Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/11/1993CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 11, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:06 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 Chairman Meyer. ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Li, Vice Chairwoman Plunk, and Chairman Meyer. Commissioner Flamenbaum arrived at 8:36 p.m. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, City Engineer Mike Meyer, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, asked for the THE AUDIENCE: resignation of C/Flamenbaum and VC/Plunk from the Planning Commission because of C/Flamenbaum's professional association with M/Miller, and because of VC/Plunk's editorials. The following individuals expressed the same request as expressed by Mr. Maxwell: Frank Dursa; Bob Throxall; Norman Beach Courschesne; and Steve Nice, residing at 2621 Rising Star Drive. Ed Hilden expressed his support for VC/Plunk. He commended the Planning Commission for their fine job. Cindy Cavanough came forward to say hello to VC/Plunk. Wanda Tanaka, residing on Country View Drive, noted that it appears anytime someone is unhappy with someone else's opinion, they either request a resignation or a recall. CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried Sept. 27, 1993 unanimously to approve the Minutes of September 27, 1993 as presented. OLD BUSINESS: A request to develop a Planned Sign Program for a commercial shopping center and to place a freestanding monument sign on-site. Planned Sign Program 93-3 Property Location: Diamond Bar Town Center 1155 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. October 11, 1993 Page 2 Applicant: Diamond Sign Company Property Owner: Dr. Michael Drucker AP/Searcy reported that the Planning Commission directed staff, at the September 27, 1993 meeting, to work with the applicant to amend the submitted sign criteria to comply with the Planned Sign Program standards, and to revise the proposed monument sign to be more compatible with the other freestanding signs along the Diamond Bar Blvd. frontage. The applicant has redesigned the proposed monument sign to more closely relate to the exterior materials of the center and to the adjacent freestanding signs. The Planned Sign Program has been revised to reflect the compliance with the requirements of ;the Planned Sign Program as established in the Sign Ordinance. However, it is recommended that the Monument Sign section' be expanded to include those comments listed in the staff report. Tit is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Sign Program, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. AP/Searcy displayed slides illustrating the proposed monument sign. Kim Kasell, of Diamond Sign Company, requested the following changes to the staff report: it is not a brown background for the teal letters, but an ivory background with a little brown stripe framing the sign; the panels, with the tenants, are 6", not 8"; category "c", of the sign criteria, should be amended to indicate 8"x120"; and the overall height from the slump stone base to the top is 38" not 48". She then requested that the sign criteria, category "b", be amended to allow the applicant a 72 square foot sign instead of the indicated 40 square foot sign to allow the applicant the flexibility to put in a larger sign in I the future, if they so desire. AP/Searcy explained that the sign has been proposed at 40 square feet, which must be reflected in the sign criteria. If the applicant would desire to significantly change the monument sign from 40 square Meet to 72 square feet in the future, that proposal would have to come back before the Planning Commission for approval. Kim Kasell stated that their intent of requesting the amendment to' the sign criteria is to avoid having to rewrite another sign plan for I the whole shopping center simply because they may desire a larger sign in the future, and to assure that they are allowed the maximum size sign at that period of time. . AP/Searcy, at the request of Chair/Meyer, stated that if a shopping center desires to replace a monument sign at any particular date in I�,, ryomne'l� ug malfg& October 11, 1993 Page 3 i C � time, the applicant would have to either conform to what was existing, or to the criteria of the current ordinance. Chair/Meyer stated that is appears that the applicant is requesting an entitlement that the Planning Commission may not accommodate. CDD/DeStefano stated that, though staff is not opposed to a maximum square footage sign of 72 square feet, the issue is that the applicant has requested approval from the Planning Commission for a proposed 48 square foot sign with specific colors identified on the graphic for that sign. If the applicant chooses to make modifications to the sign at some point in the future, it would require a modification of the sign program, requiring new approval of the Planning Commission. Kim Kasell explained that their concern is that if the applicant should desire a larger sign in the future, they may not be afforded the opportunity because the sign criteria specifically indicates that the applicant is allowed a 40 square foot sign. It would be unfair to expect the applicant to have to rewrite another sign criteria. AP/Searcy stated that the sign criteria would not have to be rewritten �I to amend a sign program, but rather that the section dealing strictly with the monument sign would need to be amended. Chair/Meyer suggested that the sign criteria be amended to replace the actual number with, "the approved monument sign". The Commission and staff concurred. VC/Plunk requested the following changes to the staff report: indicate the proper spelling of "permitted" in the first section on page 3; and the word "free standing" on page 3 should be made legible. Motion was made by VC/Plunk and seconded by C/Li to adopt the resolution approving Planned Sign Program No. 93-3. The Motion carried 3-1-1. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, and Chair/Meyer. Grothe. None. Flamenbaum. NEW BUSINESS: A request to install two wall signs, freestanding monument signs, and I a directory sign. Planned Sign Program No. Property Location: 22324 Golden Springs Dr. 93-5 October 11, 1993 Page 4 Applicant: Signage Solutionsi' Property Owner: Hidden Manna Corporation (Calvary Chapel) PT/Lungu displayed slides illustrating the locations of the proposed signs. The project site consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 28 acres. One parcel is developed with a two story building utilized by Calvary Chapel as a church and its appurtenant uses. Currently, there is a temporary sign located at the corner of Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue, designating the time of services, which was approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with CUP No. 93-2. All the signs proposed comply with the standards of the Sign Ordinance. Staff has suggested that the applicant apply an anti -graffiti coating to the proposed monument sign because graffiti has occurred on the radius walls of the project site. It is staff s recommendation that the Planning Commission approve Planned Sign Program No. 93- 5, with findings of fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution, correcting page 3 of the resolution to properly indicate Buildings and Professions, Code section 5497. Chris Truder, with Signage Solutions, explained that the directory,sign is actually a directional sign- to help facilitate the traffic flow on Sundays. i Chair/Meyer questioned the appropriateness of requiring the applicant to apply an anti -graffiti coating, which is not only expensive,I but limits his range of options as well as the City's. