Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/12/1992CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW OCTOBER 12, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m., at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL: Community Development Director James DeStefano and Associate Planner Rob Searcy. PUBLIC BEARINGS: ADR 92-15 CDD/DeStefano stated that this is a request for construction of a 1,200 square foot first and second story addition to an existing 2400 sq. ft. single family residence at 1519 Kiowa Crest in Diamond Bar. The applicant, Wayne Hurley, and his contractor were present. The applicant stated that he has reviewed the staff report and agrees. The Public Hearing was opened. There was no comment. Public Hearing was closed. CDD/DeStefano stated he has reviewed plans and visited the site. CDD/DeStefano directed staff to remove condition items 5 & 6 pertaining to architectural features, and add correct wording in the Resolution reflecting the City currently operating under Ordinance No. 4 (1992), - and approved the application reflecting those changes. ADR No. 92-14 CDD/DeStefano stated that Administrative Development Review No. 92-14 is a request for construction of a 3,870 square foot addition and a 858 sq. ft. 3 car garage to an existing 3,721 sq. ft. single family residence located at 23655 Falcons View. Also included is the construction of a tennis court, swimming pool and a 6 foot high stucco wall with stone veneer accent surrounding the property. Applicant James Woo was not present. The Public Hearing was opened. No one was in attendance for this hearing. The Public Hearing was closed. CDD/DeStefano continued the hearing to October 26, 1992, due to lack of information. ADR No. 92-8 AP/Searcy reported that the Administrative Development Review No. 92-8 is a request to construct a new two story single family residence with a basement. The new structure will be approximately 8,705 sq. ft.= in size and is proposed for a lot which is currently vacant. The project is located at 2652 Shadow Canyon Drive within the private gated Country Estates on a 1.55 acre site - - I I f„ r- - OCTOBER 12, 1993 Page 2 and the zoning is R-1-20,000 and will not change as a part of this application. The Public Hearing was opened. No was in attendance for this hearing. The Public Hearing was closed. CDD/DeStefano stated that he has reviewed the plans and visited the site and directed staff to add correct wording in the Resolution reflecting the City is currently operating under Ordinance No. 4 (1992), and approved the application with the condition that a final landscape plan be submitted to the CDD for final approval. ADR No.92-•13' AP/Searcy reported that Administrative Development Review No. 92-13, is a request for complete remodel of an existing residence on a 1 acre lot. Renovation will consist of 7200 square feet, 2 story single family residence with 3 covered parking spaces. Property address is 2615 Braided Mane. The applicant, Scott Chen, was present. The Public Hearing was opened. There was no public comment. The Public Hearing was closed. CDD/DeStefano stated that he had reviewed the plans and visited the site. He approved the application with the condition that the final landscape plan be submitted to the CDD for final approval and directed staff to add correct wording in the Resolution reflecting the City is currently operating under Ordinance No. 4 (1992). ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. RepectivIo Ja tefa Director of Community Development CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 P.M., at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California. ROLL CALL: Community Development Director James DeStefano and Associate Planner Rob Searcy. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ADR 92-15 CDD/DeStefano stated that this is a request for construction of a 1,200 square foot first and second story addition to an existing 2400 sq. ft. single family residence at 1519 Kiowa Crest in Diamond Bar. The applicant, Wayne Hurley, and his contractor were present. The applicant stated that he has reviewed the staff report and agrees. The Public Hearing was opened. There was no comment. Public Hearing was CDD/DeStefano stated he has reviewed plans and visited the site. CDD/DeStefano directed staff to remove condition items 5 & 6 pertaining to architectural features, and add correct wording in the Resolution reflecting the City currently operating under Ordinance No. 4 (1992), - and approved the application reflecting those changes. ADR No. 92-14 CDD/DeStefano stated that Administrative Development Review No. 92-14 is a request for construction of a 3,870 square foot addition and a 858 sq. ft. 3 car garage to an existing 3,721 sq. ft. single family residence located at 23655 Falcons View. Also included is the construction of a tennis court, swimming pool and a 6 f oot high stucco `wall with stone veneer accent surrounding the property. Applicant James Woo was not present. The Public Hearing was opened. No one was in attendance f or this hearing. The Public Hearing was closed. CDD/DeStefano continued the hearing to October 26, 1992, due to lack of information. I ADR No. 92-8 AP/Searcy reported that the Administrative Development Review No. 92-8 is a request to construct a new two story single f amily residence with a basement. The new structure will be approximately 8,705 sq. ft.. in size and is proposed for a lot which is currently vacant. The project is located at 2652 Shadow Canyon Drive within the private gated Country Estates on a 1.55 acre site OCTOBER. 