Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/10/1992CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 10, 1992 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Grothe called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management l>, District Board Meeting Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Mr. Porter. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Harmony, Commissioner Schey, Vice Chairman MacBride, and Chairman Grothe. Commissioner Flamenbaum 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. MATTERS FROM Dennis Hernandez, from the Walnut Valley Water THE AUDIENCE: District, addressed the Commission regarding the Water Shortage Contingency Plan, mandated by Assembly Bill 11X, requiring that Water Agencies prepare a plan providing a form of action that can be taken if the drought continues. The content of the plan include both demands, on the water system, as well as supply. He reviewed the contents of the plan with the Commission. Mr. Hernandez, in response to Chair/Grothe's inquiry, explained that MWD is calculating the requested 30% reduction in water use from the base year of 1989/90. In response to a series of inquiries from VC/MacBride, Mr. Herdandez made the following explanations regarding the memorandum (an executive summary of the water problem), dated January 30th, that was submitted to the Commission: the population forecast in figure 1-1, is based on the recent census, in Diamond Bar, including a one to two percent population increase per year; figure 1- 2 is a history of the number of acre feet purchased since 1961, the number of the consumers in the district prior to 1978, and the combined total of consumers; the dark portion in figure 1-2 could more appropriately be labeled Diamond Bar Water Company consumers; figure 1-2 will be adjusted to properly indicate that the current condition, now labeled Walnut Consumers, be labeled Diamond Bar/Walnut Consumers; the expected 2% rate increase on the demands on reclaimed water, as indicated on page 2-1, will probably increase more than the 2% over the next few years, however, until there is additional sources of supply, the increase in the reclaimed system will probably be somewhat minor; the construction of a major transmission pipeline February 10, 1992 MINUTES: Page 2 Mr. Hernandez explained that the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant, supplying reclaimed water at this point in time, is not able to meet the demand during the summertime. There is another treatment plant, located around the 605/60 freeways, that has sufficient capacity available. However, there's a major cost in transporting that water back up to the district area. Mr. Hernandez, responding to C/Harmony's inquiry, stated that he does not have all the figures to determine the cost of bringing water from the Rio Hondo treatment facility. In regards to being able to tap into the proposed Tres Hermans Ranch recycled water system, he indicated that, as more plans become available, all alternatives will be considered. CD/DeStefano thanked Mr. Hernandez for attending the meeting and providing the Commission with a synopsis of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. He inquired which treatment facility would the water come from for the reclaimed water lake proposed at the Tres Hermanos Ranch. Mr. Hernandez indicated that he has not yet seen any plans. However, he would presume that most of it would probably come from the 605/60 freeway. CD/DeStefano announced that there was an error in the public hearing notification for architectural review of 3 single family homes located at 2638 S1aze,Trail, 22105 Rim Fire Lane, and 23624 Falcons View Dr. Staff has readvertized the projects, for staff architectural review, for the meeting of February 24, 1992. C/Harmony requested the Minutes of January 27, 1992 be amended on page 2, third paragraph, to add a will be running through the'streets of Grand Ave. and Padillo, in the Covina area, tying into the Metropolitan's middle feeder, to terminate at the terminal storage site; the pipeline will be about five miles long, with the largest diameter being 51 inch; the construction of the pipeline is due to start in the summertime and last about a year; and traffic concerns regarding the construction has been satisfactorily alleviated. C/Schey inquired if there is some means of expanding the supply of reclaimed water, thereby allowing the expansion of the use of reclaimed water for nonpotable purposes. Mr. Hernandez explained that the Pomona Water Reclamation Plant, supplying reclaimed water at this point in time, is not able to meet the demand during the summertime. There is another treatment plant, located around the 605/60 freeways, that has sufficient capacity available. However, there's a major cost in transporting that water back up to the district area. Mr. Hernandez, responding to C/Harmony's inquiry, stated that he does not have all the figures to determine the cost of bringing water from the Rio Hondo treatment facility. In regards to being able to tap into the proposed Tres Hermans Ranch recycled water system, he indicated that, as more plans become available, all alternatives