HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/13/1992CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
JULY 13, 1992
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. at the
- South Coast Air Quality Management District
Conference Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California.
ROLL CALL: Community Development Director James DeStefano and
Planning Technician Ann Lungu.
Also present were the property owners Michael and
Dorothea Riley, and contractor/applicant Perry
Hanstad, with Design Rite Construction. Three
neighbors were also present.
NEW BUSINESS: PT/Lungu reported that Administrative Development
Review No. 92-09 is a request, by Michael and
ADR 92-9 Dorothea Riley, to construct a first and second
story addition of 1,205 sq. ft. to an existing
single family residence located at 23001 Haddock
Dr., Diamond Bar. The first floor addition will
consist of a family room and a study, and the
second floor addition will consist of a master
bedroom and a study. The environmental evaluation
shows that the proposed project is categorically
exempt according to the guidelines of the
California Environmental Quality Act. Staff
recommended that the Director of Community
Development approve ADR No. 92-9, with the Findings
of Fact as presented in the staff report.
DCD/DeStefano stated that a petition was submitted
to staff, just prior to tonights meeting, signed by
three homeowners, residing on Haddock, objecting to
the planned addition. The neighboring property
owners have indicated that the CC&R's do not allow
two story homes. However, DCD/DeStefano noted
that, at this time, the City does not enforce
CC&R's.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Michael Riley, the applicant, noted that the three
residents that presented the petition, objecting to
his addition, have not reviewed the proposed plans,
nor are they present, at this public hearing, to
voice their objections. He pointed out that there
are other existing two story homes in the area. He
requested that the Director of Community
Development approve his project.
DCD/DeStefano explained that this project requires
an Administrative Development Review because the
planned addition is more than 50% of the original
square footage of the house. He stated that he is
concerned with the size of the addition,
maintaining the prevailing characteristics of the
community, and the visual impacts to the properties
.. �n ----- - - -
�� �°i�lf'119f,1i� (`-�'�'��� ��=�F__R��=. _;This n��_:iii�_i�ui,��.
July 13, 1992 Page 2
obtain additional information regarding the CC&R's,
as well as to determine if there are other two
story properties in the area. The'public hearing
is to be continued to July 17, 1992, at 6:00 p.m.,
in the Conference Room, located in City Hall.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. to July 17,
1992 at 6:00 p.m.
Respectively,,
Ja�,iEs 4DeStefano '
Director of Community Development
-- � � „� �,. .�����n�����• �r.�_ _ _ , . ��,m�- -� ��.,e_.,R�,,.._� _ _�,.�,I� ,lam Ir � hw�..l���- 1�� II�-r--�.�.-__ x , _ - -
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:10 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management
District Conference Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL: Community Development Director James DeStefano and
Planning Technician Ann Lungu.
Also present were the property owners Michael and Dorothea Riley, and
contractor/applicant Perry Hanstad, with Design Rite Construction. Three
neighbors were also present.
NEW BUS/NESS: PT/Lungu reported that Administrative Development Review No. 92-09 is a request, by Michael
and
ADR 92-9 Dorothea Riley, to construct a first and second story addition of 1,205 sq. ft. to an existing single family
residence located at 23001 Haddock Dr., Diamond Bar. The first floor addition will
consist of a family room and a study, and the second floor addition will consist of
a master bedroom and a study. The environmental, evaluation shows that the
proposed project is categorically exempt according to the guidelines of the
California Environmental Quality Act. Staff recommended that the Director of
Community Development approve ADR No. 92-9, with the Findings of Fact as
presented in the staff report.
DCD/DeStefano stated that a petition was submitted to staff, just prior to tonights
meeting, signed by three homeowners, residing on Haddock, objecting to the
planned addition. The neighboring property owners have indicated that the
CC&RIs do not allow two story homes. However, DCD/DeStefano noted that, at
this time, the City does not enforce CC&RIs.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Michael Riley, the applicant, noted that the three residents that presented the
petition, objecting to his addition, have not reviewed the proposed plans, nor are
they present, at this public hearing, to voice their objections. He pointed out that
there are other existing two story homes in the area. He requested that the
Director of Community Development approve his project.