12 1993 Page 2 and the zoning is R-1-20,000 and will not change as a part of this application. The Public Hearing was opened. No was in attendance for this hearing. The Public Hearing was closed. CDD/DeStefano stated that he has reviewed the plans and visited the site and directed staff to add correct wording in the Resolution reflecting the city is currently operating under Ordinance No. 4 (1992), and approved the application with the condition that a final landscape plan be submitted to the CDD for final approval. ADR No.92-13 AP/Searcy reported that Administrative Development Review No. 92-13, is a request for complete remodel of an existing residence on a I acre lot. Renovation will consist of 7200 square feet, 2 story single family residence with 3 covered parking spaces. Property address is 2615 Braided Mane. The applicant, Scott Chen, was present. The Public Hearing was opened. There was no public comment. The Public Hearing was closed. CDD/DeStefano stated that he had reviewed the plans and visited the site. He approved the application with the condition that the final landscape plan be submitted to the CDD for final approval and directed staff to add correct wording in the Resolution reflecting the City is currently operating under Ordinance No. 4 (1992). ADJOUREMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Re.-Rpi—ctivel , Ja DeStefano s Director of Community Development 6--_� L CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 12, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Meyer, Grothe, Li, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano,:Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Assistant City Attorney Bill Curley, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: CDD/DeStefano recommended that approval_ of the Minutes of September 14, 1992 be postponed to the Minutes of next meeting because a copy of those minutes were Sept. 14 & 28, not included in all of the Commissioner's packets. 1992 The Commission concurred. CUP 89-528 and DR 92-03 Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of September 28, 1992, as presented. CDD/DeStefano requested the City Attorney to give the Commission an update on the issues pertaining to the referendum petition. DCA/Curley reported that the proponents of the referendum petition have brought suit against the City, and are attempting to get a temporary restraining order seeking to preclude some or all issuance of building permits. As the matter proceeded, it was finally stipulated that the City would act under Ordinance No. 4, the emergency ordinance in place that mimics the OPR extension that the City had. Therefore, the resolutions approved tonight will be amended, to reflect the findings that are set forth in Ordinance No. 4. CDD/DeStefano explained that Ordinance No. 4 (1992), which was adopted by the City Council in September, contains two clauses: (1) the Commission's approval action must include a finding that the project is consistent with the General Plan; and (2) the Commission's approval action must include a finding that there is a substantial probability that the project will not be detrimental to, or interfere with, the adopted General Plan. Therefore, the City can proceed with every project on tonight's agenda, and with all of the projects contemplated for the next several meetings. Staff will await further direction from October 12, 1992 Page 2 the City Attorney's office, and/or the courts, on the referendum issue. AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the request for approval to amend existing Conditional Use Permit 89-528 and Development Review 92-3. The applicant is requesting to construct a new Burger King Restaurant with drive-through facilities. A revised site plan has been prepared, by the applicant, which takes into account the concerns expressed by the Commission at the last public hearing. However, staff feels that the following items have not been adequately addressed: the concrete sidewalk, on the site that borders the carwash, still remains, and has not been changed to landscaping, as was directed; staff does not feel that the indicated pedestrian access from Grand Ave., to the carwash, is possible because of the grade elevation; and the concerns regarding the entrance to the site have not been addressed. These outstanding issues have not yet been reviewed by the City Engineer. It is recommended that the Commission approve Resolution 92-18, Resolution 92- 19, Development Review 92-3, and amendment CUP 89528, with the listed conditions, and with direction that the applicant conform the site plan to the conditions and directions given by the Planning Commission. AP/Searcy then read the following corrections, as presented by the City Attorney, to the Findings of Fact, of the draft Resolutions: part B, Resolution, item 3, of Resolution 92-18 and 92-19, will read, "The planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole, including the findings set forth below, and the changes and alteration which have been incorporated into and condition upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential for adverse affect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse affects contained in section 753.5d of Title 14 of California Code Regulations."; item 5, of Resolution 92-18 and 92-19, will read, "Based 'on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Commission, in conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992), of the City of Diamond Bar; hereby finds as �? follows:"; item 5, subsection (a), of Resolution 92-18 and 92-19, will remain the same but subsection (b) will now read, "Substantial evidence exist, considering the record as a whole, to the "r7 „e �,� l i� l`'''!