will be considered. CD/DeStefano thanked Mr. Hernandez for attending the meeting and providing the Commission with a synopsis of the Water Shortage Contingency Plan. He inquired which treatment facility would the water come from for the reclaimed water lake proposed at the Tres Hermanos Ranch. Mr. Hernandez indicated that he has not yet seen any plans. However, he would presume that most of it would probably come from the 605/60 freeway. CD/DeStefano announced that there was an error in the public hearing notification for architectural review of 3 single family homes located at 2638 S1aze,Trail, 22105 Rim Fire Lane, and 23624 Falcons View Dr. Staff has readvertized the projects, for staff architectural review, for the meeting of February 24, 1992. C/Harmony requested the Minutes of January 27, 1992 be amended on page 2, third paragraph, to add a February 10, 1992 Page 3 Jan. 27, 1992 "...the project - that rather than responding to the Commission's concerns for high density on the project, the developer changed it to a Senior Citizens complex - cut a few units and reduced parking, and still had not addressed the Commission's stated concerns."; and on page 4, ninth paragraph, to insert :...from the general public, and the City Council...". Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of January 27, 1992, as amended. NEW BUSINESS: CD/DeStefano stated that, pursuant to the discussion at the last meeting, the clause under New Agenda Format the heading Matters From The Audience/Public Comments has been changed - to incorporate a provision to allow the public to speak not only on non agenda items, but all those items that are not public hearings within the agenda for the evening. C/Schey suggested that it should be limited to items within the Commission's jurisdiction. Architectural CD/DeStefano stated that, pursuant to discussion at Design Review the last meeting, City staff has provided the Commission with a copy of Ordinance No. 5, adopted March of 1990, which establishes a design review process. Chair/Grothe suggested that staff reports also include a report on'design review concerns, to include color photographs of the surrounding properties, a couple of views of the subject property to be either developed or remodeled, as well as a display of the type of building materials to be used. He inquired if that would need to be reworked into the Ordinance, or if it can be changed as a procedural matter. CD/DeStefano indicated that the request may be better inserted into the Ordinance when dealing with the new Development Code. In the interim, based upon the Commission's direction, staff can revise the applications, at the public counter, and advise applicants verbally that such photographs are necessary as part of the application package. - There is a catch all clause within the Development Review application requirements that would permit the Commission, or staff, to request additional information. February 10, 1992 Page 4 C/Schey suggested requiring video tapes, of a given neighborhood or project site, as an effective tool to visualize the site. CD/DeStefano stated that the developer could be required to provide one of those forms of documentations. Upon review, staff would display it for the Commission. Some cities utilize the video tape method, however, with this size of staff, and the capabilities, we don't see.it in the foreseeable future. C/Harmony, in regards to the recent criticism of the apartment complex project on Grand Ave., indicated that he felt that the problem involved an architectural review concept. He indicated that Diamond Bar has a history of working with an architectural review committee with our CC&R's, our Homeowners Association, and TransAmerica. To his understanding, that authority of architectural review has been transferred to the Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA). Their recommendations would then come before the Planning Commission. He noted that the City Council, in the original Development Review Ordinance, had proposed a separate architectural committee. This kind of interfacing would insure architectural compatibility within our community, and avoid the embarrassing situation such as that particular apartment building. C/Harmony informed the Commission that he obtained a copy of the City of Ojai's ordinance on architectural review procedure. He noted that, first off, they appoint an architectural board of review. Also, there is a lot more detail and depth within their guidelines. The Commission has never really seriously dealt with architectural aesthetic concepts. Perhaps something could be worked out with the DBIA, with whatever authority they may have in this regard. He suggested that the Commission may want to recommend to the City Council, to include into the ordinance, the formation of some kind of an architectural review board, consisting of architects and landscape architects, that would review these projects, and make comments to the Plannning Commission. Chair/Grothe, concerned with adding another level of bureaucracy, suggested that standards for issues like zoning for density, set back requirements, and landscaping, be toughened to see if we can get