HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/10/1992The Public Hearing was declared open.
Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing was
declared closed.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's
recommendation to continue the application.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the
request, by the applicant Diamond Development
TT Map No. 50519/ Company, to subdivide a 2.3 acre site into 36
DA No. 91-3/ individual ownership lots and three (3) common
DR No. 91-2/ lots, to construct a ,36 condominium project, to
Zone Change 91-1 change the zone classification from C-1
(Restrictive Business) to Zone R-3 (Limited
Multiple Residence), and to enter into a
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 10, 1992 _
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at
7:07 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,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney
Craig Fox, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept the
Min. of July 27
Minutes of July 27, 1992, as presented.
CONTINUED
AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the
PUBLIC HEARING:
request, by applicant Russell Hand, for an
amendment to the CUP No. 89-528, and for a
CUP 89-528 &
Development Review to allow the development of a
DR 92-03
Burger King restaurant with drive through
facilities. The Planning Commission, at the July
13, 1992 meeting, directed staff and the applicant
to work on issues related to internal circulation,
pedestrian access between parcels, and a possible
revision to the foot print of the restaurant. The
applicant has submitted a tentative plan to staff,
however, the site plan has not been finalized, and
the project is not ready for presentation at this
time. The applicant has requested a continuance
for this project. Staff recommended that this
application be continued for two weeks to allow
staff time to review the plans and to provide
comment.
The Public Hearing was declared open.
Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing was
declared closed.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by VC/MacBride
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's
recommendation to continue the application.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the
request, by the applicant Diamond Development
TT Map No. 50519/ Company, to subdivide a 2.3 acre site into 36
DA No. 91-3/ individual ownership lots and three (3) common
DR No. 91-2/ lots, to construct a ,36 condominium project, to
Zone Change 91-1 change the zone classification from C-1
(Restrictive Business) to Zone R-3 (Limited
Multiple Residence), and to enter into a
August 10, 1992 Page 2
Development Agreement with the City. The public
hearing for this project was last before the
Planning Commission on June 22, 1992 as an 80 unit
senior citizen's condominium project. The
applicant has redesigned the project because, in
the interim, the General Plan has been approved by
the City Council, which changed the land use
designation of that property to a RLM (Low Medium
Residential), with a maximum density of 16 DU/Acre,
and because of the concerns of the Commission
expressed at the June 22, 1992 meeting. AP/Searcy
then reviewed the application analysis, as
presented in the staff report, which summarizes the
Vesting Tentative Tract Map/Land Use, the
Development Review, the Parking/Circulation, and
the Open Space/ Landscaping. Staff recommended that
the Planning Commission continue this project until
the applicant can provide the outstanding
information to staff for review and preparation of
conditions of approval if deemed appropriate.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Al Marshall, 4400 MacArthur Blvd., Newport Beach,
requested direction from the Commission regarding
any issues that need addressing. They are willing
to work out all conditions needed. He stated the
following: the staff report indicates public
laundry facilities, however, each individual unit
has it's washer and dryer connections provided; the
architectural theme is appropriate within the
community; the existing block wall will be heavily
landscaped, to include climbing vines, and the wall
will have a textured paint; they felt that guest
parking was adequately distributed; parking was not
included directly ahead, where the recreational
area is, because they felt it needed more greenery;
tried to maintain as much green open space as
possible; the four foot privacy walls, indicated in
the staff report, are actually retaining walls;
they didn't feel that security for guest parking
was an issue since the complex has only one
entrance and exit and is visible to the residents;
and they will address any mitigated negative
declaration.
Lydia Plunk, residing at 522 Durfee Dr., inquired
if there will be mitigation measures to handle the
added traffic.
Mr. Marshall stated that, since there is only a
1.08% increase in existing traffic, it is
negligible to this particular street.
T
I
August 10, 1992 Page 3
Hearing no further testimony, the Public Hearing
was declared closed.