� I� '"� .. ��'h:"y_ a��� t���69�����d1��4'.6'��m�� ,z3 u•Fr� October 12, 1992 Page 3 project as proposed and conditioned herein, will not be detrimental or interfere with the adopted General Plan."; and item 8, of Resolution 92-19, and item 6 of Resolution 92-18, is to be deleted because it is a California Code procedure that is only applicable at the City Council level, and.not at the Planning Commission level. C/Grothe stated that he would prefer that either the City Engineer review the project before the Commission condition the project, or condition the project that approval has to be obtained from the City Engineer. He then stated that since the concrete sidewalk, on the site that borders the carwash, now leads somewhere, it can remain. He also stated that he would like to have a 1 foot candle as a minimum lighting level on the site. C/Meyer made the following comments: the Commission need only provide direction, from a policy standpoint, that a "landing" be created, and the specifics can be left to the City Engineer; there needs to be a condition attached to the lot, restricting the off - site sign; and specific reference to the name of the fast food establishment, as indicated in Resolution 92-19, item 5, under Planning Division Conditions, should be eliminated, and referred to generically. C/Grothe requested staff to review the original conditions of approval because he was under the impression that one of the original conditions was that any one of these three lots, left vacant, was too be landscaped. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve Resolution 92- 18, as amended by staff. DCA/Curley, in response to C/Meyer's concern for the off-site sign, stated that he is comfortable with the way it is presently conditioned. Motion was made by VC/MacBride and seconded by C/Grothe to approve Resolution 92-19, as amended by staff, and with the following proviso: the applicant shall provide a lighting plan, which provides for a minimum of 1.0 foot candles over the entire parcel; the applicant shall provide the City with drawings for the Grand Ave. entrance, incorporating the driveway entrance, the "flat" landing area, and the sidewalk area, to be designed pursuant to the approval of the City Engineer; and October 12, 1992 NEW BUSINESS: Page 4 �u that the words "Burger King" be deleted and replaced by the word "fast food". C/Meyer stated that he would prefer that the project be conditioned to be adequately lighted for security measures, to be approved by the Sheriffs Department and the City Engineer, as opposed to arbitrarily requiring 1.0 foot candle. C/Li concurred. C/Grothe stated that ordinances, in other cities, are usually written requiring either an average foot candle, usually higher than the 5.0 foot candle range, across the lot, or to have a minimum foot candle, which is what he prefers. He stated that staff could be requested to review ordinances from other cities, and bring back an appropriate study at the next meeting. Chair/Flamenbaum proposed that the condition either be changed to adequate lighting, or request the City Engineer to come up with an appropriate standard because he is not able to quantify 1.0 foot candle. C/Meyer inquired if the applicant feels that a 1.0 foot candle across the entire site can be achieved. Charles Cobb, representing the applicant, stated that their engineer has indicated that he feels that 1.0 foot candle can be achieved. The Commission voted on the Motion made by VC/MacBride and seconded by C/Grothe to approve Resolution 92-19, as amended by staff, and with the following proviso: the applicant shall provide a lighting plan, which provides for a minimum of 1.0 foot candles over the entire parcel; the applicant shall provide the City with drawings for the Grand Ave. entrance, incorporating the driveway entrance, the "flat" landing area, and the sidewalk area, to be designed pursuant to the approval of the City Engineer; and that the words "Burger King" be deleted and replaced by the word "fast food". AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li , G r o t h e, a n d VC/MacBride, Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. The Motion CARRIED. CDD/DeStefano stated that Hardy Strozier, of the Planning Associates, would present the proposed the tee, ,.., i t �� n J7� .! � _b� l i ri �n�3 ti� ° , °�m94�1 ' �i�E � <9 w w��h I -I October 12, 1992 Page 5 South Point South Point Master Plan, an area of about 170 Master Plan acres, generally located north of Pathfinder, and Project west of Brea Canyon Road. The City encouraged the developers, who had indicated an interest, beginning last year, to develope a master plan, in order to process their projects to the City. The City has hired .Hardy Strozier to provide the overall project management, coordination and consultation to the City. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:52 p.m. to allow the Commission time to review the displayed graphics of the project. Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Hardy Strozier, of the Planning Associates, outlined the proposal for the South Point Master Plan Project. During the course of his presentation, Mr. Strozier outlined the master plan alternatives, utilizing the displayed graphics. He stated that all State and School District permits have been approved, including the certified EIR. However, there may be additional permits required from the Fish and Game Department of the State of California, and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, regarding filling operations in Sandstone Canyon. He then reviewed the development proposal as follows: a 30 acre South Point Middle School site; a 40 acre Arciero single family residential tract (#32400), for 93 lots, with an average minimize size lot of 7,200 sq. ft.; a 48 acre RNP residential subdivision tract (#51407), for 92 lots, with a minimum size lot of 8,000 sq. ft.; a 30 acre commercial site that would have 10 to 15 acres of property transferred to the City as part of a development agreement and vesting transaction between these developers; a 26 acre park site dedicated and transferred to the City, from the RnP development interest, in which the City would be granted about 10 acres of usable park area; a transferring of approximately 2 acres of land, known as Larkstone Park, from the City to the School District for South Point School purposes; an acquisition, of the City, for approximately 4 acres of Water District land; there is 6 acres of City/County right-of-way, that would be part of a transfer to Arciero, RnP, and the City's commercial interests; and the proposed project entitlements entails a development agreement, a zone change, a Master Development Plan, and perhaps a CUP for Hillside Management. He then summarized the four alternatives, to the proposed development, as October 12, 1992 Page 6 ylIh, submitted to the Commission. The differencefi between the alternatives relates to the land use potential in the commercial site, the linkage to the South Point Middle School, the through access of Larkstone Drive, the amount of usable park acreage, and the position, on the site, of the permanent South Point Middle School. Mr. Strozier stated that their objective is to present this proposal to the Planning Commission, for review, in November of 1992, and to the City Council by January of 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if, from an engineering standpoint, various portions of the project can be extricated so that if there is a problem with the blue line stream, South Point School can still move the dirt to the Arciero property without impacting the blue line stream. Hardy Strozier explained that the objective is to move this request through the Commission to the City Council as a total Master Plan application, as was submitted by the property -owners. The project is inextricably tied together by it's master plan of grading, and it's master plan of land exchanges. Hardy Strozier, in response to a series of Commission inquiries, made the following comments: The Walnut Unified School District is desirous to move the stockpile of dirt, and negotiate a land transaction now owned by the City of Diamond Bar; the City wants to facilitate a master plan for the 15 acre commercial site, and the 15 acre park area; RnP is desirous to develop 92 lots, with a land trade of City property to school property; Arciero want to develop 93 lots, and obtain land from the City for the would be excess right-of-way; there is not yet an application, before the City, by Mr. Patel, but it is anticipated that he will soon file 1 a subdivision map; there has not been any comment made from the environmentalists regarding Sandstone Canyon; the School District officials, and the City of Diamond Bar feel that Larkstone Drive should not be a through road; the Master Plan Project will comply with the Hillside Ordinance; and this project will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission for their input to the passive/active recreation area. i ri k Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:07 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:25 p.m. CONTINUED CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report regarding .� �,.. � rti ' 1 ..... October 12, 1992 Page 7 PUBLIC HEARING: the request, by ,the applicant Brilliant Signs, Inc., to develop a Planned Sign Program for the Planned Sign Sunset Village, located at 1241 S.Grand Avenue. Program No. 92-1 Staff presented slides, during the staff report, of the variety of signs presently existing at the commercial shopping center. It is recommended that the Commission approve the Planned Sign Program, the Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. One of the conditions listed is that the Commission approve not only Exhibit "A", the applicants proposal, but also Exhibit "A-111, which is the modifications outlined by the City staff. Barbara Cohen, with Brilliant Signs, inc., stated that the, landlord would like to build a canopy, and extend the fascia to make room for three signs. The applicant is willing to make any changes deemed appropriate. AP/Searcy, in response to C/Meyer's inquiry, stated that staff sought to allow the applicant to put one sign on the fascia, that would be centered, and 1 then two additional signs located under the canopy, so that it is more compatible with the rest of the fascia in the center. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing was declared closed. Followi g discussion, the Commission concurred that the design of the sign needs to be more consistent with the prevailing style of the center. Chair/Flamenbaum requested the following: the words "the Orange city code", on page 3, of Exhibit "A", item E. 1.a., should be changed to read "the Diamond Bar city code."; and item H.2, Immoral or Unlawful Advertising, on page 5, Exhibit "A", should be deleted. DCA/Fox explained that the document expresses liability and obligations between tenants and landlords. The City's approval is simply to the concept and not to what the landlord confines the tenant i�o. AP/Sear( -y stated that staff suggests that the reference reading, "allowing this to extend -for a period of five years", should be omitted. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride F' I l f l; l 111 , '1', I I I October 12, 1992 Page 8 and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve Planned Sign Program No. 92-1, subject to the deletion of the five year term, as indicated by staff, and that page 8, of the applicants submittal, be changed to provide for "a maximum 30 inch high parapet on top of the existing fascia, constructed of similar material ,that would accommodate at least two signs, and would provide for the total of three signs, within the area that they have designated." The special condition in Exhibit "A-111, subsection 1, that reads, "Wall signs for units E & G, shall share the angled fascia centered vertically and horizontally and not exceed 80% of the angled fascia length.", should be deleted. CUP 92-5 Chair/Flamenbaum stated that, because he leases DR 92-2 space in the adjacent building to this project, he will abstain from discussion and voting of this item. Chair/Flamenbaum left the auditorium at 10:00 p.m. AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the request, by the applicant Gary Simning, for approval to demolish the existing Arco gasoline 1 service station, located at 3302 S. Diamond Bar 1R; Blvd., and to construct a new 2,700 square foot, 24 hour AM/PM mini -mart. The proposed convenience 'f store use will sell gasoline and miscellaneous products, including the sale of beer and wine for off-site consumption. The .89 acre site is in the Commercial Planned Development Zone (CPD). The Development Review application is required for all new commercial construction to determine i P architectural compatibility. He reviewed the application analysis, as presented in the staff report. It is recommended that the Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit No. 92-5, Development Review 'No. 92-2,, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the attached Resolutions. t C/Meyer noted that the Sign Ordinance may be too restrictive since most sign plans or programs, before the Commission, have some sort of exception iu to the existing code. AP/Searcy, in response to C/Meyer, stated that, to assure that the lot line adjustment would not create a burden to the existing office building and create a deficient parking standard, staff required !4 them to turn in plans for both project sites. The � ,E completion of one project should dictate the -other. TV WPM October 12, 1992 Page 9 C/Meyer stated that one of the conditions of approval should require that the underground tanks be removed in the event that the service station use is abandoned for six months. C/Grothe stated that the signs on the new building ought to conform to the Sign Ordinance. He also objected to the compact parking stalls. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Gary Simning, representing Atlantic Richfield, gave the following responses to the Commission's comments: even though the size of the monument sign deviates from the City's standards, it is required by State Law, and is not an option; there is only one sign on each side of the building, which is in conformance to the Sign Ordinance; Arco will be reconfiguring the parking lot, and the work on the parking lot will be completed prior to beginning construction; and, as a matter of policy, we remove the tanks within 6 months, but we will not object to have that as one of the conditions. Gary Simning stated that the applicant is willing to locate the trash enclosures internally, as so indicated on the original submittal. In response to C/Meyer's inquiry, he stated that the owner of the adjacent office building prefers the landscaping, over the block wall. Hearing no further testimony, the Public Hearing was declared closed. . AP/Searcy pointed out that the City Engineer requires a contribution to traffic mitigation programs. This will probably be a forthcoming requirement for this project as it goes through plan check. C/Li inquired how much tax, this proposed project, will generated to the City. Gary Simning stated that it is estimated that this new facility will generate approximately $50,000 a year in