DCD/DeStefano explained that this project requires an Administrative
Development Review because the planned addition is more than 50% of the
original square footage of the house. He stated that he is concerned with the size
of the addition, maintaining the prevailing characteristics of the community, and
the visual impacts to the properties
77----J'--T'IIr!-_—_-------,-I---1—
July 13, 1992 Page 2
obtain additional information regarding the CC&RIs, as well as to determine if
there are other two story properties in the area. The'public hearing is to be
continued to July 17, 1992, at 6:00 p.m., in the Conference Room, located in City
Hall.
ADJOURNMEkT: The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. to July 17, 1992 at 6:00 p.m.
Respectively„ is—ie's Destefano
Director of Community Development
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 13, 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
ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Min. of June 22
PUBLIC HEARING:
variance
No. 92-2
i --
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
Chairman Flamenbaum.
Commissioners: Meyer, Li, Grothe, Vice Chairman
MacBride, and Chairman Flamenbaum.
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney
Bill Curley, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept the Minutes of
June 22, 1992, as presented.
PT/Lungu presented the
request, by the app
Company, for a Varianc
wall sign, with a sic
feet, to be located or
office building at 21'
Gateway Corporate Cei
building is such that
suits by common isle
which lead to the main
exits. Individual t
access from the exteri
suites. As a result,
signs are not permit
analvzina this aDtnlii
staff report regarding the
Acant Cal Comp Insurance
e to approve an illuminated
'n face area of 100 square
the north elevation of the
00 E. Copley Drive, in the
ter. The design of the
tenants enter and exit their
ways, within the building,
and secondary entrances and
anants do not have direct
or of the building to their
)er the Sign Ordinance, wall
ted. Staff finds, after
,ation. that there are no
special circumstances or exceptional
characteristics applicable to the subject property
that would allow the granting of this Variance.
Staff recommended that the Commission deny Variance
No. 92-2 with the Findings of Fact.
Chair/ Flamenbaum noted that if the applicant had an
office door that opened to the outside, they would
be entitled to a sign without a variance. If the
Commission denys the variance, the applicant could
lease an area on the first floor, install a door,
and then qualify for the sign.
C/Grothe stated that, to his understanding, the
intent of the Sign Ordinance is to limit these
types of buildings, in general, to one building
identification sign so that there is not a list of
names across the top of that building for every
tenant that gets put in there. The building can
have one conforming sign on it, with the building
owners name or perhaps the major tenant.
July 13, 1992 Page 2
EN1
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Ben Reiling, of Zelman Development Company, 166
Hanover, the general partner of Diamond Bar
Business Associates, stated that it was their
understanding that the building was allowed a sign
on the face of the building. The sign.meets all of
their rules and _CC&Rs, and it was believed, with
the intent of the Sign Ordinance. He pointed out
that, following a strict reading of the Sign
Ordinance, a one story office building could have a
series of signs if it is designed so that each
tenant had a door. There is an inconsistency in
the Sign Ordinance that needs to be clarified in
the near future. It was their intention to have
one sign on the building, and identify it as the
Cal Comp building. In response to C/Meyer, he
stated that they have an elaborate detailed sign
program, that is part of the CC&R's, for all of the
buildings in the Center.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
PT/Lungu, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum,
explained that, per staff's interpretation of the
sign code, Cal Comp does not have the proper access
to the outside. However, Cal Comp can have a
business identification sign of 35 square feet, no
higher than 25 feet high off the ground.
CD/DeStefano explained that the former Planning
Commission, and the City Council that adopted the
ordinance, dealt with issues pertaining to limiting
the amount of signage, throughout the community, as
well as the quantity and size of wall signs,
particularly in these multi use centers. If the
tenant occupied the entire building, the sign would
have been approved. The variance can be approved
if the Commission feels that the variance is
warranted and the code is correct in its attempt to
put limitation on signage, or it can be approved
with direction to staff to modify the sign
ordinance because it has been improperly
interpreted, or because this Commission feels that
the Ordinance itself is incorrect and should be
amended.
Chair/Flamenbaum reiterated that the sign at 100
sq. feet would meet the code requirement except for
the fact that the tenant's front door does not open
to the outside wall.