Mr. Marshall, in response to C/Li's inquiries,
stated the following: the garages are 21 feet by
20 feet; and the guest parking is 9 feet by 19
feet.
Mr. Marshall, in response to C/Grothe's inquiries,
stated the following: there is a 6 foot block wall
separating this property from the surrounding
properties.; there are existing sidewalks; the
street and sidewalk ends into the back of the
shopping center.
C/Grothe, noting that condominium associations
often battle with excessive parking on_the street
and driveways, stated that there should be 20 or
more exterior parking spaces, distributed evenly
throughout the project. He requested to see the
specs on all of the materials on the building.
Mr. Marshall, in response to VC/MacBride's
inquiries, stated the following: there is a 24 foot
distance from the property line to the building,
with an additional 10 feet to the curb, on Golden
Springs; the porches are underneath the roofline;
there is a 15 foot distance from the back of
sidewalk to the building line, with an additional
10 feet to the curb, on Torito Lane; and the units
will be priced within the $140,000 range.
Chair/Flamenbaum stated that, for the record, the
Commission received a letter from Dr. Crowley. He
requested staff to verify the quantity of soil to
be moved is 6,000 cubic yards, as indicated in the
vesting tentative tract map.
Mr. Marshall stated that he"would assume that the
61000 cubic yards is the total amount of soil
moved, in which some of the dirt will be cleaned
and reutilized on site.
Chair/Flamenbaum made the following comments: the
trash containers may not fit into the garages,
especially with two cars; he prefers tile and
concrete as opposed to composite; he requested that
an elevation map be presented, from Torito Lane
looking over, with concern of building #6; he noted
L- that those living at building #5 and #6, especially
unit #23, will be effected by the traffic from
their driveway, and that trees may obstruct their
view of oncoming traffic; and there should be plans
August 10, 1992 Page 4
for mitigating runoff, collecting runoff, and solar
reflectivity.
AP/Searcy, in response to C/Meyer's inquiries,
stated the following: the applicant, as part of
their financing process and designing phase, has
requested a Development Agreement to lock in the
perimeters of the project; the grading plan can be
reviewed by the Commission, if so desired, but
primarily it is handled through the Engineering
Department at staff level; landscaping is a
separate issue, from the grading plans, and is
handled by the Planning Department and the Planning
Commission; the subdivision standards used by the
City is the County Title 21, as adopted by the City
Council in 1989; the perimeters of the Development
Review was established by the City Council in
February of 1990; the Development Review
requirements are broad, and are more a finding of
the compatibility with the existing neighborhood;
there is no monitoring program developed yet as
part of the mitigated negative declaration; the
City Engineer would probably use the traffic
impacts as identified in the traffic report
prepared for the 80 unit project and. define the
perimeters that the mitigation program would
follow; normally, the mitigation monitoring program
is a part of an environmental impact report (EIR)
which is not standardly prepared for negative
declarations that have not had an EIR.
C/Meyer made the following comments: he supports
the zone change; he cannot comment on the
Development Agreement, without first knowing what
is in it; he needs more information from; the
Engineering Department regarding the Tentative
Tract Map; most of the design effort of the project
seems to be driven from an economic standpoint; the
visitor parking may meet code but it is as non
functional as an off street parking situation; he
is concerned with the lack of commercial trash
containers; he is concerned that the on site
circulation does not accommodate a large trash
truck; he suggested vertical and horizontal off
sets to break up the mass of the building; the
common amenities needs to be further addressed;
this project may invite partnerships to buy
buildings to rent out; the number of parking spaces
is inadequate; the patio areas are set on the
peripheral of the project and look at block walls
and backs of buildings, and are not conducive for
communal gatherings; the circulation system should
be designed to better accommodate normal vehicular
movement, and be more pedestrian oriented; the set
August 10, 1992
Page 5
back on Torito
be more geared
with units #28,
of recreational
driveways.