taxes, to the City, which is an increase of about $30,000 a year. C/Meyer suggested that the trash enclosures would be better located more internally within the project site, as opposed to locating it near the drive approach. Gary Simning stated that the applicant is willing to locate the trash enclosures internally, as so indicated on the original submittal. In response to C/Meyer's inquiry, he stated that the owner of the adjacent office building prefers the landscaping, over the block wall. Hearing no further testimony, the Public Hearing was declared closed. . AP/Searcy pointed out that the City Engineer requires a contribution to traffic mitigation programs. This will probably be a forthcoming requirement for this project as it goes through plan check. October 12, 1992 Page 10 iN0�a; Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED to recommend approval of the Resolution for Development Review 9-02, subject to Ordinance No. 4. Chair/Flamenbaum abstained. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve Resolution 92-22 for CUP 92- 5, subject to Ordinance No.4, and with the addition of condition #12 to indicate that, "If the project is abandoned for more than 180 consecutive days, that all underground vessels would be removed from the site.", and condition #13 to indicate that "The traffic impact fees, as per the negative declaration, would be paid as required by the City Engineer." Chair/Flamenbaum abstained. Chair/Flamenbaum returned to the auditorium at 10:22 p.m. ZCA 92-2 CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report. Pursuant to comments received from the Planning Commission Hillside at previous public hearings and additional staff Management analysis, a revised Hillside Management Ordinance Ordinance is attached for the Commission's consideration. The revised ordinance has been prepared with the assistance of Mr. Horst Schorr, acting as the City's consultant to the development of this project. Content changes from the Interim Ordinance are redline to identify new material, and strikeout to identify deletions. A revised slope density formula and graphic is provided, as well as i further explanations of text through the use of graphics. It is recommended that the Commission review and adopt the attached Hillside Management Ordinance. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if the consultant Horst Schorr likes the Ordinance. VC/MacBride made the following corrections: page 1, bottom line, correct the spelling of "complement"; and page 2, top paragraph, correct the spelling of "revegetation". He inquired why item 2, under section 5, page 2, has been deleted. CDD/DeStefano responded that the consultant Horst Schorr has previously indicated that he approves of the draft Ordinance. The only area that may differ from the Commission's opinion is that he concurs, with the Director opinion, that a slope density formula is not the key issue in terms of determining how many dwelling units can be developed on a given hillside. With respect to the deletion of section 5, item 2, page 2, because f r. October 12, 1992 Page 11 staff had difficult in determining what real relevance the remnants of a wild fire would have on grading, it was deleted. VC/MacBride suggested that the sketch, for conventional grading, on page 15, should be better drawn to illustrate it's effects. C/Li noted that the graph on page 9, subsection A. Calculating Average Slopes, does not indicate a curve. CDD/DeStefano explained that subsection A has an incomplete graphic. The graphic indicates the percent of land, to be maintained in it's natural state, and another access that deals with the percent of average slope. However, it does not direct the reader toward any particular conclusion. The graphic is one that has been utilized in the City of La Habra Heights, they incorporate a third "line" that deals with the size of the parcel. The difference between La Habra Heights and Diamond Bar is that La Habra Heights indicates the largest parcel as being five acres, and the parcels in Diamond Bar typically start at 15 acres. The whole issue of calculating the average slope, and what is done with it in terms of slope density, is one that has been difficult to respond to. Most cities have some arbitrary formula wherein a certain average slope equates to a certain percentage of the lot. to remain in it's natural state. The difficulty with that is that there 'is no explanation as to why this formula is better than some other formula, therefore, it is difficult to determine if it is applicable to Diamond Bar, or if Diamond Bar should create our own criteria. C/Meyer explained that the standards at La Habra Heights are applicable after the subdivision, and that each subdivided parcel has to comply with these standards. After the five acres, then 80% of the site has to be'left in an open area, if the average slope is ab4e 50%. He suggested that the City would be more responsive to community feelings to reduce density in hillside areas, and to good planning practices, by setting a density formula that correlates to the average slope of lots, in which the steeper) the slope, the larger the subdivided parcel has to be. CDD/DeStefano referred the Commission to the examples, presented in the staff report, of formulas used in other cities. He explained how the formulas