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to simply request the applicant to maintain the signs in a new and attractive manner. C/Grothe pointed out that though the anti -graffiti coating is somewhat expensive, the total cost would only amount to a couple of hundred dollars, compared to the couple of thousand spent for the signs. A number of the new products on the market are quite effective on exposed concrete. PT/Lungu stated that the intent of staffs request is not to limit the applicant's options, but to assure that the applicant removes all graffiti that may be put on the signs so that the signs remain as attractive as proposed. h(c Chair/Meyer inquired if the temporary sign will be removed as part of the Sign Program. He requested a condition indicating when and how the sign is to be removed. i ._„ �I' .. 1.I''IH ij d l ix� � Ik It ��_�— '� rv�,W�!'+��O�F'iSkra'��'"L'NI•"NXIMU October 11, 1993 Page 5 CDD/DeStefano stated that the sign is temporary and should be removed at the conclusion of the construction activity, and when their occupancy of the site is official. The statement, "in the event that lot 1 is developed or conveyed to an owner other than the applicant", can be inserted, amending condition 5D on page three. Motion was made by C/Li, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to approve the Resolution for Planned Sign Program No. 93-5, the Findings of Fact and conditions listed in the staff report, amending condition 5D to insert the statement, "in the event that lot 1 is developed or conveyed to an owner other than the applicant." CONTINUED The Conditional Use Permit is a request to allow live entertainment PUBLIC within a restaurant, the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic HEARING: beverages in the C -M Zone. The Development Review is a request to allow the construction of a restaurant. DR 93-1 & CUP 93-4 Property Location: 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive Applicant: Dr. Akbar Omar Property Owner: A R Leasing and Investment Inc. PT/Lunge reported that the Planning Commission, at the September 13, 1993 meeting, continued the public hearing upon the request of the applicant to allow further time to adequately address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the grading plan, the crib wall, off- site grading, access, the Hillside Management Ordinance, the sanitary sewer easement, lighting, handicapped parking, and elevator, as specifically indicated in the staff report. The applicant provided a revised site plan, floor plan and elevations to address the concerns of the Planning Commission, the Engineering Department, and the Building and Safety Department. However, there does remain outstanding issues concerning the grading plan, the crib wall, off-site grading, access to the Radisson Hotel, lighting, and the Hillside Management Ordinance. Though staff is in support of a restaurant at the project location, the issues must be resolved before staff can recommend approval of the proposed project. It is recommended that the Planning Commission table the project until all outstanding issues are resolved. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open for testimony Syed Raza, the architect representing Dr. Omar, asked the Planning Commission to approve the project, conditioning that the parking level be lowered and the grade of the slope be increased. He submitted a October 11, 1993 Page 6 letter indicating that the Radisson Hotel is in the process of changing ownership, thus the applicant will not be able to get a letter authorizing off-site grading until that matter is settled. An off -Site grading authorization letter can also be a condition of approval for the project. He requested direction as to the kind of wall, other than a crib wail, that can be constructed to support the slope and meet the Hillside Management Ordinance. Also, the present' owner of !the Radisson Hotel indicated that they did not want the restaurant to have pedestrian access to their hotel because customers of the restaurant may want to use their parldng. C/Li stated that, since the owners of the Radisson Hotel may not grant approval of the off-site grading on their property, he would not be comfortable approving the project based on this condition. Oscar Law, residing on Pathfinder Road, inquired if the proposed restaurant meets ADA standards in regards to access and bathroom assessability. He suggested that Diamond Bar consider having a restaurant row of fine restaurants. C/Grothe explained that it is State law that all public buildings meet ADA requirements and be handicapped assessable, which includes restrooms. Hearing no one wanting to provide further testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. C/Grothe stated that he would have no problem with conditionally approve the project based on an off-site grading authorization letter because without that letter, the applicant will not be able to begin construction. However, he- expressed a concern with the final design and the height of the wall, and indicated that the wall should be designed as an integral part of the landscaping. Mike Meyers, a City Engineer, stated that the project does not comply with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance in respect to the height of the wall. There are a few options that the applicant's engineer could do to reduce the height of the 20 foot wall, ! and increase landscaping, but, may in effect increase the height of the i, second wall back. Any of the options would still not comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance, which allow a maximum 6 foot,wall heights. i" Chair/Meyer stated that since the Development Plan does not, and apparently cannot, comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance, it then there needs to be some application for relief of the Hillside I, .,,...„_,. .. .v,...-.n.•rvr-�.n,. .....r u-......_,..�.� I.. ..- � . :.. u.�r.,tFV.,HAn.xJixllMddlikmw4taJ,rm.N,«J� _ , __—_..•_,— _— _ __,_ October 11, 1993 Page 7 Management standards. The Planning Commission cannot render a decision on the design review without a request for modification of those standards. He suggested that the applicant attempt to submit a set of plans addressing the concerns indicated in the staff report. Otherwise, perhaps the Planning Commission should deny the application so the applicant can start again with a decent set of plans. C/Grothe stated that it is doubtful that the project will ever comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance. However, the applicant should make a major effort to try to comply, and outline the justifications as to why it cannot comply. Chair/Meyer reopened the public hearing. Chair/Meyer inquired if the applicant would concur to a continuance to the November 22, 1993 meeting, giving the applicant an opportunity to find out what modifications would be necessary to address the concerns indicated in the staff report. Syed Raza gave his acquiescence to a continuance of the public hearing to the November 22, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to continue the public hearing to the November, 22, 1993 meeting. Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. C/Flamenbaum arrived to the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: The consideration of an ordinance to amend Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code by adding a new chapter establishing property ZCA No. 93-3 maintenance standards. Property Maintenance Applicant: City of Diamond Bar Ordinance Property Location: All property withiri the City limits of Diamond Bar. Environmental Pursuant to the Determination: provisions of CEQA, the City has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15321. J e October 11, 1993 Page 8 CDD/DeStefano reported that the City Council appointed C/MacBride and MPT/Papers to a subcommittee to establish property maintenance standards. The subcommittee, which incorporated support from' the City staff, the Deputy City Attorney Mr. Woods (the City's prosecutor), and the City Attorney's office, also consisted of members of the Diamond Bar Improvement Association and other interested members of the community. The City has the authority to establish minimum property maintenance requirements in order to preserve and protect the health, safety, and appearance of neighborhoods, and to eliminate blight and deteriorating characteristics of neighborhoods. The City does not currently have adequate ordinances to respond to the majority of the types of property maintenance complaints received by the City in the past 4 1/2 years. ' A series of Codes are currently used to deal with property maintenance issues, however, the City is limited to enforce the current zoning ordinance and the various uniformed codes. DCA/Woods has reviewed the draft ordinance prepared by the subcommittee. The subcommittee has revised' the draft ordinance to incorporate the comments made by DCA/Woods, as well as those made by the City Attorney's office. The subcommittee also reviewed S to 10 other cities' ordinances that have been enforced and/or gone through litigation. The problem of deteriorating properties in the City, and the lack of property maintenance, may be due to the age of the housing stock, the lack of maintenance in newer subdivisions, and the expiration of the private CC&R's throughout the City. Another issue before the City is creating an overall policy dealing with property maintenance issues for those owners of property that may lack the resources or means to accomplish the mitigation necessary to cleanup their property. CDD/DeStefano explained that the abatement procedures are a separate process, and not included in the draft ordinance for consideration. It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the draft ordinance and the recommendations of the subcommittee, amend the draft Ordinance as deemed appropriate and direct staff to forward the recommendations to the City Council Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened. Ron Norman, residing on Castle Rock for 5 years, stated that his neighborhood is rapidly deteriorating, and as a result property values have dropped. Considering the high property taxes paid particularly by newer residents, the City should respond on citizens behalf to'keep property values up. It is frustrating to live by people who apparently do not care to maintain their, property. CDD/DeStefano briefly reviewed some of the issues discussed in the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance: storage in side, rear, and' cont 7 � r:. � � � � ��., f.", Fitt,, �x �al.�:. ��w��ar �,�"�'SIN&.�`��t�..��.wi,�,�'A�`�: October 11, 1993 Page 9 yards of property; motor vehicle parking; property maintenance of the structure such as the condition of the roof, broken windows, structural defects; landscape maintenance in a health and safety manner; fence and wall maintenance; multi family zone standards; standards for commercial properties; and standards for industrial properties. Oscar Law, residing on Pathfinder, expressed his support for the Property Maintenance Ordinance with the following modifications: the standards should be applicable to all property, owners in the City; consideration must be given to those that are financially handicapped; a provision addressing easements; a grandfather clause for existing CC&R's; a grandfather clause for those that have been storing their trailers and campers on their property; a statement specifically describing Division 6 of Title 14 in the California Code of Regulations as indicated on page 2; modify the storage requirement, on page 3, to allow a longer period of time to repair a vehicle; better define an "approved wall or driveway" as indicated on page 4; explain how the standard for broken or missing foundation and wall maintenance, on page 5, deals with land shifting; indicate the height limitation on a wall, as indicated on page 6; specifically state that vegetation should not hinder sidewalk use; and a reconsideration of the penalty phase, as indicated on page 15, to lower the amount for a fust offense. Bob Zirbes, President of the DBIA, presented a video illustrating the types of property maintenance violations existing throughout the community that the City currently has no means to abate. There needs to be specific standards to support the Code Enforcement Officer. He suggested that perhaps the section in the multi -family standards, regarding storage in the garage and carports, can be removed or amended to apply only to carports, particularly since the ordinance does not indicate what can be stored in the garage for single family residence. The Property Maintenance standards should be uniformed, and equally and justfully enforced, for the benefit of all the property owners for the protection of the property values in the City. Kevin Chirp, in support of the Ordinance, noted that the sections enclosed in the document are not unusual, and are common in any community in Southern California that has any respectable appearance. The appearance of Diamond Bar has steadily declined. Mel Roper, residing on the corner of Castle Rock and Lost River Road, stated that he has a problem with leaves and trash that come from properties above him and accumulate in front of his house, clogging the gutters and causing mosquitos, thus taking away from the overall good appearance of his property. Furthermore, the street ...��.�- October 11, 1993 Page 10 sweeper only comes around once every two weeks, and is often hindered by cars parking in the street. Chair/Meyer noted that perhaps there needs to be consideration as to how the City can better maintain. City facilities. i VC/Plunk suggested that staff investigate if there may be a need to sweep certain City street more than weekly or biweekly. Joe MacManus, residing at 23561 Coyote Springs Drive, expressed, his support for the property maintenance standards. Rick Imperial, residing at 1318 Crestmont Drive, stated that ! the property owner in his neighborhood, who is not maintaining his property, refused offers from his neighbors to do all maintenance work -for him and help with funding if needed. Money does not seem to be an issue because a block wall has since been constructed and a new car has been purchased. Sometimes the problem is not a matter of financial capabilities, but rather one of desire. Red Calkins questioned if the Ordinance will actually be able to be 1V enforced. He noted that the penalty for violations are too strict, I and that the Code Enforcement Officer is being given too much power and control. All homeowners will need to be notified if the ordinance is approved. Mr. Calkins also noted that the Ordinance needs to address the poor, the senior citizens, and the handicapped. Frank Dursa stated that his 2 RV's are operable and he has every right to park them in his yard. His tract does not have CC&R's and he prefers it that way. The timing of the Property Maintenance Ordinance is poor considering the recession. Property values have declined, not because of maintenance, but because of the economy. He pointed out that problems with multiple vehicles parked on the front yard falls under the pattern of the Health Department because of the risk to children. There are other ways to solve the problem. May Wycoff, residing on Del Sol, stated that the City 's appearance has been deteriorating. Her neighborhood had a property owner that kept many inoperable cars on the front yard for many years. Had it not been for Mr. Zirbes, the problem would still exist. The neighborhood also has a problem with RV's parked on the street, blocking visibility to motorists. Bob Throxall, residing on Castle Rock, stated that the City already has all the necessary codes needed to handle these concerns without setting October 11, 