Lane is minimal; the project should
for communal use; he is concerned
& #29 will be subjected to any type
use; and he dislikes the dead end
C/Grothe requested that the site plan include the
elevations to determine how this structure fits on
Golden Springs and Torito Lane, with the
surrounding structures in place. He also requested
that the pedestrian circulation be addressed so
that one does not have to walk down the middle of
the driveway.
VC/MacBride suggested that the existing
TransAmerica CC&R's be investigated.
Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that a communal facility
be added to the project, as well as a children's
playground. He suggested that building #3 and #4
be reversed to facilitate some of the pedestrian
concerns.
s CD/DeStefano stated that staff has recommended that
the project be continued. Staff would like the
following specifics addressed: the reduction of
the trash enclosures, and it's location; a spanish
mediterranean architectural treatment may be more
appropriate; resolve the inconsistencies in the
vesting map drawings pertaining to the open space
area, the width of the driveways, and, the size of
the units. Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by
VC/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept
staff's recommendation to continue the application
at such time that the data requested by the
Planning Commission and staff is made available,
and can be brought back for the Commission's
consideration.
Chair/Flamenbaum, in response to Mr. Marshall's
inquiry if the Commission would be able to vote on
the zone change, stated that the Commission has
already indicated that we are amenable to a zone
change.
VC/MacBride suggested to Mr. Marshall that they
consider putting the entrance and exit to the
project at the easterly side of building #5.
i
Chairman/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:36
p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8:44
p.m.
ZCA No. 92-02 CD/DeStefano reported that it is recommended that
August 10,
1992 Page 6
(Hillside
discussion regarding ZCA No. 92-1 (Hillside
Management
management Ordinance) be continued to the August
Ordinance)
24, 1992 meeting.
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Hearing no testimony, the Public Hearing was
declared closed.
Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by C/Meyer
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter.
ZCA No. 92-03
CD/DeStefano reported that ZCA No. 92-3 (Commercial
(Commercial
Manufacturing Zone Amendments) is a City initiated
Manufacturing
request to amend certain provisions of Title 22 of
Zone Amend.)
the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted
by the City of Diamond Bar, pertaining to the CM
Zone. Staff has provided the Commission with an
updated list of those uses that are desired to be
stricken, or added, from the CM zone, and those
desired to be relocated from the permitted use
category with a CUP category. Staff recommended
that this item be continued to the meeting of
August 24, 1992.
VC/MacBride inquired why the following items have
been excluded from the list: Trade Schools, as
indicated on page 151 and page 153; carbonization,
as indicated on page 155; and stadiums, as
indicated on page 154. He requested that staff to
give those items further consideration, and to
correct the phrase "Sone Products", as indicated on
page 155.
Chair/Flamenbaum requested staff to give the
following items further consideration: why are
parcel delivery terminals relocated but not parking
lots, as indicated on page 152; and why are
Recreation Clubs relocated, but not swimming pools,
tennis, etc., as indicated on page 154.
Motion was made by C/Meyer, seconded by C/Grothe
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the item to the
August 24, 1992 meeting, with clarification made to
those items mentioned.
INFORMATION: Chair/Flamenbaum informed the Commission that he
has received the following: the minutes and agenda
Commission of the Traffic and Transportation Commission; a
letter from Joseph C. Pilgrim, sent to Senator
Frank Hill, regarding his lot at 22927 Lazy Trail;
and an open invitation, to the League of California
Cities 94th Annual Conference, to those
Commissioners wishing to attend.
1�
August 10, 1992 Page 7
l
CD/De5tefano informed the Commission that a
petition to referend the General Plan had been
received by the City Clerk.
ADJOURNED: Motion was made by VC/MacBride, seconded by
C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the
meeting at 9:04 p.m.
Res ec 'vel
JamDeStefano
Community Developmant Director
Attest:
Bruce Flamenbaum
�� Chairman