by without more bureaucracy. Staff could be required to see to it that the developer follows a list of guidelines as part of our design review. l February 10, 1992 Page 5 C/Schey indicated that he would prefer to have the flexibility of a committee, rather than legislate regulations that are essentially arbitrary. There are circumstances when one set of guidelines may not be appropriate for a development. Chair/Grothe pointed out that if there is a circumstance that a developer feels the standards should be modified, then he should apply for a variance. In this way, the ground rules are the same for everyone up front. CD/DeStefano, in response to VC/MacBride's inquiry, explained that the whole question of whether the DBIA participates, or does the review, has yet to be resolved. As of now, we're trying to better communicate with one another in terms of providing the DBIA with the ability to review projects that are coming before the City for discretionary approval, then receiving their letters and comments, and taking them under advisement. VC/MacBride, encouraging the process of an ongoing exchange of information, suggested that the DBIA send a member, of their committee, to communicate with the Planning Commission. He indicated that perhaps the Commission should also set up an architectural review committee. CD/DeStefano suggested that, if the Commission develops a set of standards, guidelines, or policy, it would make it easier for a body of people to review a project, based upon approval of such standards. It is also easier for the developer if standards are set up front. In response to VC/MacBride, CD/DeStefano suggested that the standards be separated as a free standing policy document, to run concurrently with each development review application. If the Commission chooses to make this a high priority, a message could be sent to the City Manager, and the City Council, that resources be set aside to prepare such a document, and to move it into the upcoming workshop for the next fiscal year. C/Harmony stated that, if the DBIA expanded their scope of their committee beyond CC&R issues, he would feel comfortable with that kind of private/public mix of community and public structure working together. Chair/Grothe requested that staff provide the Commission with immediate assistance with the February 10, 1992 Page 6 design review concerns. However, in developing the policy, he feels that guidance should come from the top and filter down to the Commission. CD/DeStefano reaffirmed that there is a specific provision in the ordinance that allows staff the ability to require additional submittal documents beyond what the ordinance points out. C/Harmony suggested that the matter be turned over to the "White Paper" committee. The committee is to include the comments made into their report, and make a recommendation to the City Council. The Commission concurred. C/Harmony submitted the Ojai ordinance, as a sample of a recognized model or an ordinance. CONTINUED AP/Searcy addressed the Commission regarding the PUBLIC HEARINGS: request for architectural approval of a one floor 5,080 sq. ft. Goodyear Auto Service Center building DR 91-3 to be located in the Country Hills Towne Center. At the last hearing, the Commission directed staff to- address various issues including, but not limited to, the following: parking; auto and pedestrian circulation; orientation of the buildings; and potential noise impacts. AP/Searcy reviewed these issues, with the Commission, as indicated in the staff report, and reviewed the suggested mitigation measures to minimize sound emissions. Chair/Grothe stated that, on his request for parking information, he wanted to know how the existing facility meets the existing parking code, taking into effect all the uses in the Center, as well as a full breakdown of that shared parking. DCA/Curley advised VC/MacBride that, since he was absent at the opening hearings, it would be advisable that he not participate in a vote, at this time, unless he has had the opportunity to get up to speed with the rest of the Commission. VC/MacBride stated that, though he is up to speed with the issues, he will not participate in the vote, to avoid any misapprehension on any part of the audience. Mark Wieman, on behalf of Landsing Pacific Fund, the owner of Country Hills Towne Center, Executive Vice President and Chief Officer for the Fund, indicated that the difficulties confronting the real estate industry in Southern California, and the nation in general, have claimed six retail February 16, 1992 Page 7 operators in the Country Hills. Without the Commission's support, there will be more casualties. The two applications will help preserve the economic viability of the Center. He requested that both applications be approved. Tom Wolff, President of the Wolff Company, 7700 Irvine Center Drive, Irvine, Development Manager of Country Hills Towne Center, indicated that they are prepared to answer any of the Commission's concerns. He stated that the members of the Country Hills Association very much want to see -the Center expanded. Bill Thackery, owner of Little Professor Book store, representing the Merchants Association, submitted