HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/8/1991A
--- —'aLak, --- --__--.,....» - .._». — - -- -- -- ---- - -
Chair/Schey stated that an action, taken by the
commission, routinely comes back in the form of a
resolution. In this case, the action was an
inaction, and is so indicated in the resolution.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 8, 1991
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chairman Harmony 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,
Commissioner Lin, and Vice Chairman Harmony.
Chairman Schey arrived at 6:38 p.m.
Also present were Planning Director James
DeStefano, City Planner Emeritus Irwin Kaplan,
Associate Planner Robert Searcy, City Engineer Sid
Mousavi, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MINUTES:
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY that the Minutes of March
March 11, 1991
11, 1991 be held over until the next meeting.
C/MacBride requested the Minutes of March 25, 1.991
be amended to delete the second to the last
paragraph on page 13.
Motion was made by C/Grothe® seconded by VC/Harmony
March 25, 1991
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of
March 25, 1991 as amended.
OLD BUSINESS:
Planning Director James DeStefano explained that
the Resolution of Denial regarding a request for an
CUP 1634- (1)
extension of time for the Evangelical Free Church
responds to the action taken by the Commission
during the meeting of March 11, 1991. Staff
recommended the Commission approve the resolution
which denies the extension of time. He informed
the Commission that the applicant has filed for an
appeal. The issue is scheduled for a City Council
meeting in May.
VC/Harmony indicated that, as a point of order,
placing the issue on the agenda in the form of a
resolution constitutes a reconsideration of the
decision made.
Chair/Schey stated that an action, taken by the
commission, routinely comes back in the form of a
resolution. In this case, the action was an
inaction, and is so indicated in the resolution.
April 8, 1991 Page 2
PD/DeStefano explained, that the resolution was
crafted to neJ4-`,--'-:)'.er -approve nor deny the project.
The City Attorney fe3t it appropriate to record the
Commission's action in a resolution.
Chair/Schey contended that, given the City
Attorney's advice, the resolution is an appropriate
vehicle to recor--'. the Commission's activities.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride
and CARRIED to approve the Resolution of Denial.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride® Lin,
and Chair/Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Harmony:.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
Development PD/DeStefano reported that the Resolution of Denial
Agreement 91-2 regarding a request for a Development Agreement to
construct a self-service gasoline station,
automated car wash, automotive detail facility,
offices and a restaurant, was prepared outlining
the findings of fact from. the meeting of March 25,
19910 The applicant is requesting time to speak
prior to the Commission taking action on this
matter in order to discuss the results of a recent
meeting with City staff.
Chair/Schey stated that it would not be acceptable
to allow the aioDlicant to make further comments
without also receiving input from the entities that
objected to the project.
VC/Harmony asserted that a decision was made during
the Public Hearing process. That decision should
remain without further input. i
C/Grothe agreed. The resolution is a ministerial
act of the decision made at the public hearing.
However, he would not object if the applicant would
like to present an update on the progress of the
project, after the final vote.
Chair/Schey noted the consensus of the Commission
to act on the Resolution, and then allow the
applicant to give an update on the project.
C/MacBride requested the Resolution be amended on
page 4, to read as "complement".
Notion was made by C/MaoBride, seconded by
VC/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Resolution of Denial as amended.
Chair/Schey permitted the applicant to address the
Commission.
F
E
April, 8, 1991 Page '3
Mr. Gary Clapp and Mr. Piero of Toran development,
LJ the proponents of the project, stated that a new
redesign of the project has been made incorporating
the input from the Commission and staff. It had
been their hope to present the changes -to the
Commission in hopes of a reconsideration. Mr.
Clapp illustrated, to the Commission, some of the
various changes made.
PD/DeStefano, upon conclusion of Mr. Clapps'
remarks, informed the applicant of the available
options to either move forward with the project to
the City Council, or withdraw the current project,
immediately reapply and submit the new project to
the Planning Commission.
PUBLIC BEARING: Assoc. Planner Robert Searcy reported that staff
has not had sufficient time to review the latest
CLIP 90-0127 information submitted by the applicant late last
week. Staff recommended that the Public Hearing be
continued to the meeting of April 22, 1991, with
the applicant's acquiescence.
City Engineer Sid Mousavi specified that- the
hydrology report has been submitted and reviewed by
staff. The report on the wall system and sound
system has not been reviewed.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Mr. Simonian, general partner of the mobile home
park, stated the acoustic study was submitted to
staff, as well as the conditions of the agreement
made with the homeowner's association. He would
like to conclude this issue as soon as possible.
Chair/Schey inquired if staff has received all
necessary information responding to all of the
Commission's concerns.