1993 Page 11 up an additional layer of bureaucracy. He pointed out that no one has aright to enter someone's property without a court order. Max Maxwell concurred with the statements made by Mr. Throxall, Mr. Dursa, Mr. Calkins, and Mr. Law. Neighbors should deal with each other to solve these problems. He questioned if a Zoning Code Amendment can be passed under urgency Ordinance #4. Peggy Corbitt, residing on Ambushers, expressed her concern that the appearance of her neighborhood is rapidly deteriorating. Louise MacManus, residing on Coyote Springs, noting the street sweepers are hindered by parked cars, stated that she would be in favor of prohibiting overnight parking. Richard Engels, residing on Willow Creek, concurred that the appearance of the City is rapidly deteriorating. The standards in the ordinance are reasonable, and are critically needed. Most likely, those people who do not maintain their property lack desire, not resources. Don Gravdahl, residing at 23988 Minnequa, stated that some of the problems, such as cars park on front lawns, etc., can be handled through the ordinance. However, as the ordinance is now written, probably any house in the City, especially those with children, would be in violation. The Ordinance gives too much authority to the Code Enforcement Officer, and disputing neighbors may use the Code Enforcement Officer as a weapon against each other. Mr. Gravdahl then indicated the following issues that need revisiting: the ordinance allows storage in the back yard up to 50 % of the back yard, but does not take into consideration that 1/2 of the yards in the City have uphill slopes and/or downhill slopes; the ordinance should address the registration of vehicles as a method of enforcement; the width of driveways are specified in the County code; and the Sheriff Department should be directed to ticket trucks because there is already a 10,000 pound vehicle limit in the City. Norman Beach Courschesne, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, made the following comments opposing the Ordinance: it allows the search of private property without a warrant; many people bought homes without CC&R's because they did not want them; the abatement process should address a method of reimbursement if a citizen wins an appeal; it should address the issue of land slides and such like occurrences; item IV, page 5 needs to specify a time limit; a citizen should not be charged per day for their violation, as indicated on page 9, item 13, but rather for just the one violation; it should indicate if the slopes are to be maintained in a natural state, or a October 11, 1993 Page 12 manicured state, or to the Code Enforcement Officers opinion; the Public Health Department and the Building Department can address unsafe buildings; and the City should verify each complaint made. Lee Ford stated that he feels the public hearing was not very well advertised. Margaret Hee expressed her support of the Property Management Ordinance. Bill Tinsmen pointed out that the reason that the City has been deteriorating is because of the uncontrolled building, both commercial and residential, within the City, and not because of weeds. The Ordinance will be used by the City as a tool to harass citizens. The City has no right to enter a property without a search warrant. 11 Cliff Hilliard, residing on Palomino Drive, stated that the concept of the Ordinance is good, however, there should be a revisit of the following issues: motor vehicle parking standards on page 4 are too broad and all encompassing; and the subcommittee should contact camping and motorhome organizations to discuss specifically what to do with motorhomes on private property. Dianna Cheng, a real estate agent, and a Traffic and Transportation Commissioner, stated that, from her experience in real estate, homes have a lot of trouble selling if a neighboring property is poorly maintained. The Property Maintenance Ordinance_ is necessary to help maintain property values in the City. Hearing no one wanting to provide further testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing -closed. C/Flamenbaum made the following comments: everything is mixed in with multi family, commercial, and industrial, making it difficult to determine what the City is attempting to enforce; if there is to be such an ordinance, it should be limited to the front yard only because no city, -or other agencies (except health and safety violations), has any right to go in someone's back yard; item E. makes it a violation to have a dry spot on a lawn; maintenance of irrigation systems it an operable condition, item F., is a matter of interpretation and needs to be better defined; item H.1 makes broken dishwashers or lawn mowers a violation; trash containers in commercial or multi family structures are generally assessable to the front yard, violating item I; a piece of unused furniture in someones house could be a violation of item K.2; item O..does not include an exclusion for automobile repair centers; a lien of the property, of the reasonable cost for repair, October 11, 1993 Page 13 should be considered for the enforcement method; and automobiles can be required to be moved every 7 days (or whatever number is determined suitable), and have valid registrations in order to be allowed to be parked in the front yard. C/Flamenbaum indicated that the Ordinance, as written, is over broad, over bearing, and over reaching. He suggested that the matter be continued to about 45 days to allow the appropriate parties to refine the ordinance. C/Grothe expressed his concern that the Planning Commissions comments made during the study session to review the draft ordinance was not considered nor included in this draft ordinance. In concurrence with the comments made by C/Flamenbaum, C/Grothe added the following comments: even yards with sod are not weed free; it is not the City's concern if a roof leaks, or if there are missing pieces of stucco; a foundation can hardly be missing, and a broken foundation has nothing to do with public safety or aesthetics; most families with children have tornor missing screens; and many of the violations can be handled through the Building Code. He concurred to continue the matter allowing the Planning Commission to review the revised document. VC/Plunk made the following comments: she concurred that there needs to be a provision addressing physical and economic circumstances; if it is approved, there should be an automatic review of the document in one year to determine it's success; the regulations should be paraphrased; for a City who cares about the environment, it seems proper that we should care for the appearance of our City; consider standards for the front yard, or Visible side yards at this time, and consider standards for back yards next year; consider allowing 1 week for moderate repairs; large motor vehicles are better parked on the property than on the street; specifying broken screens, window, irrigation etc. is a little over board; landscaping should not block the sidewalk; perhaps it is appropriate that some area are maintained in a more natural state; the condition of multi family structures are usually handled by an Association; and current registration is an excellent way to deal with problem cars. There is a need for such a document, however, it needs to be refined. Chair/Meyer stated that the comments and direction provided by the Planning Commission subcommittee in their review the Property Maintenance Ordinance was not included in the document. Perhaps the subcommittee can work with staff to organize the comments made by the Planning Commission and be brought back to the Commission for review at a continued public hearing. Part of the problem is that there are three iterations of the Property Maintenance Ordinance and most of the comments made dealt with the iteration at the study October 11, 1993 Page 14 y session, not the one currently before the Planning Commission. There',. may be some value to a Property Maintenance Ordinance, but the definition of what are unacceptable maintenance standards needs to be adequately defined. He supported a continuance to a date that would give the City sufficient time to deal with these issues. Chair/Meyer suggested that, since the Ordinance also deals with commercial and industrial, perhaps the document should be distributed to the Chamber of Commerce to receive input from the business community. VC/Plunk requested the Planning Commission be given the document at least one week prior to the meeting so that there is ample time to review it. C/Flamenbaum requested the new revision be footnoted with the date so that the Commission can readily tell which document they are reviewing. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened. Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe 'and carried unanimously to continue the public hearing to the meeting of December 13, 1993 with direction to staff to have the document ready;' for distribution, and available to the Planning Commission, on or before November 22, 1993, and that the document is to be footnoted with the date. ANNOUNCEMENTS: CDD/DeStefano reported that, as Administrative Development Director, he approved ADR 93-16 for a single family residence located at 22128 Steeplechase. Chair/Meyer indicated that, -in his opinion, the Planning Commission gains from different points of view. It is hoped that VC/Plunk,, and C/Flamenbaum do not offer a letter of resignation. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at I0:58 p.m. Y i Respectively, fes DeStefan_— s �rw„ n M1„, _ �.. +�. ra October 11, 1993 Page 15 Secretary Attest: D*J eyer Chairman I _11-1_1. 1-1-4- 11_1-1 - 1 1-1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 1-7 OCTOBER 11— 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:06 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 Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Li, Vice Chairwoman Plunk, and Chairman Meyer. Also present were - Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, City MATTERS FROM Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, asked for the THE AUDIENCE: resignation of C/Flamenbaum and VC/Plunk from the Planning Commission because of C/Flamenbaum's professional The following individuals expressed the same request as expressed by Mr. Maxwell: Frank Dursa; Bob 7broxall; Norman Ed Hilden expressed his support for VC/Plunk. He commended Cindy Cavanough came forward to say hello to Wanda Tanaka, residing on Country View Drive, noted that it appears anytime someone is unhappy with someone else's CONSENT Minutes of Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried Sept. 27, 1993 unanimously to approve the Minutes of September 27, 1993 as presented. OLD BUSEWSS: A request to develop a Planned Sign Program for a commercial Planned Sign shopping center and to place a freestanding monument sign on-site. Program 93-3 Property Location: Diamond Bar Town Center 1155 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. mber 27, 1993 meeting, to work with the applicant to amend Applicant: - Diamond Sigj Combany Property Owner: Dr. Michael Drucker AP/Searcy reported that the Planning Commission directed staff, at the submitted sign criteria to comply with the Planned Sign Program standards, and to revise the proposed monument sign to be more nom atible with the other freestanding signs along the Diamond Bar Blvd. frontage. The applicant has redesigned the proposed monument sign to more closely relate to the exterior materials of the center and o the adjacent freestanding signs. The Planned Sign Program has been revised to reflect the compliance with the requirements of the Planned Sign Program as established in the Sign Ordinance. However, it is recommended that the Monument Sign section be expanded to include those comments listed in the staff report. Y is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Planned Sign Program, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. AP/Searcy displayed slides illustrating the proposed monument sign. Kim Kasell, of Diamond Sign Company, requested the fbllow—i m han es to the staff report: it is not a brown background for the teal etters, but an ivory background with a little brown stripe framing the i n; the panels, with the tenants, are 6", not 8"; category licit , of the hould be amended to indicate Vxl.20"; and the overall i n criteria ei ht from the slump stone base to the top is 38" not 48". She then equested that the sign criteria, category "b", be amended to allow he pplicant a 72 square foot sign instead of the indicated 40 square oot i n to allow the applicant the flexibility to put in a larger sign in the future, if they so desire. AP/Searcy explained that the sign has been proposed at 40 square feet, which must be reflected in the sign criteria. If the applicant would desire to significantly change the monument sign from 40 square fee 0 72 square feet in the future, that proposal would have to come ack efore the Planning Commission for approval. Kim Kasell stated that their intent of requesting the amendment to' he i n criteria is to avoid having to rewrite another sin plan for; the hole shopping center simply because they may desire a larger sign n the future, and to assure that they are allowed the maximum size i n at that period of time. RP/Searcy, at the request of Chair/Meyer, stated that if a shopping enter desires to replace a monument sign at any particular date in October 11, 1993 Page 3 time) the applicant would have to either conform to what was existing, or to the criteria of the current ordinance. Chair/Meyer stated that is appears that the applicant is requesting an entitlement that the Planning Commission may not accommodate. CDD/DeStefano stated that, though staff is not opposed to a maximum square footage sign of 72 square feet, the issue is that the applicant has requested approval from the Planning Commission for a proposed 48 square foot sign with specific colors identified on the graphic for that sign. If the applicant chooses to make modifications to the sign at some point in the future, it would require a modification of the sign program, requiring new approval of the Planning Commission. Kim Kasell explained that their concern is that if the applicant should desire a larger sign in the future, they may not be afforded the opportunity because the sign criteria specifically indicates that the applicant is allowed a 40 square foot sign. It would be unfair to expect the applicant to have to rewrite another sign criteria. AP/Searcy stated that the sign criteria would not have to be rewritten to amend a sign program, but rather that the section dealing strictly with the monument sign would need to be amended. Chair/Meyer suggested that the sign criteria be amended to replace the actual number with, "the approved monument sign". The Commission and staff concurred. VC/Plunk requested the following changes to the staff report: indicate the proper spelling of "permitted" in the first section on page 3; and the word "free standing" on page 3 should be made legible. Motion was made by VC/Plunk and seconded by CILi to adopt the resolution approving Planned Sign Program No. 93-3. The Motion carried 3-1-1. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, and Chair/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum. i NEW BUSINESS: Planned A request to install two wall signs, freestanding monument signs, and a Sign Program No. directory sign. 93-5 Property Location: 22324 Golden Springs Dr. October 11, 1993 Page 4 Applicant: Signage Solutions Property Owner: Hidden Manna Corporation (Calvary PT/Lungu displayed slides illustrating the locations of the propp, sed signs. The project site consists of two parcels, totaling approximately 28 acres. One parcel is developed with a two story building utilized by Calvary Chapel as a church and its appurtenant uses. Currently, there is a temporary sign located at the comer of Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue, designating the time of services, which was approved by the Planning Commission in conjunction with CUP No. 93-2. All the signs proposed comply with the standards of the Sign Ordinance. Staff has suggested that the applicant apply an anti -graffiti coating to the proposed monument sign because graffiti has occurred on the radius walls of the project site. It is staff s recommendation that the Planning Commission approve Planned Sign Program No. 935, with findings of fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution, correcting page 3 of the resolution to properly Chris Truder, with Signage Solutions, explained that the directory,sign is actually a directional sign- to help facilitate the Chair/Meyer questioned the appropriateness of requiring the applicant to apply an anti -graffiti coating, which is not only, expensive, but limits his range of options as well as the City's. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to simply request the applicant to maintain the signs in a new and attractive manner. C/Grothe pointed out that though the anti -graffiti coating is somewhat expensive, the total cost would only amount to a couple of hundred dollars, compared to the couple of thousand spent for the signs. A number of the new products on the market PT/Lungu stated that the intent of staff s, request is not to limit the licant's options, but to assure that the applicant removes all graffiti app that may be put on the signs so that the signs remain as attractive as proposed. Chair/Meyer inquired if the temporary sign will be removed as part of the Sign Program. He requested a condition indicating when and how the sign is to be removed. October 11, 1993 Page 5 CDD/DeStefano stated that the sign is temporary and should be removed at the conclusion of the construction activity, and when their occupancy of the site is official. The statement, "in the event that lot 1 is developed or conveyed to an owner other than the applicant", can be inserted, amending condition 5D on page three. Motion was made by C/Li, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to approve the Resolution for Planned Sign Program No. 93-5, the Findings of Fact and conditions listed in the staff report, amending condition 5D to insert the statement, "in the event that lot 1 is developed or conveyed to an owner other than the applicant." CONT]NUED The Conditional Use Permit is a request to allow live entertainment PUBLIC within a restaurant, the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic HEARING: beverages in the C -M Zone. The Development Review is a request to allow the construction of a restaurant. DR 93-1 & CUP 03-4 Property Location: 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive Applicant: Dr. Akbar Omar Property Owner: A R Leasing and Investment Inc. PT/Lungu reported that the Planning Commission, at the September 13, 1993 meeting, continued the public hearing upon the request of the applicant to allow further time to adequately address the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the grading plan, the crib wall, offsite grading, access, the Hillside Management Ordinance, the sanitary sewer easement, lighting, handicapped parking, and elevator, as specifically indicated in the staff report. The applicant provided a revised site plan, floor plan and elevations to address the concerns of the Planning Commission, the Engineering Department, and the Building and Safety Department. However, there does remain outstanding issues concerning the grading plan, the crib wall, off-site grading, access to the Radisson Hotel, lighting, and the Hillside Management Ordinance. Though staff is in support of a restaurant at the project location, the issues must be resolved before staff can recommend approval of the proposed project. It is recommended that the Planning Commission table the project until all outstanding issues are resolved. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open for testimony. Syed Raza, the architect representing Dr. Omar, asked the Planning Commission to approve the project, conditioning that the parking level be lowered and the grade of the slope be increased. He submitted a October 11, 1993 Page 6 letter indicating that the Radisson Hotel is in the process of changing ownership, thus the applicant will not be able to get a letter authorizing off-site grading until that matter is settled. An off-site grading authorization letter can also be a condition of approval for the project. He requested direction as to the Idnd of wall, other than a crib wall, that can be constructed to support the slope and meet the Hillside Management Ordinance. Also, the presenfowner of 4he Radisson Hotel indicated that they did not want the restaurant to have pedestrian access to their hotel C/Li stated that, since the owners of the Radisson Hotel may not grant approval of the off-site grading on their property, he would Oscar Law, residing on Pathfinder Road, inquired if the proposed restaurant meets ADA standards in regards to access and bathroom assessability. He suggested that Diamond Bar consider having a restaurant row of fine restaurants. C/Grothe explained that it is State law that all public buildings meet ADA requirements and be handicapped assessable, which Hearing no one wanting to provide further testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. C/Grothe stated that he would have no problem with conditionally approve the project based on an off-site grading authorization letter because without that letter, the applicant will not be able to begin construction. However, he— expressed a concern with the final design and the height of the wall, and indicated that the wall should be designed as an integral part of the landscaping. Mike Meyers, a City Engineer, stated that the project does not comply with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance in respect to the height of the wall. There are a few options that the applicant's engineer could do to reduce the height of the 20 foot wall, — and increase landscaping, but, may in effect increase the height of the second wall back. Any of the options would still not comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance, which allow a Chair/Meyer stated that since the Development Plan does not, and apparently cannot, comply with the Hillside Management October 11, 1993 Page 7 Management standards. The Planning Commission cannot render a decision on the design review without a request for modification of those standards. He suggested that the applicant attempt to submit a set of plans addressing the concerns indicated in the staff report. Otherwise, perhaps the Planning Commission should deny the application so the applicant can start again with a decent set of plans. C/Grothe stated that it is doubtful that the project will ever comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance. However, the applicant should make a major effort to try to comply, and outline the justifications as to why it cannot comply. Chair/Meyer reopened the public hearing Chair/Meyer inquired if the applicant would concur to a continuance to the November 22, 1993 meeting, giving the applicant an opportunity to find out what modifications would be necessary to address the concerns indicated in the staff report. Syed Raza gave his acquiescence to a continuance of the public hearing to the November 22, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and carried unanimously to continue the public hearing to the November, 22, 1993 meeting. Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. C/Flamenbaum arrived to the meeting at 8:36 p.m. Chair/Meyer reconvened the meeting at 8:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: The consideration of an ordinance to amend Title 22 of the Los Angeles County Code by adding a new chapter establishing property ZCA No. 93-3 maintenance standards. Property Maintenance Applicant: City of Diamond Bar Ordinance Property Location: All property withiii the City limits of Diamond Bar. Environmental Pursuant to the Determination: provisions of CEQA, the City has determined that this project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15321. October 11, 1993 Page 8 CDD/DeStefano reported that the City Council. appointed C/MaeBAde and MPT/Papen to a subcommittee to establish property maintenance standards. The subcommittee, which incorporated support from the City staff, the Deputy City Attorney Mr. Woods (the City's prosecutor), and the City Attorney's office, also consisted of members of the Diamond Bar Improvement Association and other interested members of the community. The City has the authority to establish minimum property maintenance requirements in order to preserve and protect'the health, safety, and appearance of neighborhoods, and to eliminate blight and deteriorating characteristics of neighborhoods. The City does not currently have adequate ordinances to respond to the majority of the types of property maintenance complaints received by the City in the past 4 1/2 years. A series of Codes are currently used to deal with property maintenance issues, however, the City is limited to enforce the current zoning ordinance and the various uniformed codes. DCA/Woods has reviewed the draft ordinance prepared by the subcommittee.' The subcommittee has revised the draft ordinance to incorporate the comments made by DCA/Woods, as well as those made by the City Attorney's office. The subcommittee also reviewed 8 to 10 other cities' ordinances that have been enforced and/or gone through litigation. The problem of deteriorating properties in the City, and the lack of property maintenance, may be due to the *age of the housing stock, the lack of maintenance in newer subdivisions, and the expiration of the private CC&R's throughout the City. Another issue before the City is for creating an overall policy dealing with property maintenance issue thos e owners of property that may lack the resources or means to accomplish the mitigation necessary to cleanup their property. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing Ron Norman, residing on Castle Rock for 5 years, stated that his neighborhood is rapidly deteriorating, and as a result property Values have dropped. Considering the high property taxes paid particularly by newer residents, the City should respond on citizens behalf to keep property values up. It is frustrating to live CDD/DeStefano briefly reviewed some of the issues discussed in the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance: storage in side, rear, 7": v. "rie"I'ma" „I mag "murtmeas October 11, 1993 Page 9 yards of property; motor vehicle parking; property maintenance of the structure such as the condition of the roof, broken windows, structural defects; landscape maintenance in a health and safety manner; fence and wall maintenance; multi family zone standards; standards for commercial properties; and Oscar Law, residing on Pathfinder, expressed his support for the Property Maintenance Ordinance with the following modifications: the standards should be applicable to all property, owners in the City; consideration must be given to those that are financially handicapped; a provision addressing easements; a grandfather clause for existing CC&R's; a grandfather clause for those that have been storing their trailers and campers on their property; a statement specifically describing Division 6 of Title 14 in the California Code of Regulations as indicated on page 2; modify the storage requirement, on page 3, to allow a longer period of time to repair a vehicle; better define an "approved wall or driveway" as indicated on page 4; explain how the standard for broken or missing foundation and wall maintenance, on page 5, deals with land shifting; indicate the height limitation on a wall, as indicated on page 6; specifically state that vegetation should not hinder sidewalk use; and a reconsideration of the penalty Bob Zirbes, President of the DBIA, presented a video illustrating the types of property maintenance violations existing throughout the community that the City currently has no means to abate. There needs to be specific standards to support the Code'Enforcement Officer. He suggested that perhaps the section in the multi -family standards, regarding storage in the garage and carports, can be removed or amended to apply only to carports, particularly since the ordinance does not indicate what can be stored in the garage for single family residence. The Property Maintenance standards should be uniformed, and equally and justfully enforced, for the benefit of all the property Kevin Chirp, in support of the Ordinance, noted that the sections enclosed in the document are not unusual, and are common in any community in Southern California that has any respectable appearance. The appearance of Diamond Bar has steadily Mel Roper, residing on the comer of Castle Rock and Lost River Road, stated that he has a problem with leaves and trash that clogging the gutters and causing mosquitos, thus taking away 11 -771. -?77--I October 11, 1993 Page 10 sweeper only comes around once every two weeks, and is often Chair/Meyer noted that perhaps there needs to be consideration as to how the City can better maintain City facilities. VC/Plunk suggested that staff investigate if there may be a need to sweep certain City street more than weekly or biweekly. Joe MacManus, residing at 23561 Coyote Springs Drive, Rick Imperial, residing at 1318 Crestmont Drive, stated that the property owner in his neighborhood, who is not maintaining his property, refused offers from his neighbors to do all maintenance work -for him and help with funding if needed. Money does not seem to' be an issue because a block wall has since been constructed and a new car has been purchased. Sometimes the Red Calkins questioned if the Ordinance will actually be able to be enforced. He noted that the penalty for violations are too strict, — and that the Code Enforcement Officer is being given too much power and control. All homeowners will need to be notified if the ordinance is approved. Mr. Calkins also noted that the Ordinance needs to address the poor, the senior citizens, and Frank Dursa stated that his 2 RV's are operable and he has every right to park them in his yard. His tract does not have CC&R's and he prefers it that way. The timing of the Property Maintenance Ordinance is poor considering the recession. Property values have declined, not because of maintenance, but because of the economy. He pointed out that problems with multiple vehicles parked on the front yard falls under the pattern of the Health Department because of the risk to children. There May Wycoff, residing on Del Sol, stated that the City 's appearance has been deteriorating. Her neighborhood had a property owner that kept many inoperable cars on the front yard for many years. Had it not been for Mr. Zirbes, the problem would still exist. The neighborhood also has a problem with RV's Bob Throxall, residing on Castle Rock, stated that the City October 11, 1993 Page 11 up an additional layer of bureaucracy. He pointed out that no one has a right to enter someone's property without a court order. Max Maxwell concurred with the statements made by Mr. Throxall, Mr. Dursa, Mr. Calkins, and Mr. Law. Neighbors should deal with each other to solve these problems. He