are calculated. October 12, 1992 Page 12 C/Li noted that, if the natural grading is used for calculating average slopes, then it appears that the developer is being penalized for using land form grading because the average slope becomes greater, and the percentage of land' to be maintained, in the natural state, becomes greater. CDD/DeStefano stated that, if the Ordinance can be interpreted that way, it is the opposite of what is trying to be achieved. The average slope calculation is meant to be on the existing natural grade, as determined by the formula. C/Meyer suggested that the formula be based on the existing pad or on an approved pad, and that the formulas be worked out at the time that the map is being submitted. The Ordinance is taking away design incentives because it is too finitely written. The standards should be flexible in terms of the hillside. C/Li, noting that subcategory B, Slope Category, items 1-4, provides the technique to comply with this code, and subcategory A, provides a formula, stated that the two paragraphs conflict with each other. He suggested that the Director or the Planning Commission be given discretionary review. CDD/DeStefano stated that he had originally proposed to eliminate the slope density formulas to calculate the average slope, and to keep the slope category discussion, but not relate density to the average slope. The Commission concurred that sub section A, Calculating Average Slopes, should be deleted. They also concurred to table the matter to the next meeting, and that any further Commission comments should be directed to staff before the next meeting. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing was declared closed. ZCA 92-3 CDD/DeStefano recommended that the Commission review the revised CM Ordinance and adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the revised list of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses. CDD/DeStefano stated that there should be a clause added, to become subsection E, on page 159, that . _ _ _ ' ' _ _ ., .. , . � ., ri. ,�, t u d^u.d � �➢ R . 0't�r r; b'�9��..�,$�V �.h��a't'�e'��`�,.ze=��k� '�is� i �v;�:�'?z� r- a October 12, 1992 Page 13 would read, "Properties within the CM Zone, and located at the southeast corner of Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Drive, shall submit a planned development/master plan for City review and approval." This clause would implement the planned development requirement within the General Plan for that portion of our community. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing was declared closed. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer's inquiries, explained that grading projects were excluded because they are covered under other permits already required by the City, and they don't require a Conditional Use Permit. The reason that farming is not permitted on vacant CM Zone properties is because staff does not feel that it would be an appropriate use for the five CM zone areas presently in the City. Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the revised list of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses, and as modified by staff, on page 159, new subsection E which outlines a Planned Development requirement for properties located at the southern corner of Grand Avenue and Golden Springs. INFORMATION: CDD/DeStefano informed the Commission of his decision in the following four Administrative Development Review items: approval an Mr. Toby's 8,700 square foot home in "The Country", on Shadow Canyon; continuance for Mr. Woo's proposal to add 3,700 square feet to his existing 3,700 square foot home because of engineering issues yet to be resolved; approval of a 7,200 square foot home at Braided Mane; and approval of a 1,200 square foot addition to an existing 2,400 square foot home at 1519 Kiowa Crest. CDD/DeStefano informed the Commission that the City Council adopted an Interim Ordinance which severely - restricts land uses permitted within the agricultural zoned property, that is also general planned as agriculture. The only area in the City that this applies to is our sphere of influence. CDD/DeStefano informed the Commission on the following: the Commission has received a copy of October 12, 1992 Page 14 the TTC agenda; staff has provided the Commission with a copy of a memorandum entitled, "Current Status of Major Applications"; staff has also provided the Commission with a copy of staff's in- house log of projects that have been currently worked on or has recently been approved; and the City Council has awarded the construction contract for the Heritage Park Community Building project. C/Meyer stated that the Commission ought to commence reviewing the Development Code, to include the Sign Ordinance. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission have study sessions to discuss the creation of a new Development Code. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair/Flamenbaum informed the Commission that the California League of City Annual Conference is to be held on October 13, 1992. . ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:28 p.m. Respectively, a s DeStefano Secretary Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman lm� ti� �_va_' �' `L:. •,. _ ' -• �.• _ ..,.. • ^•_ . '.'1V_.j47".''I 1['..']WI "i1 ,.I 1s, ..I!! 1 1