AP/Searcy confirmed that it has been received. He
stated that staff would be able to give a report,
with conditions, and a recommendation, for the
meeting of April 22, 1991.
Mr. Simonian gave his concurrence to continue the
matter to the next meeting.
Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by
i C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to the meeting of April 22, 1991, with the
"� applicants concurrence.
April S® 1991 Page '4
NEW BUSINESS:
PD/DeStef ano
stated that three sections
Draft Development
Code are scheduled for
Review of Draft
They are:
Development. Code
1. Chapter
1.1
- Adn.4nistration.
Chapz:ere-
2. Chapter
1.11
- Definitions.
1.11, & 1.4
3. Chapter
1.4
- Residential Districts.
of the
review.
Dan Dunham, principal with the Planning Network,
began the review of the Administration section.
Many issues that occur it the administration
section deal with-.
1. Policy Questions - These issues necessitate
the Commissioner. input,
2. HandatorY Sections - These issues deal with
aixchox%it-y and state law.
Chapter 1.1u
Purpose and Intent - There are 5 reasons for this
zoning code:
a. To implement the General Plan.
b. To assure orderly development.
C. To attempt to control, mitigate, or prevent
hazards.
do To protect the natural features within the
community.
e. To gain the advantages of orderly planning.
The authority for the zoning code comes from
California State Planning Law, and the Subdivision
Map Act of the State of California.
Applic-abil-ity, and Eqfforcement - There is a
Drov-; slanrequiring all other agencies
(federal,state, county, and special districts)
concur and follow the guidelines set forth in this
document. It also states that the City will follow
it's own rules.
Discussion of the Diamond Bar General Plan - The
zoning- code is an implementing device of the
General Plan. State law requires that the zoning
code be consistent with the general plan.
Development District.=-. '- There are three general
d-Istricts --hat, are being created in the
community:
a. - The residential districts.
b. The commercial/business districts.
c The special districts.
Planninq/or Aqency - The City Council, the Planning
Commission, the Development Review Board, a Project
Review Commission, and the Planning Director are
included in the components of the planning agency.
April 8, 1991 page -5
The Planning Director - The Planning Director's
responsibilities are: implementing the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); act as the
secretary to the Planning Commission; and
coordinate all Planning functions within the City
departments, and with other agencies that might
require coordination. His capacity is a technical
and administrative role within the Planning
authority, leaving the Planning commission with a
larger policy role, The Planning Director's
functions may be carried out by an authorized
subordinate employee.
The Design Review
C/MacBride instructed staff that he prefers the
"Statement of Intent", from the previous draft
code, be placed back into the Design Review
section.
The Filing of Applications/The Public Hearing and
Notification Procedures - State standards have been
followed such as the ten (10) calendar days for
noticing periods; and the three hundred foot (3.00)
notification radius around the project.
VC/Harmony stated that there should be some
emphasizes on broadening the notification radius to
more than three hundred feet.
C/MacBride indicated that he has no objections to
the 10 day notice. However, there are examples
when the 300 foot application is completely
inadequate due to the nature of the location.
There should be a capacity to permit staff to
extend the radius when there is knowledge that very
few property owners would be reached following the
minimum standards.
PD/DeStefano cautioned that staff could be
criticized for being selective in the manner in
which notification is issued.
VC/Harmony suggested that the standard be raised to
a radius of 400 to 500 feet for notification. The
Commission concurred.
Chair/Schey requested that a caveat be included
indicating that where a notice radius overlaps a
property owners association, the property owners or
homeowners association be noticed as an entity. It
would have to be an entity that could be reasonably
identified.
I I , III [I 111� 1 11 — — - , I- , 1 111 IIIIHIII 11I-il !, I I
April 8, 1991 Page 6
Mr. Dunham, and PD/DeStef ano, stated there are
other options for post'.nq -:e-quirements for
notification.. One c-on.mu-nitv aced. a notice of the
action on every property within the 300 foot
radius. Other :=ommur',,.-ties req ' uire that a large
painted sign be placed stating -zhe action, the
owners, the represent-atl-es: and -he date of the
public hearing.
Chair/SQhey inquired if the signs are placed for
notice on all projects, or just developments
proposed on vacant land.
PD/DeStefano explained that where such a device is
used it is commonly placed on projects that require
a discretionary action.
C/MacBride stated that the use of the sign sounded
like an excellent idea.
C/Grothe noted that placing signs, as an example,
for every CUP re:eived, from tenants within a
little retail center does not seem appropriate.
Chair/Schey stated that the commissions'
inclination is to place signs only where there is
new construction on vacant property. The
Commission concurred.
tc Extend Wit -h the land - The decisions
made regardina. zo-rI.-Ir.a. IS`SUes with the land and
are not just for a parr—icular individual.