a petition, to the Commission, signed by all the merchants in the Center, supporting their interest in seeing this Center expanded. Tom Wolff stated the following: They have made a real effort to orient the Good Year building in such a way that would be beneficial to all of the various parties involved; they will landscape the blank wall to look more attractive; the City's engineer has indicated that the sound report is satisfactory as far as mitigating the noise; and, they feel, that the issue of noise can be mitigated by the construction of the wall indicated on the plans. Mark Schaffer, Senior Consultant at Associate Principal of Mckay Conant Brook, Inc., Sound Engineer, addressed the Commission prepared to answer any questions. In response to C/Harmony's inquiry, Mr. Schaffer made the following comments: the actual maximum level of a sound jump of any particular activity would be 76 decibels - the 84.5 decibel rating was a summation of several different events if they all occurred at once; with the 8 foot wall, the sound jumps are reduced by 5 to 7 decibels, depending on the specific type of noise source; the ambient sound level comes from Diamond Bar Blvd. and the 57 freeway; the total amount of sound, that gets out into the neighborhood, is reduced if the doors to the unused bays are closed; and the 8 foot wall is the most efficient way to mitigate the sound jumps, in his opinion. Mr. Schaffer responded to a series of inquiries, from VC/MacBride, pin pointing the specific location of the sound testing. February 10, 1992 Page 8 In response to Chair/Grothe's concern regarding the effects of the frequency of the sound, Mr. Schaffer indicated that the concept of the frequency content impacting a'perceived loudness, of sound is taken into account in the type of sound level meter instrumentation used. He further indicated that when he was taking his measurements on Saturday, 7:15 a.m., a passing garbage truck's sound level was 86.5 decibels. Tom Wolff made the following comments: They would be a better looking neighbor if the wall was landscaped rather that turning the building around; due to a technical problem, they were unable to present the slides concerning parking; the results of taking pictures every hour for 12 hours, Friday and Saturday, showed that at no time were there enough cars in any place in the center to warrant concern over the amount of parking; the way the building is oriented, as indicated in the application, is the way we, and the tenant, would like to see it done; and there are intenuating measures which will mitigate the sound to satisfactory ambient noise levels of the community that are already there. CD/DeStefano, in response to C/Schey's inquiry, explained that both the Goodyear and the Speedee Lube stores are development review applications. The conditional use permit (CUP) is an amendment to the previous CUP covering the entire property. The original CUP did not show a pad on the site of the .Speedee Lube. It is primarily for the subdivision which would permit the Kentucky Fried Chicken facility in the future. The Public Hearing was declared open. Jo Vassman, residing at 2509 Sunbright Dr., and Sara Anderson, residing at 2517 Sunbright Dr., addressed the following concerns: the present driveway creates a hazardous traffic condition; there should be a sidewalk constructed by the driveway; the noise levels will be constant and annoying; the project will decrease home values; there will be an increase of traffic in an already dangerous intersection; the owners should first consider finding tenants for the empty store fronts; and why is an automotive center being considered in a residential community. Wayne Fisher, residing at 2675 Crooked Creek, made the following concerns: the present wall has never been landscaped; the intersection of Fountain February 10, 1992 Page 9 Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd. is already dangerous without the increase in traffic that will be created by the project; the sound level study should not be averaged over a 24 hour period, but averaged over the hours the store is opened; and there are retired residents that will have to listen to the noise all day. Arthur Ramos, residing on the corner of Fountain Springs and Crooked Creek, made the following comments: the street entrance is presently narrow; the fumes from the traffic is already unbearable; and the reason there is plenty of parking is because many of the store fronts are not rented. Dr. Pamela Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, made the following comments: noise levels are already high from the 57 freeway and Diamond Bar Blvd.; the increase in the sound decibel is on a logarithmic scale therefore the sound increases 100 units not just 10.6 decibels; there is no guarantee that the owner -will keep mufflers on the _ hydraulic lifts, or keep them in working condition; ' and what recourse will the residents have if the noise is unbearable and a burden to the residents. Don Long, residing at 2640 Rising Star, made the following comments: the area is already noisy and additional noise will make that area even more unbearable; the project will have a detrimental impact