers or even a situation of talking with one another. PD/DeStefano explained that it was a conflict between just meeting normally with the developers and where it falls into the Brown Act trap of meeting with individual Commissioners coming to a decision. DA/Curley cautioned the Commission to understand that when reviewing a project proposal, to always keep in mind that the information received is only a third of the story. As a basic -rule, if you are uncomfortable with some situation of the developer, either don't do it or make the Commission aware of it. C/MacBride stated that it would be very helpful to have a consistent policy whereby either all Commissions react and report it in such ways as our requisite, or we do not react and presentations have to be formal. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 P.M. David Schey Chairman Attest: ��... , 61an JameDeStef Secretary/Plan, ing Director _" 1—".. IN dIIIS 1 11.I.