HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/13/1992CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 13, 199_
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:09
p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Board Meeting Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Lte. Muravez.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Harmony, Commissioner Flamenbaum,
Commissioner Schey, and Chairman Grothe. Vice
Chairman MacBride was absent.
Also present were Community Director James
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, City Engineer Sid
Mousavi, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, and
Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
MINUTES: Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the
Dec. 9, 1991 Minutes of December 9, 1991.
OLD BUSINESS: CD/DeStefano reported that, as directed by the
Commission at the December 9, 1991 meeting
TTC/PC regarding discussion of the Traffic and
Relationship Transportation Commission's (TTC) relationship to
the Planning Commission in the Development Review
process, staff has attached, within the packet, the
ordinance utilized to create the TTC, and minutes
from the joint Council/TTC meeting held June 26,
1990.
CE/Mousavi, in response to C/Harmony's inquiry,
explained that the TTC, began developing guidelines
for projects that generate traffic, impacting
traffic operations within the City. The intent of
the guidelines was to provide guidance to
developers to conduct traffic studies that
demonstrate their needs, as well as provide the
appropriate mitigation measures. As this project
evolved, discussion came up as to when the TTC
would review these documents provided by the
developers, and the relationship between the TTC
and the Planning Commission. The document was
never intended to be used as a policy for that
relationship.
C/Flamenbaum indicated that it is appropriate for
the TTC to be given an opportunity to review
projects, relating to traffic matters, presented to
the Planning Commission. Unilaterally excluding
jthem from the review process does a disservice to
this Commission and the community.
Chair/Grothe, disagreeing with C/Flamenbaum, stated
that the Planning Commission has a very large
r—,
January 13, 1992 Page 2
charge on the transportation in the community. The
Commission should set all the guidelines, and work
with the City Engineer to assure that those
guidelines, for the entire City, are standardized.
The charge of the TTC is to develop the systems,
standards, and transportation for the whole
community at large. It would not be appropriate to
add another level of bureaucracy for reviewing a
specific site. He indicated, however, that he
would have no problem with sending Planning
Commission agendas to the TTC.
C/Schey stated that the TTC was formed to adopt and
review policy issues relating to public
transportation. Those policies are to be
implemented by the City Engineer in a technical
way, dealing with the professional reports received
on these projects. He concurred with C/Flamenbaum
that it may be useful to transmit information to
all of our committees and commissions for their
information, and injection of their expertise.
However, concurring with Chair/Grothe, he would not
_ want to create a committee to deal with technical
issues on a current Planning basis.
' Todd Chavers, residing at 23816 Chanuk, Chairman of
the TTC, emphasized that the TTC does not want to
approve or deny traffic reports, but rather to have
the opportunity to comment on them as they respect
the policy and guidelines the TTC has established
in the past. We are not trying to add another
level of bureaucracy, but rather offer our input to
the Planning Commission. He further stated that
the Traffic Impact Study Guidelines was given to
the Commission for information purposes. it will
be passed on as a recommended policy item.
Don Gravdahl, residing at 23988 Minnequa, Vice
Chairman of the TTC, indicated that it is not the
intent of the TTC to dictate policy to Planning.
The TTC is merely requesting to be kept informed,
and to be given an opportunity to comment and give
input on traffic matters.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that a policy be established
whereby all Planning Commission agendas are sent to
the other Commissions, and that at least one copy
of the entire packet be sent to the Chairman of the
TTC.
C/Schey directed staff to transmit all
transportation related studies to the TTC for their
review, and to include any input from them in the
staff reports. It is also requested that the
January 13, 1992 Page 3
agendas, from all other commissions, be distributed
to the Planning Commission as well. The Commission
concurred with the direction given.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 7:49 p.m. The
meeting was called back to order at 7:56 p.m.
CONTINUED CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding the
PUBLIC HEARING: Development Review for the K -Mart revitalization
project located at 249 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. At
Development the time of the report, K -Mart had not submitted
Review 91-4 the additional information needed in order to
continue review of their project. Therefore, staff
is recommending that the project be tabled. When
the additional material is received, staff will
readvertise the project appropriately, and bring it
back to the Commission for consideration.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
C/Harmony inquired if it is necessary to have the
applicant's acquiescence to table the matter.
i
CD/DeStefano explained that the applicant was made
aware of the necessary continuation if the
materials were not provided to the Commission.
I
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to table the
matter to a date determined by staff.