questioned if a Peggy Corbitt, residing on Ambushers, expressed her concern that the appearance of her neighborhood is rapidly deteriorating. Louise MacManus, residing on Coyote Springs, noting the street sweepers are hindered by parked cars, stated that she would be in favor of prohibiting overnight parking. Richard Engels, residing on Willow Creek, concurred that the appearance of the City is rapidly deteriorating. The standards in the ordinance are reasonable, and are critically needed. Most likely, those people who do not maintain their property lack desire, not resources. Don Gravdahl, residing at 23988 Minnequa, stated that some of the problems, such as cars park on front lawns, etc., can be handled through the ordinance. However, as the ordinance is now written, probably any house in the City, especially those with children, would be in violation. The Ordinance gives too much authority, to the Code Enforcement Officer, and disputing neighbors may use the Code Enforcement Officer as a weapon against each other. Mr. Gravdahl then indicated the following issues that need revisiting: the ordinance allows storage in the back yard up to 50 % of the back yard, but does not take into consideration that 1/2 of the yards in the City have uphill slopes and/or downhill slopes; the ordinance should address the registration of vehicles as a method of enforcement; the width of driveways are specified in the County code; and the Sheriff Department should be directed to ticket trucks because there is already a 10,000 pound vehicle limit in the City. Norman Beach Courschesne, residing at 2021 Peaceful Hills Road, made the following comments opposing the Ordinance: it allows the search of private property without a warrant; many people bought homes without CC&R's because they did not want them; the abatement process should address a method of reimbursement if a citizen wins an appeal; it should address the issue of land slides and such like occurrences; item IV, page 5 needs to specify a time limit; a citizen should not be charged per day for their violation, as indicated on page 9, item 13, but rather —17 1 -7-1 October 11, 1993 Page 12 manicured state, or to the Code, Enforcement Officers opinion; the Public Health Department and the Building Department can Lee Ford stated that he feels the public hearing was not very well advertised. Margaret Hee expressed her support of the Property Bill Tinsmen pointed out that the reason that the City has been deteriorating is because of the uncontrolled building, both commercial and residential, within the City, and not because of weeds. The Ordinance will be used by the City as a tool to harass citizens. The City has no right to enter a property without Cliff Hilliard, residing on Palomino Drive, stated that the concept of the Ordinance is good, however, there should be a revisit of the following issues: motor vehicle parking standards on page 4 are too broad and all encompassing; and the subcommittee should contact camping and motorhome organizations to discuss specifically what to do with motorhomes on private property. Dianna Cheng, a real estate agent, and a Traffic and Transportation Commissioner, stated that,, from her experience in real estate, homes have a lot of trouble selling if a neighboring property is poorly maintained. The Property Maintenance Ordinance is necessary to help maintain property values in the Hearing no one wanting to provide further testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing -closed. C/Flamenbaurn made the following comments: everything is mixed in with multi family, commercial, and industrial, making it difficult to determine what the City is attempting to enforce; if there is to be such an ordinance, it should be limited to the front yard only because no city, -or other agencies (except health and safety violations), has any right to go in someone's back yard; item E. makes it a violation to have a dry spot on a lawn; maintenance of irrigation systems in an operable condition, item F., is a matter of interpretation and needs to be better defined; item HA makes broken dishwashers or lawn mowers a violation; trash containers in commercial or multi family structures are generally assessab '1e to the front yard, violating item I; a piece of unused furniture In someones house could be a violation of item K.2; item O.does not include an exclusion for automobile 77' —17-1 J"', L- should be considered for the enforcement method; and automobiles can be required to be moved every 7 days (or whatever number is determined suitable), and have valid registrations in order to be allowed to be parked in the front yard. C/Flamenbaum. indicated that the Ordinance, as written, is over broad, over bearing, and over reaching. He suggested that the C/Grothe expressed his concern that the Planning Commissions comments made during the study session to review the draft ordinance was not considered nor included in this draft ordinance. In concurrence with the comments made by C/Flamenbaum, C/Grothe added the following comments: even yards with sod are not weed free; it is not the City's concern if a roof leaks, or if there are missing pieces of stucco; a foundation can hardly be missing, and a broken foundation has nothing to do with public safety or aesthetics; most families with children have torn'or missing screens; and many of the violations can be handled through the Building Code. He concurred to continue the VC/Plunk made the followin comments: she concurred that there 9 needs to be a provision addressing physical and economic circumstances; if it is approved, there should be an automatic review of the document in one year to determine it's success; the regulations should be paraphrased; for a City who cares about the environment, it seems proper that we should care for the appearance of our City; consider standards for the front yard, or Visible side yards at this time, and consider standards for back yards next year; consider allowing 1 week for moderate repairs; large motor Chair/Meyer stated that the comments and direction provided by the Planning Commission subcommittee in their review the Property Maintenance Ordinance was not included in the document. Perhaps the subcommittee can work with staff to organize the comments made by the Planning Commission and be brought back to the Commission for review at a continued public hearing. Part of the problem is that there are three October 11, 1993 Page 14 session, not the one currently before the Planning Commission. There may be some value to a Property Maintenance Ordinance, but the definition of what are unacceptable maintenance standards needs be to adequately defined. He supported a continuance to a date that would give the City sufficient time to deal with these issues. Chair/Meyer suggested that, since the. Ordinance also deals with VC/Plunk requested the Planning Commission be given the document at least one week prior to the meeting so that there is C/Flamenbaum requested the new revision be footrioted with the date so that the Commission can readily tell which document Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded, by C/Grothe and carried unanimously to continue the public hearing to the meetin' of December 13, 1993 with direction to staff to have the document ready for distribution, and available to the Planning Commission, ANNOUNCEMENTS: CDD/DeStefano reported that, as Administrative Development Director, he approved ADR 93-16 for a single family residence located at 22128 Steeplechase. Chair/Meyer indicated that -;-in his opinion, the Planning Commission gains front different points of view. It is hoped that VC/Plunk, and C/Flamenbaum do not ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:58 p.m. Respectively, 'j;dmes Destefan— pt -1 —1 "0 Is- October 11, 1993 Page 15 Secretar Attest: Da6q eyer Chairman