on property values; the traffic will increase; and there is already ample automotive facilities on the north side of Diamond Bar. The following persons opposed the project for reasons previously mentioned: Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star Dr.; Steve Baben, residing at 2605 Rising Star Dr.; and Bob Gannon, residing at 2641 Rising Star Dr. Bart Porter, Executive Vice President of the Wolff Co., made the following rebuttals: the project is already an approved use; there is an element that is desirous for an automotive use on this side of Diamond Bar; the traffic study presented was thorough; the units, on the logarithmic scale for sound decibels, are multiplied twice, not ten �- times, as was indicated; and the residents were aware that the property next to them was zoned commercial when they bought their property. Mark Weiman made the following comments: the Speedee Lube project has proposed the construction of a sidewalk on the side of the existing driveway; February 10, 1992 -- Page 10 they are willing to make the driveway a one way h' ingress; they are willing to landscape the existing wall if the City can show that such a promise was made, as was indicated; the Center is 88% leased, with rents declining; the Center provides more parking than is required; and all that is proposed, under the reconfiguration of the area of the proposed applications, has, in the aggregate, decreased the amount of sq. footage proposed. Ken Anderson stated that the entire Center lacks sidewalks in all of their entrances. The parking study, and shared use, is not working even now without full occupancy. CD/DeStefano informed the Commission that though the automotive use has been permitted within the zone, the use, and the building is subject to development review criteria which incorporates compatibility with design, screening, buffering, mitigation measures that don't create an adverse impact upon aesthetics, health and safety, and so forth. The Commission has three options on this particular project: approve the application with appropriate mitigation measures; deny the° application based upon findings; or send the project back for further work. CE/Mousavi indicated that because the noise study was delivered to the City on February 4, 1992, staff has not had adequate time to review it and prepare a response. The consultants, however, have reviewed the report and concurred with it's recommendations and findings. Upon reviewing the report tonight, he indicated that he has some questions and concerns with respect to the findings of the report. William Fisher inquired if the proposed wall will be specifically constructed as a sound wall. The Public Hearing was declared closed. I Chair/Grothe called a recess at 10:32 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 10:48 p.m. DCA/Curley, in response to Chair/Grothe, stated that the Commission's action tonight is final, subject to appeal within a 10 day period to the council. Chair/Grothe stated that he would hope that the owner, Mr. Wieman, would make some real efforts on some of the resident's concerns regardless of any February 10, 1992 Page it of the public hearing outcomes. He recommended the following improvements: the signs, for theater parking around the back of the building, should be up immediately; the sidewalks ingressing into the Center would generate more foot traffic, and traffic into the Center; the existing wall on Fountain Springs should be landscaped; make the Fountain Springs driveway an ingress only; the whole design of the building needs major rework; having a sidewalk, and landscaping, with the building, is a lot more aesthetic than another 8 foot wall; turning the building may solve the noise problem, but if not, he would be against the project; turning the Center may help the visual blight, and, with proper landscaping, softened the entrance into the Center; creating a fenced yard may be more detrimental; having the roll up door face the entrance way is unappealing; and he is not interested in putting a use in, that is not compatible, or, at least, not appropriately placed. He stated that he is torn between denying the project, or extending the application until there has been a major redesign, as indicated. He stressed, however, that if the noise level is increased even one decibel, he would not consider the project. Motion was made by Chair/Grothe to continue the project to the March 23rd meeting, with the intent that there be a major redesign of the project, addressing the concerns previously indicated. The MOTION FAILED for lack of a second. C/Schey indicated that the traffic issues are not a problem. However, he is concerned with the impact that the use will have with the surrounding residents. If the use was to be included into the Center, it would be more properly included in a location that was more remote from residential development around it. He is inclined to deny the project. Motion was made by C/Schey, and seconded by C/Harmony to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for consideration at the next meeting. Chair/Grothe inquired if the motion of denial is without prejudice. C/Schey stated that, given that his major concern is the appropriateness of the use in that particular location in the Center, he would not be inclined to see the use come back in a different February 10, 1992 CUP 91-12; DR 91-5; & SR 91-42 Page 12 configuration. For that reason, he would not intend his motion to be without prejudice. Chair/Grothe suggested that since only three of the five Commissioners will be voting, perhaps it should be continued to allow everyone the opportunity to vote. He pointed out that there are citizens that feel that a decent automotive service center on the south end of town is important. The Commission voted on the C/Schey's Motion. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony and Schey. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/MacBride. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Flammenbaum. THE MOTION CARRIED. PT/Lungu addressed the Commission regarding the request for a CUP No. 91-12 and Development Review No.91-5 which is for a Speedee Oil Change and Tune - Up. She emphasized that the work at Speedee is not the same kind of work done at Goodyear. It is a preventive maintenance service that does not require the same tools as. Goodyear, nor does it have the same kind of noise factor. Speedee has proposed to move the building three and a half feet to the north creating a clearer line of site exiting from that area into the main part of the Center. They have also agreed to put in the extra sidewalk discussed, as well as provide extra landscaping for the existing wall. The applicant is also requesting to amend CUP 87-002 for the use of pad No. 15 for a drive-through restaurant pad and a retail pad. Staff recommended that the Commission approve a resolution for this project, as well as the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the Findings of Fact. C/Harmony questioned if the 3 to 4 vehicles serviced daily for smog tests would be profitable for the business. He inquired what the emissions, from testing cars, would do to the local neighborhood. Mark Weiman, on behalf of Landsing Pacific Fund, stated that they will do everything in their power to do those items, suggested by Chair/Grothe, relating to both the Goodyear and the Speedee projects. Tom Wolff stated the following: there will be a sidewalk leading down'into the Center from Fountain Springs; the building has been moved three feet back to accommodate parking in front of the LIQ " February 10, 1992 Page 13 building; the trash enclosure has been removed creating a clear line of site; the architectural design is consistent with the architecture in the Center; the KFC is strictly a drive-through and does not contain seating within the store; and the remaining building will be retail. CD/DeStefano, in response to Chair/Grothe's inquiry, confirmed that, at this time, the Commission is looking at a pad division for lot 15. It's specific uses and architecture would be subject to development review at a later date. Secondly, the Commission is looking at a development review for the Speedee Oil facility. C/Harmony stated that he has problems with this particular lot split because it is his philosophy that lot splits should have a development plan. The Public Hearing was declared open. Bart Porter, of the Wolff Company, explained that �- the Commission is being asked to approve the CUP, ` and the design review, to allow Speedee on the site because there was not a pad drawn there on the original CUP. Also, that same CUP includes the splitting of the lot for the purposes of providing two identifiable spaces. The reason for this is because the restaurant use is going to be on a ground lease. To make the lease with the owner, we need to know that it is an approved use at that location. The CUP asks for your approval of that site as a drive-through facility, with the design to be determined later. Al Bolton, the KFC franchise operator and owner, explained, ideally, they like a location that is on the going home side of the transitory public, and on a full corner. Since this was not possible, it was decided that a downscale drive-through take out would be more appropriate. They cater to a going home crowd during dinner time, and have a 60 second service time record. Therefore, the 8 car stacking capacity is not perceived to be a problem. Mike Benette, 41 Gulling Dr., Laguna Niguel, real estate representative for Speedee, responding to questions from the Commission, stated that: Speedee will have one air compressor used to pump the oil out of the tanks, and filling air into the tires; Speedee typically has three primary profit centers, which is oil change, tune-up and smog checks; smog check is the only about 10% of it's service, amounting to about 3 to 4 cars, and it February 10, 1992 Page 14 0 usually entails doing tune-up type work as well; mature stores are servicing about 40 cars per day, with a ticket average of about $50.00 per car; 60% of the business will be oil change. Bob Gannon, residing at 2641 Rising Star, stated the following concerns: the location of an automotive repair or service is not appropriately placed abutting R-1 property; it would be better located by the Alta Ski & sport and the Wherehouse; the proposed location is too close to the theater and creates a dangerous traffic situation; they may decide to use air wrenches in the future; and grease pumps are very noisy. Don Long, residing at 2640 Rising Star, stated that he is concerned with the increase of traffic from the 40 per day customers they anticipate. Also, that area does not need an increase in noise that will be generated from the facility. 