TT 50519/ AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
DA 91-3/ request to subdivide a 2.3 acre site for
DR 91-2 condominium purposes, a Tentative Tract Map, a
Development Agreement, and a Development Review
application. At the conclusion of the November 25,
1991 public hearing, the Commission directed staff
to conduct a Cost/Benefit Analysis to determine the
appropriateness of the proposed condominium project
at that particular location. Subsequent to the
conclusion of the hearing, the applicant informed
staff that he wished to amend the project to a
Senior Citizen project, which maintains the
approximate same density, redesigns the interior of
the project, and reduces the parking and the
T elevations. Staff is recommending that the
f Commission table the project, direct staff to
renotice the public hearing to an appropriate date,
`J and direct staff to gather any information that may
be appropriate for the Commission's review of the
project.
January 13, 1992 Page 4
AP/Searcy, responding to inquiries made by the
Commission, briefly described some the various
tentative changes made to the project.
Chair/Grothe, with the consensus of the Commission,
directed staff to include the Cost/Benefit analysis
in the staff report when the project returns to the
Commission.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
CD/De5tefano
requested the
27th meeting.
the matter
opportunity t
Friday, and
Cost/Benefit
readvertize
around the mi
reported that the applicant has
matter to be postponed to the January
However, staff has recommended that
be tabled to provide staff an
3 analyze the drawings, received on
to provide the Commission with a
►r Fiscal Impact Analysis. Staff will
:he matter appropriately, probably
Idle of February of 1992.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept
n staff's recommendation, with the direction that the
Cost/Benefit Analysis, previously requested, be
done on this revised project.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: CD/DeStefano addressed the Commission regarding a
City initiated request to add a new Chapter 22.76
ZCA 92-1 to- the Los Angeles County Code pertaining to
admission charge parties in residential zones.
Over the past several months there has been
discussion by the City Council, City Staff,
Sheriff's Department representatives, and members
of the community with respect to the fact that
"flyer parties" are becoming a problem in several
neighborhoods within the community. These parties
are advertized by means of flyers, occur when a
parent or guardian is not home, and charge an
admission fee of either food, alcoholic beverages,
or payment of a fee. The purpose of the Ordinance
is to prevent and/or diffuse flyer parties in
residential zones in the City of Diamond Bar. On
December 17, 1991, the City Council adopted an
Interim Ordinance pertaining to admission charge
�.parties in residential zones. The Interim
Ordinance will remain in place for a minimum of 45
days and is likely to be extended in order to
permit the adoption of Zoning Code Amendment No.
92-1. Staff recommended that the Commission adopt
the attached Resolution recommending approval of
ZCA 92-1 which amends the existing County Code by
January 13, 1992 Page 5
I �
i f
adding Chapter 22.76 pertaining to admission charge
parties in residential zones.
C/Flamenbaum requested that the item be tabled to
the next meeting to allow the Commission sufficient
time to review the ordinance. He requested that
the Commission receive the agendas in a more timely
manner.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Lte. Mike Muravez, from the Walnut Sheriff Station,
stated that the purpose of this Ordinance was to
eliminate a problem wherein parties conducted in
residential areas, charging admission, advertized
via "flyers", and bringing in a large volume of
persons and traffic into the residential area. The
parties cause some peripheral problems that usually
drains the manpower, and disrupts the peace and
tranquility of such residential areas.
Lte. Muravez, in response to a series of inquiries
from the Commission, made the following comments:
within a 6 month period, there have been about 10
to 12 parties conducted; the manpower needed varied
from about 2 officers to as many as 25; for
enforcement purposes, the Ordinance does not
infringe upon normal activity in a residential
zone, but provides that people participating in a
commercial venture in a residential zone are
subject to enforcement; the Ordinance makes the
activity illegal, therefore enforcement action can
be taken when such parties begin; civil remedies
can be used for long term knowledge that such
activities are going on, or if the persons
persisted in having these activities, then civil
remedies could be sought to restrain them from any
future activities; the Ordinance is perceived as a
technique to prevent a dangerous action before it
occurs; and most of the time the parties are given
purely for commercial reason.