Chair/Grothe, as one of the members of the former
and present Planning Commission, stated that the
'.�.� ..., ,,�-:i", ' �, I. ....,.'', - � !`;� �' .�. �..'�I� ,��. ��'.� r �.. _,�� d i �i ,��.� � .��,. � a ti .i ' ,..IiL•_�.; .w .u.._!,..'�J Ih �f1,.:e'' Cti e �Ji ' .
July 13, 1992 Page 3
original intent was that a building, with multiple
stories, and with multiple tenants, would get one
identification sign. He noted that, at that time,
he had suggested that the scale size of the sign
should increase as the stories go up.
Ben Reiling pointed out that the issue boils_ down
to determining where the front door is, the lobby
or at the top of the elevator. To his
interpretation, the front door is where mail is
delivered, which is inside of the lobby.
C/Meyer stated that a variance is not the proper
tool to resolve this problem. His interpretation
of the code is that they do have direct access out
to a public street, which is substantiated by the
Building Department's approval of the building.
The problem would be resolved if the Planning
Department took the same definition used by the
Building Department. Since the sign meets the
other criteria of the sign ordinance, it should be
approved, and staff should come back with some
modification of the sign ordinance that would make
�- staff more comfortable in their interpretation.
The interpretation of access needs to be expanded.
CD/DeStefano, pointing out that if it is agreed
that the elevator door is the same as the front
door, then a variance for this particular sign may
be needed, or the code changed, if the Commission
is concerned with the total amount of signage on a
building, because, as it is written, it allows for
every tenant to have up to 100 sq. ft. of signage.
Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum and seconded by
C/Li to approve the variance with the Findings of
Fact, and direct staff to redraft the sign
ordinance.
C/Grothe suggested that, instead of approving a
variance, the Commission could find this building,
and the signs on the building, to be inconformance
with the approved planned sign program, the CC&R's.
VC/MacBride, noting that this park is the leader of
good taste and aesthetic approach to business in
this community, stated that they should not have to
request a variance on this matter.
The motion and it's second were withdrawn.
Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Meyer and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to find that the
Planning Commission has a contrary interpretation
July 13, 1992 Page 4
than that of staff, in regards to the Sign
Ordinance, and that a variance is not needed in
this particular circumstance, and to direct staff
to return to the Commission, in a timely manner,
with a revised Sign Ordinance.
CUP 89-528 AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding two
requests: a one year extension of time for the
existing Conditional Use Permit 89-528 for the
development and expansion of the existing Honda
Dealership,, construction of a car wash project, and
a MacDonalds Restaurant; and for an amendment to
the CUP 89-528 to allow a change from the
MacDonalds Restaurant to the Burger King
Restaurant. AP/Searcy reviewed the components of
the application for Extension of Time, as presented
in the staff report. Staff recommended that the
Commission approve the Extension of Time.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Russell Hand, the owner of Diamond Bar Honda and
Tedrus Properties, reviewed the process for the
approval of the CUP, and the problems involving`,
L.A. County and the City of Industry regarding the
sewer connection. He explained that MacDonalds
backed out of their lease, but fortunately the
Burger King franchise would like to come in and
take MacDonalds place. He stated that so far he
has put in a box culvert, at a cost of $280,000,
graded for the plans for the car wash and the
MacDonalds, and put up retaining walls. He would
like to pave, grade, and landscape the one lot that
is vacant, and use it as employee parking for the
time being. In response to C/Li, he stated that he
has paid $140,000 to bring a 16" main across the
road, and he will have to pay an additional $80,000
for three fire hydrants. In response to C/Meyer,
he stated that he did the culvert before the tract
map. The sewer lin connection was for the approval -
of the CUP. The tract map has been recorded.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Extension of
Time for the existing CUP.
AP/Searcy reviewed
the components of the
°r
application for the
amendment of
the CUP, as
presented in the staff
report. Staff
has not had a
chance to review the
plans for the
revised play
ground recreation area because it
was submitted
late Friday. Staff has some concerns
regarding the
July 13, 1992 Page 5
internal circulation of the project, the parking
area, the location of the trash enclosure on site,
and signage. It is recommended that the Commission
direct the applicant to work with staff in
redesigning the Burker King restaurant to improve
the internal circulation and parking situation, and
to bring the project back to the Commission at the
appropriate time for the CUP and the Development
Review.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
C/Grothe indicated that a simple name change
appears to be a minor modification that doesn't
really need to come before the Commission.