Lapse of Approval and Extension of Time
PD/DeStefano suggested the Commission consider the
length of time appropriate for particular projects.
The Planning Commission has the ability to
determine the appropriate life span of a project
permit, as well as restrict the amount of times the
permit may be extended, and for what time period.
Chair/Schey inquired if the three year timeline is
suggested in- the draft code, a state requirement.
A one year life for CUPs and other development
permits seems acceptable.
PD/DeStefano stated that a one year time limit is
common, but developers are now having a difficult
time meeting that timeline. He explained that
substantial compliance, according to the city
attorney, does not just refer to pulling permits,
but includes construction above the ground.
Specific time frames for subdivisions are set by
State law.
11 'I,.I M" 111, 1„'I^�:.. M ” I ,, ....r:, a , , ",. ", I , , 1 ,a I III 1,u . i ., , 1 �- I , H , "IR o , , :, r
I
I
April 8, 1991
VC/Harmony stated that there is a timeliness that a
public agency would want to have to ensure
expeditious handling of a project. He suggested
limiting the timeline to two years. The Commission
concurred.
C/Grothe suggested that any extensions allowed
should be limited as well.
Chair/Schey stated that it should be limited to a
single one year extension, with the caveat unless
overridden by terms of a development agreement, or
overridden by community concern.
Appeals - Any decision of the Planning Director can
be appealed to the Planning Commission. Any
decision of the Planning Commission can be appealed
to the City Council. The reason for the appeal
must be stated up front. To overturn the denial of
the Planning Commission, there needs to be a
straight majority of the City Council.
Chapter 1.11:
Mr. Dunham explained that the definition sectio4,is
important because it provides the bases Ifor
understanding, and interpretation for terms found
throughout the code. It is best to work out the
definition in context of the various development
sections.
Chair/Schey suggested that the term "effective
persons", found in the Appeal section, be defined
within the Definition section.
PD/DeStefano explained that the Definition section
allows the creation of the Commission's own
interpretation, understanding, and philosophy
behind a particular term.
Chapter 1.4:
Mr. Dunham stated that the residential areas of the
community have been divided into four districts to
reflect the geographical qualities or features of
Diamond Bar:
1. Rural Residential - intended for low density,
large lot, single family, detached dwelling
units.
2., Single Family Residential - intended for
common size suburban type lots.
3. Multiple Family District - intended for single
family detached, multi -family detached
residential dwelling units at a density of
about 9 dwelling units,to the, acre.
.1
April 8® 1991 page a
4. Multiple Family Attached District - intended
for a density --of 11 dwelling units per acre.
PD/DeStefano pointed out that the Commission has a
wide variety of choices well beyond what is stated
in the code.
Chair/sohey called a recess at 8:35 p.m. The
meeting was called to order at 8:52 p.m.
Mr. Dunham pointed out that the 11 units per acre
assessment in the attached multi -family district
may effectively prohibit additional apartments in
the community.
C/Grothe asserted that 5 units per acre, in the
single family district, is generous, and 11 units
per acre, in the multi -family district, is
stringent.
Chair/Schey summarized that the policy question
before the Commission is determining how much
density should, be allowed, and if more apartments
should be allowed within the community.
C/Grothe, after Commission discussion concerning
lot sizes in conjunction with the number of
dwelling units per acre, suggested that 4 units per
acre in the single family residential district is
more appropriate. The commission concurred.
CPE/Kaplan pointed out that this is more a General
Plan issue than a Development Code issue. The
policy question for the Commission is to determine
if this assessment is appropriate for the
community. It can later be considered and
reanalyzed five or ten years down the line.
Chair/Schey indicated that it is not appropriate to
forbid apartments through a density limitation.
CPE/Kaplan suggested that the discussion would be
more appropriate ..-.n terms of housing policy through
the General Plan.
Permitted Uses -Within Residential Districts:
Chair/Schey inquired if the minor development
permit refers to single family attached, duplex,
triplex, and fourplex, regardless of the amount of
units going in.
Mr. Dunham confirmed that it would be as it is
written. This would be another policy question to
consider.
I
I
_ _ _ __ _T_ ____—_ _�_ —___ _—lam_-_.ILU1�1�k�u-. ax1�,�i!.tl��WYxi�xtx�l4lx-�-..-+m�.-.. -..4--0.•�N-_.=- r�r l-�I-^- —._, ___
April. 8, 1991 Page 9
CP/Kaplan explained that a major development design
review and a minor development permit, basically
permits uses with certain restrictive criteria.