C/Harmony, having misgivings with the language of
the Ordinance, stated that it opens itself for
interpretations that are not specifically related
to "flyer" parties, and preventing a clear and
present dangerous situation. He noted that the
definition of an "admission charge", a tangible
benefit monetary or otherwise, and the definition
of "party", 3 or more persons meeting together for
social, recreational, or amusement purposes, would
include a lot of categories that are obvious
January 13, 1992 Page 6
exceptions, such "Wine Tasting Parties", functions
occurring at Churches, and so forth. The Sheriff
Department already has the authority to go after
situations that present a clear and present danger,
and to seek injunctions against repeated actions.
Lte. Muravez, in response to Chair/Grothe,
explained that, with the Interim Ordinance, any
party brought to our attention, the Sheriff
Department would contact those persons, tell them
about the law, and check early on to make sure the
law was being obeyed. This action has a deterred
effect for those that wanted to have a commercial
venture.
DCA/Curley, in response to C/Harmony's concern,
stated that his office believes that the current
structure of the Ordinance is both constitutionally
firm, and able to be reasonably interpreted. There
is no way to construct a manageable ordinance to
define virtually every aspect that could happen.
However, if the Commission so desires,the Ordinance
could be further refined.
C/Schey inquired how the City's ordinances
presently address commercial ventures in
residential zones, in general.
DCA/Curley stated that, generally, what's not
permitted in a zoning ordinance is prohibited. The
question arises when an activity is done that is
not expressly prohibited.
C/Schey, concurring with C/Harmony, stated that he
has no problem with someone having a party, even if
they charge admission, as long as it is not unruly.
He stated that he does not see the purpose of the
Ordinance.
C/Flamenbaum concurred with C/Harmony in terms of
the ambiguity that is found in this Ordinance.
Acknowledging the need for some regulation for
"flyer" parties, he suggested that the Ordinance
contains a definition of a "flyer" party, how it
ties together with the admission charge, and
perhaps state, by name and type, organizations that
should be excluded.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, and seconded by
f C/Harmony to table the matter for two weeks, with
direction to staff to amend accordingly.
C/Schey stated that he is leery of ordinances that
are drafted to address a problem, but necessitate
January 13, 1992 Page 7
k'
f
1� clarification of all the aspects of that problem
that you don't want to regulate.
Agreeing with C/Schey, C/Harmony withdrew his
second to C/Flamenbaum's motion.
Chair/Grothe stated that he is in concurrence that
the Sheriff Department, using good judgement,
should be given the opportunity to break up some of
these functions, and prior to them happening. He
suggested that a clause could be included that the
Ordinance expires after a time for review.
C/Schey indicated that he is not convinced that it
is legitimate for the Sheriff Department to take
action prior to a problem erupting.
Chair/Grothe seconded C/Flamenbaum's motion to
table the matter, with direction to staff to amend
accordingly.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: F 1 a m e n b a u m a n d
Chair/Grothe.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Schey and Harmony.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride.
The Motion FAILED for lack of a majority.
DCA/Curley advised that if the Commission desires
no further action, the lack of approval is a
denial. That denial will be the recommendation.
Upon discussion, the Commission concurred to take
no further action, and that the lack of approval is
a denial.
CONTINUED AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the
PUBLIC HEARING: request for night club/live entertainment to be
located at 21671 Gateway Center Drive, Gateway
CUP 90-70 Corporate Center. The Planning Commission approved
the extension of time requested August of 1991, and
directed the applicant to provide specific types of
live entertainment, and the proposed locations
within the restaurant. Staff has received the
requested information and has contacted local
agencies and other communities in order to
determine appropriate mitigation measures for this
type of use. Staff recommended approval of the
night club use (live entertainment in
establishments with occupancy in excess of 200
persons) with a condition of approval that the
applicant obtain all licenses from the Los Angeles
County Department of Business Licensing. AP/Searcy
pointed out to the Commission the changes made to
conditions #11 and #16.
yAM1M 4
January 13, 1992 Page 8
V--1
-C/Flamenbaum requested that this item to be tabled
pending early delivery of the agenda. He requested
the following changes to the conditions: reword
item 5.1 to indicate that the approval is granted
for a restaurant, and that the usable space is 9865
sq. ft.; that the approval is also granted with
roof top level assembly and dining area for which a
maximum of 440 sq. ft. is permitted; add a new
item. to 5.1, specifying that the total occupancy
is to be 285 for the entire structure, and not just
the restaurant; and amend item 5.3 to provide, to
the maximum extent possible, that the parking and
entryway to the structure permit ease of entry to
the elderly, the infirmed, and the handicap.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by
C/Flamenbaum and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept
staff's recommendation, with the modifications to
the conditions as recommended by C/Flamenbaum and
staff.