AP/Searcy explained that the City Council was
explicit that any change in that user would have to
require an amendment to the CUP. He further
explained that the site plan and the site
configuration has changed .from the approved
location of the MacDonald's restaurant.
In response to VC/MacBride, AP/Searcy confirmed
that the problems with the internal circulation
arises from the change in the restaurant
orientation. Staff also has concerns regarding the
access for the drive-through, and its proximity to
the exit at Brea Canyon,. and concerns with the
width and length of the driveway. However, it is
not felt that these concerns are not
insurmountable.
Russell Hand noted that the Burger King franchisees
and the architect are present to answer any
questions. They have already redesigned the plans,
following staff's suggestions.
Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he would encourage
that the addresses of the carwash and restaurant be
Grand Ave. so that they are easily located.
Charles Cobb, representing Card Investments, 2711
S. Diamond Bar Blvd.,, stated that they are anxious
to move ahead with the project, and had hoped to
get the CUP approval tonight because most of the
issues seemed to be relatively minor. The building
orientation was changed to conform better with the
j type of building because the interior layout, and
the drive-through layout is different from
MacDonalds restaurant.
CD/DeStefano suggested that the Commission not
approve the CUP without knowing the specific issues
July 13, 1992 Page 6
in the Development Review. A more appropriate
alternative would be to direct the staff and the
applicant to work closely together to resolve all
of these problems and bring back a complete package
to the Commission.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
to allow the Commission time to review the
MacDonalds plans as compared to the presently
proposed plans. The meeting was reconvened at 8:40
p.m.
CD/DeStefano stated that, because of prior
commitments and available manpower, staff will need
30 days to review the proposed changes.
C/Grothe requested staff to bring, to the
Commission's attention, any differences to the
signage.
C/Meyer requested that the following be explored:
the increasing of landscaped areas, by reducing the
amount of asphalt areas, which in turn could also
be used for additional parking; minimizing
reflectivity; and minimizing runoff.
C/Grothe stated that there should be adequate
pedestrian walkways provided between the
facilities.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the public
hearing to the August 10, 1992 meeting, with
direction to staff to work with the applicant, and
to include those issues previously indicated by the
Commission.
NEW BUSINESS: PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding
_x_. _"if?I3 tifLOVIu .el l4k+4a"..,do 9U Z'.a :w. wkWIRA
staff's analysis and interpretation of the County
Analysis of
of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code, adopted by
distance between
the City, and the interpretation of the Uniform
accessory and
Building Code pertaining to the distance between
main bldg.
accessory and main buildings. The staff report
included information to assist the Commission in
understanding how staff interprets the Planning and
Building Code relative to the separation of a main
structure and an accessory structure (i.e. pools).
Staff interpretation follows the main office
interpretation, which is a 6 foot setback.
CD/DeStefano stated that staff is looking for a
setback that is safe, and is recommending that
_x_. _"if?I3 tifLOVIu .el l4k+4a"..,do 9U Z'.a :w. wkWIRA
July 13, 1992 Page 7
�-h
there be at least a 3 feet separation between the
structure and the waterline for safety reasons.
Staff is looking for direction from the Commission.
C/Meyer explained that he had requested this item
to be on the agenda because he does not see where
the public interest is with respect to requiring a
setback of a swimming pool to a structure. The
definition of the Zoning Code needs clarification
because the way it is written requires that all
accessory structures, which could include such
items as pools, air conditioners, dog houses,
sheds, etc., be 6 feet from the main structure. He
suggested that the code be so interpreted so that
it does not apply to substructures, such as pools,
and that it only applies to permanent structures.
DCA/Curley suggested that the Commission direct
staff to come up with an interpretation, matching
the Commission's intent, using the language as it
exists in the code. It could be brought back so
that the Commission can adopt it as a policy.
{ The Commission concurred to so direct staff.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Meyer commended staff on their job well done on
putting together a Commission package, particularly
with the General Plan still in process.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the
meeting at 9:05 p.m.
Res ectivel ,
J s DeStef ano
Secretary
Attest:
II �
Bruce Flamenbaum
Chairman
III i II I IIIA I Ircr ,