1 i Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, stated that the grade of the driveway will obscure vision r ingressing and egressing from the driveway to the facility. He is also concerned with drainage if 6 further grading is done upon construction. Bart Porter stated the following: the suggested change in location would not be feasible because the main anchor stores, in the Center, would not allow the facility on those sites because it would obscure their line of site; Speedee will employ 4 4 workers therefore parking is not a problem; the wall will be landscaped with a creeping fig that j will not only block the view of Speedee, but also day help block any noise; and servicing 40 cars a is not is only about 1 car every 15 minutes, which a big increase in traffic. Mike Benette made the following rebuttals: Speedee has been in existence for about 13 years and has never altered their service, which is preventive in back of maintenance; only have 1 air compressor the sore; there is no noise coming from the lube iguns; and there is a substantial demand for this type of automotive service in the area. Mark Weiman urged the Commission to make the distinction between the Goodyear application and this Speedee application. i Ken Anderson cautioned against approving the Speedee simply because the Goodyear project was denied. 0 ------------- February 10, 1992 Page 15 Bob Gannon questioned why Alpha Beta signed the petition to allow these businesses, yet they will not have the Speedee facility located by them. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Schey, noting that the square footage totals for the split of pad #15, #14 and, the new pad #13 was less than what was permitted on the original CUP for pad #14 and #15, stated his concern that if a new pad of this type was allowed, it not result in an overall gain in the total sq. footage of building that was permitted on the site. C/Harmony inquired as to why Alpha Beta would be opposed to having the Speedee facility across from them. Mr. Weiman explained that the reason the anchor stores have stipulated to certain site quarters is because they believe they rely very heavily on site advertising. The densities at the Alta Ski location is the maximum that they would agree with. i Chair/Grothe stated the following: turn the building 90 degrees and backed up so it is not the leading building coming into the Center; would consider a potentially increase in signage if the effect of the building is decreased; and most of the other items could be conditioned such as: the compressor, pumps, and motors be placed in a compressor room; no air tools; and no major automotive repair. C/Harmony inquired at what time will we require development plans for lot subdivisions. . C/Schey stated that the Commission is not creating a lot, but allowing development on this pad to be configured as two separate buildings. The split of these pads is being done for lease of the property and we are not creating two legal parcels. Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by Chair/Grothe, and CARRIED to continue the matter to the next regular meeting, and direct staff to draft a Resolution of Approval that mandate that the -' total square footage of the RFC pad and the Goodyear pad will not be exceeded by the allocation of square footage to this new pad and the other two pads; prohibit the use of noematic tools; mandate the enclosure of the compressor units; mandate the appropriate landscaping of the existing wall along Fountain Springs; mandate the creation of a February 10, 1992 Page 16 sidewalk along the entrance 'road off of Fountain Springs; and with the City Engineer recommendation, mandate an entrance only configuration for that driveway or mandate the maintenance of that as a two way driveway; and mandate that a detailed landscaping plan, be submitted to staff consistent with the other landscaping on the site. The Resolution would cover the proposed CUP 91-12, the development Review 91-5, and the Sign Review 91-42. AYES: ,COMMISSIONERS: Harmony, Schey and Chair%Grothe. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum. CUP 91-14 CD/DeStefano reported that the application is for a request to open a dry cleaning establishment which will maintain a dry cleaning plant on the premises. The proposed project is located at 11397-99 Diamond Bar Blvd., which is in a C -3 -BE Zone. A dry cleaning establishment is allowed in this zone by right, however, since this facility will have a plant on site, a conditional use permit is required. Staff has received numerous letters from citizens who are in opposition to this particular application because there are existing dry cleaners within the City, and several different dry cleaners within this immediate area. The citizens are also concerned about the impacts to air quality from the chemicals used with this kind of operation. Upon contact with the AQMD, they indicated that there is no maximum facilities that can be located within one jurisdiction, as long as each of them receives the proper permits through the procedures established by AQMD. Secondly, staff is unaware of a single City that gets into the issue of separating land uses, or over concentration of land uses (with the possible exception of adult uses). Staff recommended The Commission approve the application, with the mitigated negative declaration, the findings of fact, and conditions. C/Harmony indicated that the last prior approval for the dry cleaning establishment had a problem with their exhaust venting into the back door of one of the upstairs offices. The venting was reduct to solve the problem. The Public Hearing was declared opened. Douglas Levine, a dry cleaning in-house consultant for PECO Equipment Co., explained that the only venting done in a dry cleaning facility today is the venting of the boiler. There are no chemicals February 10, 1992 Page 17 vented to the atmosphere, or discharged to the sewer. This facility has already been approved by AQMD. It is just in the process of a name change. He further stated that, to his knowledge, there are only two cleaners in the general area. One cleaner is across the way, and the other is in the adjacent center. CD/DeStefano explained that there are two separate centers with two separate owners that are adjacent to one another. John Hitan, owner of the existing cleaners located within 75 yards of the proposed new facility, stated that there are already 6 cleaners within a quarter of a mile distance. Another facility, especially so close to their existing business, may drive them away. Furthermore, parking is already a problem within that center. Grigori Hitan, owner of Thrifty Clean Cleaners, stated that the shopping center, that they are presently located, is small and competition is already difficult. If this proposed discount cleaners is permitted to come into the Center, it will close out his business. Bill Tinsmen, residing at 1014 Capon Ave., indicated that City Planners should not allow business failures by allowing too many of the same uses to operate within one area. Doug Levine pointed out that the issue here is one of free enterprise, not of planning, because you have two different shopping centers, with two different landlords. Grigori Hitan stated that though the centers are separate, they are adjacent, and both are too small for two cleaners to exist. John Hitan stated that it is unfair to expect free enterprise when his competition is next store to him within a small area. The Public Hearing was declared closed. PT/Lungu, responding to C/Harmony, explained that staff didn't receive application for a permit may! before the name change. The AQMD issued the permit under the old name. They are now coming to the Commission for a CUP under the new name. February 10, 1992 Page 18 C/Harmony stated that though he believes in liaise faire government, he has trouble with seeing this type of development going in when there are six dry cleaners in the area. Any good landlord would not allow 2 cleaners in one center, except for the fact that they,are two separatelandlords. Motion was made by C/Harmony to deny the CUP. The Motion Failed for lack of a second. Chair/Grothe indicated that it is not the Commission's responsibility to chose which business goes in which center. C/Schey stated that deciding which business is viable and which isn't viable exceeds our planning function. C/Harmony, noting staff's efforts to make sure that churches could not go in commercial zoning, or the Commission's discussion about avoiding the development of two car washes across from each other, stated that the Commission often makes decisions based on economic development. Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by VC/MacBride and CARRIED to approve the CUP as recommended by staff and subject to the conditions outlined in the ' Resolution. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schey, MacBride, and f Chair/Grothe. I, INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: ANNOUNCEMENTS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum. C/Schey stated that the "White Paper" sub -committee intends on having a draft available for review in advance of the next meeting. CD/DeStefano confirmed that the Planning Institute is to be held in Anaheim. C/Harmony noted, for the record, Mr. Piermarini's excellent response in preventing a mudslide, during construction of his development, after the rains. When he completed his grading, he gave the surrounding residents free car washes in Rowland Heights. CD/DeStefano, responding to C/Harmony's request for an update to the Hills Club incident, stated the City Manager has requested staff to negotiate with the Hills Club, within 60 days, and develop a policy to prevent large parties in the future. 8 -- ------ - - - February 10, 1992 Page,19 ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the -meeting at 1:30 a.m. Respectively, 'z Ja ?e -s DeStefan V/P Secretary/Plan inag Commission test: Jack Grothee Chairman