: A 91-5 PT/Lungu reported that on December 9, 1991, at a
j noticed public hearing, staff presented a final
draft tree preservation ordinance to the Commission
for review. A subcommittee of two Planning
Commissioners, C/Schey and VC/MacBride, were
selected to deal with the issues of heritage trees,
replacement standards, and civil remedies.
PT/Lungu reviewed the decisions made by the
subcommittee regarding the three issues, as
indicated in the staff report. Staff recommended
that the Commission adopt a Resolution, with
additions resulting from the subcommittee meeting,
recommending that the City Council approve the Tree
Preservation Ordinance. Furthermore, it is
recommended that the language, "The Director, in
his/or her discretion, shall refer the decision to
the Planning Commission in the event' that such
application is in conjunction with the
discretionary approval over which the Planning
Commission has jurisdiction.", should be inserted
to subsection 22.56.2110 as a new addition after
subsection H.
CD/DeStefano explained that this addition would
allow the Director to forward the application to
the City Planning Commission for review. It is
staff's opinion that applications for discretionary
approval involving the removal of trees, should be
January 13, 1992 Page 9
reviewed by the Commission, including the removal
of any Oak, Walnut, Sycamore, or Pepper trees.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Don Schad complimented the Commission and staff on
their job in developing the Tree Ordinance.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by C/Harmony
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Ordinance as
drafted, with the inclusion of the Director's
discretion to send nondevelopment related permits
to the Commission for their review, and the
inclusion of provision mandating that tree removal
permit that relate to development permits, under
the Commission's discretion, be mandatorily brought
with the balance of the package.
Chair/Grothe called a recess at 9:25 p.m. The
CD/DeStefano reported that these independent
applications are all in consideration of future
development within the Country Hills Towne Center.
One application seeks approval for a single story
5080 sq. ft. Goodyear Service Center. The second
application seeks approval of a 2800 sq. ft.
Speedee Oil facility and the subdivision of lot #15
into two land uses: one for retail purposes, and
the other for drive-thru restaurant purposes.
AP/Searcy presented the issues surrounding the
Goodyear Service Center, as indicated in the staff
report.
meeting was called back to order at 9:42 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission either
review the application for Development'Review 91-3
DR 91-3 and
(Goodyear Service Center), and the application for
CUP 91-12/
CUP 91-12 and Development Review 91-5 (a land use
DR 91-5
division on a development pad, and a Speedee Oil
Lube and Tuneup Facility), independently, or to
take both items, discuss the issues surrounding the
Country Hills project pertaining to both
applications, and then, at the conclusion of the
discussion, take action on each item independently.
Chair/Grothe, with the consensus of the Commission,
agreed that since both applications have similar
uses within the Center, it would be acceptable to
combine the issues for discussion.
CD/DeStefano reported that these independent
applications are all in consideration of future
development within the Country Hills Towne Center.
One application seeks approval for a single story
5080 sq. ft. Goodyear Service Center. The second
application seeks approval of a 2800 sq. ft.
Speedee Oil facility and the subdivision of lot #15
into two land uses: one for retail purposes, and
the other for drive-thru restaurant purposes.
AP/Searcy presented the issues surrounding the
Goodyear Service Center, as indicated in the staff
report.
-a,.:n.ti..iwlw,xPLl.oa.x.aaeFUlxaMJtiN��l�wd-
January 13, 1992 Page 10
i
PT/Lungu presented the issues surrounding the land
use division and the Speedee Oil facility, as
indicated in the staff report.
DCA/Curley advised the Commission that underlying
the site plan is a parcel map. The County Code, as
adopted, speaks to a form of development called a
Lease Project, which foresees more than one
structure being put on a parcel with the intent
that they be rented out. There are certain
conditions within this Lease Project that would
require parcel maps, if the projects falls within
one of the categories stated. In this instance,
there is not enough information to determine
whether or not a subdivision map will be required.
CD/DeStefano stated, since the Goodyear Auto
Service Center project may cause an impact in terms
of noise to the adjacent residential development by
possibly increasing the noise level that already
exist, staff is recommending that a sound study be
provided by the applicant for the staff's and,
ultimately, the Commission's consideration. In
iT regards to the Speedee Oil project, the sign
review, and the land use division of property on
the mention pad, staff recommended that the
Commission take action to approve those items.