When a CUP is stated, the Commission reserves the
right to make a judgment if the use can be made
compatible with the character of the surrounding
area, or not. He suggested the Commission go
through the list and determine if a use should be
allowed in the area with restrictions, or if it
needs to be reviewed closely before deciding if it
should be permitted.
Chair/Schey inquired why a "Bed and Breakfast Inn"
is considered a residential use as opposed to hotel
used
CP/Kaplan stated that the theory assumes that the
"Bed and Breakfast inn" is a house that has been
converted, yet keeps the character of the house,
and within the character of the neighborhood. The
Commission may choose not to accept that theory.
Chair/Schey stated his inclination to keep the bed
and breakfast aspect categorized as a commercial
use.
CP/Kaplan noted that there may be certain streets
in the community where a conversion to a bed and
breakfast would be acceptable.
C/Grothe stated that the issue should requires a
CUP to allow review by the Commission. The
Commission concurred.
The Public and Quasi -Public Uses:
o Child Care
o Post Office Branch
o Churches
o Clubs, Lodges, Fraternity, and Sorority
o Educational Institutions
Chair/Schey indicated that a post office should not
be in a residential area.
VC/Harmony inquired if there was a means for the
City to regulate the acceptibility of a fraternity
renting a house in residential neighborhoods.
CP/Kaplan stated that it.can only be restricted if
it is out of conformance with the neighborhood.
C/Grothe indicated that a police station should not
be in a residential area.
April 8, 1991 Page io
Chair/Schey stated that a residential zone is not
appropriate for educational institutions. They are
primarily located an streets where there is
property. This indicates that residential may not
be the appropriate zone for that Lite. He further
indicated, as wit -h churches, if the street is wide
enough to handle neavy traffic, then maybe it
shouldn't be a res-Ldentia--i". zone anj; longer.
C/Grothe stated that it may be appropriate to
require a CUP for churches.
Chair/Schey indicated that all public and quasi -
public uses should be taken out of the residential
zoning except for the parks, utility sub -stations,
the pumping plants, the recreational facilities,
and the equestrian centers,
VC/Harmony questioned what the outcome of churches
would be, since they are all R-1 zoning.
Chair/Sohey responded that there may no longer be
any residential zones when the zoning ordinance is
made to conform to theGeneral Plan. They -may be
placed in a commercial zone,
VC/Harmony stated that he is not comfortable with
rezoning churches to commercial. He concurred that
something should be done with the churches as far
as zoning, but not just create them with commercial
zones.
C/Grothe stated that churches do not belong in all
residential areas and therefore, should not be a R-
I zone. He concurred that items 1 though 7 should
not be included in the residential districts.
CP/Kaplan requested deferring dscussion to allow
staff time to develop a new Propcsal addressing the
issues discussed.
VC/Harmony questioned why fire stations would not
be allowed it res-iden-1-al areas. There are
situations where a residential area is the only
strategic area to locate a station.
Chair/Schey noted the Commission's concern about
the inclusion of items I through 7 in the
residential district. The Commission directed staff
to come back with some suggestions.
VC/Harmony questioned the outcome of RV storage
yards in residential districts within the code.
I
I
April 8s 1991 Pagq,,, 11
Mr. Dunham explained that the code proposes that in
a multi -family area, there can be one storage area
with the development, with a CUP. He stated that
it becomes a policy question if the Commission
wants to permit storage facilities in single family
residential areas.
Home occupations:
Mr. Dunham stated that a number of communities have
requirements for a home occupation permit, in their
zoning ordinances, for the purpose of assuring the
number of employees, restrictions of parking and
storage of materials, etc.
PD/DeStefano explained that most cities have a set
of criteria for the home occupation permit, and
only have inspections on a complaint basis.
CP/Kaplan stated that the purpose of the permit is
to regulate nuisances, provide a revenue source for
the City, and regulate health and safety issues.
VC/Harmony stated that all home, -,occupations should
not be subjected to permit enforcement. He
suggested that home occupation permits may be
better enforced through safety codes.
41,
C/Grothe stated there should be a permit process," in
the code to assure that there is a realistic way to
regulate home occupations. If it does not meet
with the specifications of the criteria, then they
are forced to either stop or to comply to the
rules. The Commission concurred.
Accessory Uses:
The Commission decided to continue the discussion
to the next meeting.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: PD/DeStefano inquired if the Commission would like
to continue the process of discussing the
Staff development code after the public hearings.
Chair/Schey stated that the Commission prefers to
continue with the format set tonight. The meeting
of April 22, 1991 will begin at 6:30 p.m.
April 8® 1991 page 12
ADJOUREMENT., Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
10g05 p.m.
David Schey
Chairman
Attest:
Jam s DeStefano
Secretary/Planni6g commission
I