AP/Searcy, in response to various questions from
the Commission, made the following comments: if the
Commission desires, conditions could be made to
mitigate the noise level; the noise level
determined was taken from the information existing
in the draft General Plan; if both projects are
approved, they would have 43 parking spaces over
the minimum required; the County of Los Angeles
granted the Krikorian Theater and the Center a
shared parking agreement; lighted parking is
already provided at the rear of the Center; as part
of the conditions for the Speedee Oil project,
additional signage is incorporated to direct
patrons to realize that there is parking in back of
the Center-; and there is now security mandated on
the premises 5 or 6 days of the week.
Mark Wieman, executive vice president and chief
operating officer of Landsing Pacific Fund, the
owner of the Center, briefly reviewed the history
I of the development of the Center project. The
three projects would generate tax revenues, create
some 45 jobs, and attract new traffic which would
act as a destination use to the Center and generate
traffic that would benefit the existing uses.
January 13, 1992 Page 11
Jim Taylor, representing the Wolff Company, the
applicant, stated that they are available to answer
any specific questions.
Robert Kradek, executive vice president of
operations for Speedee Oil, discussed the nature of
the Speedee oil operation. He described the
business to be clean, quiet and well maintained.
Jim Taylor indicated that, in regards to the
conditions contained to the Resolution associated
with the CUP for Speedee Oil, they do not take any
exceptions to the conditions contained in the staff
report, and the conditions of approval in the
Resolution. In regards to the concern to the
possibility of parcelizing the project, he stated
that they would not object to having a condition
stating that parcelization must occur, and be
approved by the City, prior to the issuance of any
permit.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Ken Demerot, residing at 22136 Steeple Chase, owner
of Alta Ski & Sport, commented that he would like
to see the Center continue to grow.
Bill Thackery, owner of the Little Professor,
concurred that the businesses proposed would assist
in attracting new customers and benefit the Center
and the City.
Robert Gannon, residing at 2641 Rising Star Dr.,
opposed the Goodyear project because the air impact
wrenches will increase the noise level and impact
the community. He opposed the Speedee Oil facility
because of the following reasons: it is too close
the theater, and will take up too much parking; the
fumes from the smog tests will impact the
community; because of it's location, there may be a
blind spot coming in from Fountain Springs; the
noise level will increase and impact the community;
parking will occur on the street; and there is a
present danger to pedestrians because there is no
walkway from the driveway to the pads.
Larry Pinkleman, residing at 2670 Crooked Creek,
complained that traffic is already bad, within the
j community, because of the theater. He stated that
he has had trouble from the bad element attracted
to the theater.
Brian White, residing at 21361 Hidden Pines, made
the following comments: the parking issue should
January 13, 1992 Page 12
be addressed because the lots are already full
during the evening and matinee shows on the
weekends; the ambient noise level should be judged
north of Diamond Bar Blvd, closer to the project;
and a detailed traffic analysis should be
requested.
Herbert Porter, executive vice president of the
Wolff Co., stated that a detailed traffic analysis
was already conducted not only for the present uses
of the Center, but for all of the proposed uses as
well. Furthermore, assuming that all of the
proposed uses of the Center has been permitted, the
Center has 1053 parking spaces available, and the
required parking spaces is 933.
Joe Faust, with the firm of Austin and Faust,
stated the following: an analysis of the trip
generation of the site indicated that there would
be a very nominal change to the level of service on
Diamond Bar Blvd; there is a surplus of 50 or 60
parking stalls available after estimating it at a
worst case basis; because of the projects, there
will be displaced parkers of movie goers, however,
since there is a surplus of parking, stalls
available, it is not foreseen to be a problem;
there is plenty of parking in the rear of the
Center; time limits and restrictions could be used
to combat parking on the street; the Speedee Oil
will generate an actual increase of about 80 trips,
not the 300 we allowed for; the total trip rate
increase will be about 3500 trips a day when the
Center is fully built out, and in a flourishing
economy; and the retail generation trip rate of
auto related services is much less than standard
retail.
C/Harmony stated his concern for the concentration
of traffic and parking at one end of the Center.
He also stated his concern for having two fast food
restaurants adjacent to one another.
Ren Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, opposed
the projects for the following reasons: it will
increase traffic in the Fountain Springs entrance,
and there is already an overflow of traffic in that
area; both businesses will produce traffic, noise,
air pollution, and exasperate an already bad
situation; the streets will be blocked because of
the oil and stocking trucks; and traffic is already
saturated on the north side. He requested that the
Commission use common sense when considering these
issues that impact the homes just a few feet away.
January 13, 1992 Page 13
is Robert Gannon noted that the delivery trucks will
have problems turning, if parking in the rear of
the Alpha Beta store is encouraged. He further
questioned the wisdom of allowing two drive thru
restaurants next to one another.
Bob Kradek summarized the following points
regarding the Speedee Oil facility: air impact
wrench compressors will not be used; the oil
delivery trucks normally arrive once a month; the
trucks used are not 18 wheelers, but bobtrucks; and
very little parking spaces will be taken by Speedee
Oil.
Brian white, pointing out that LA County standards
were used to determine the parking requirements,
stated that Diamond Bar can either seek to set
those same standards or set a higher standard and
expect more for residential communities.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
_ C/Flamenbaum suggested that the Commission first
take action on the Goodyear project.
I
AP/Searcy recommended that the Goodyear project be
continued to the first week in February to allow
staff time to review the noise study submitted.
The applicant concurred to the continuance to the
first meeting in February of 1992.
Chair/Grothe stated that he dislikes the following
in regards to the Goodyear project: the blank
stucco wall; the creation of an alley behind the
project; creating a situation with the parking out
front; creating a situation where all the doors are
facing the street and the facing the residences,
sending all the noise into the residences.
C/Harmony concurred with Chair/Grothe's
architectural comments.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
Goodyear matter to the February 8th meeting.
C/Schey inquired if the application to separate lot
#15 is a request to build two buildings as opposed
to one.
DCA/Curley explained that the existing lot #15 was
permitted by the original CUP. The site plan
indicates a restaurant, but the resolution itself
January 13, 1992 Page 14
shows retail/commercial or restaurant. It is
unclear whether those two uses are one structure,
or two separate freestanding structures. The mere
concept of allowing two uses on the pad is a
separate issue as to how those uses are ultimately
implemented. In regards to the issue of
parcelization, there should be a provision in the
code that bears further scrutiny, or alternatively,
condition a minimum of leaving it up to the
Planning Director, or City Engineer, to determine
if parcelization is required pursuant to the code.
C/Flamenbaum, noting that customers of the Speedee
oil would either park in the lot, and walk across
two roadways to enter the office, or park in the
Speedee parking lot and walk across the exit side
of the bays to inquire about service, questioned if
this design would expose the City to potential
liability if someone were to be hit.
DCA/Curley stated that he sees no exposure to the
City on approving a site plan and the CUP.
C/Schey noted that the Commission does have the
( ability, as one of the issues of a CUP, to -mandate
changes to the site plan, if deemed appropriate.
C/Flamenbaum made the following comments to the
Speedee Oil project: reverse the building by 180
degrees for safety purposes; look into the option
of keeping the doors closed; look into the option
of some kind of exhaust collector system, with
associated scrubber attached to the system; the
wall should be enhanced by some sort of vegetation
to make it look attractive; add a pedestrian
pathway to the east side of the proposed Speedee
oil facility; the pathway should permit, for
visibility purposes only, clear entrance into the
parking area behind the structure; add pedestrian
crosswalk .from the theater to the Speedee facility;
and remove the wording "drive-thru restaurant" on
lot #15.
Chair/Grothe stated that he would like further
information on the issue of the shared parking
concept. He requested an analysis of number of
parking spaces and their present pattern of use.
He made the following comments: dislikes the roll
up doors; dislikes the location on the site;
concerned with lighting; there should be a walkway
for pedestrians going into the Center; and there
should be further review if the location of the
project is creating a blind spot.
January 13, 1992 Page 15
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to the first meeting in February of 1992
pending additional information pursuant to the
aforementioned issues.
INFORMATIONAL CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that the
ITEMS, January 21st workshop between the Planning
Commission and the City Council has been postponed
to March 24, 1992. He reminded the Commission that
the Planners Institute is scheduled on April 9 -
11, 1992, in San Diego.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Flamenbaum requested that staff deliver the
packet no later than the Wednesday before the
meeting. The Commission concurred.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the
meeting at 12:21 a.m.
Respectively,,
J m s DeStefan
Secretary/Planking Commission
5t:
,,,P,Jack Grothe
Chairman