Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/8/1993CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 8, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:10 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: Commissioner Grothe. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Li, Flamenbaum, and Chairman Meyer. Vice Chairwoman Plunk was absent (excused). Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: Minutes of Moved by C/Grothe, _seconded by C/Li and carried Oct. 25, 1993 unanimously to approve the Minutes of October 25, 1993, as presented. NEW BUSINESS: Chair/Meyer noted that, per Commission's direction at the October 25, 1993 meeting, staff has provided Parking the Commission, for it's review, a copy of the Standards parking standards of the City of Diamond Bar and the City of Walnut, as well as a copy of the information from the ,Institute of Transportation Engineers. C/Grothe, dissatisfied with the compact parking requirements in Diamond Bar's parking standards, stated that he prefers many of the compact parking items in the parking standards of the City of Walnut because they are easier to read, are more straight forward, and the length of the parking stall is longer and remains constant. He pointed out that the elimination of compact parking stalls altogether would simply mean that the building density would have to be somewhat smaller. it would have been more appropriate had Diamond Bar adopted parking standards of a city representative of Diamond Bar rather than adopting L.A. County parking standards blanketly. C/Grothe then indicate that he would also prefer to add "No Overnight On Street Parking" to the Parking Ordinance. November 8, 1993 Page 2 Chair/Meyer suggested that the Commission direct !h'' #,. staff to analyze existing ordinances and bring back those ordinances that would meet the needs of the City for the Commissions review and recommendation to the City Council. C\Li suggested that staff investigate the Parking Ordinances of the City of Glendale, as well as the City of Walnut, because Glendale has a similar terrain as Diamond Bar and a freeway traversing the city. Chair/Meyer noted that parking standards often have a major impact on the design of the development. Parking ordinances, in its attempt to accommodate vehicles, can tend to run the design of the project. He suggested that incentives be provided in the development standards to assist developers in designing projects for the City, and to develop synergy within centers to reduce the number of parking spaces required. There needs to be a mechanism in the development standards to adju�st the number of off-street parking standards and to provide incentives for adjacent property ownerslito motivate them to combine their projects, to provide a reasonable on site circulation system, and to solve common problems. C/Grothe concurred with the statements made' by Chair/Meyer. Chair/Meyer also noted that in some instances projects are dropped for lack of one parking space. He suggested a provision that if a developer comes close to the parking standard, he is provided two financial alternatives: either lease an off site piece of property to maintain, parking spaces', in perpetuity to serve his project; or make a contribution to a "parking acquisition fund" with the community. This contribution then providesithe community with an incentive to develop public parking lots. C/Grothe stated that he would concur to providing alternatives to the parking standards on redevelopment projects, but not new projects. Chair/Meyer suggested that parking standards, be established for single family residential thatiarq consistent with the type of development. Usually the market will prevail, but, as a community ages, a;W there are occurrences in which garages are turned into habital space, omitting any type of covered parking. November 8, 1993 Page 3 Chair/Meyer stated that the provision for handicap parking in the Ordinance is acceptable. He then noted many parking ordinances base the number of parking spaces on the number of employees during the most dense shift. It may be easier, from a staff perspective, if the number of spaces were tied into the gross building area instead. He also noted that many cities do not allow change of uses to occur in shopping centers because additional off, street parking may be required. However, he stated that he feels once a shopping center is built and approved, any commercial use permitted in that zone should be allowed to locate in that type of center and not have to make some paper work parking adjustment. C/Flamenbaum suggested that the ordinance include carpooling. He then questioned the reasoning for distinguishing between motels and hotels, and for placing mortuaries under "entertainment". He also suggested that the parking ordinance address unique situations dealing with fast food restaurants. Chair/Meyer stated that, in his judgement, the greatest off street parking ordinance prohibits all parking on the street, as is done in the City of Industry. Thus the demand for parking is a function of the commercial ventures. C/Grothe suggested that parking stalls behind a building not be counted in the parking standard to discourage their installation. Such parking stalls are rarely utilized. He then suggested that parking lots be encouraged to be designed with more than one main entrance and exit, and that they include landscaping to provide shade and aesthetic appeal. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct staff to draft a proposed ordinance utilizing the comments made by the Commission, and to bring it back to the Commission at a later date. sign Ordinance Chair/Meyer suggested that the Commission begin review of the Sign Ordinance included in the staff report. C/Flamenbaum suggested that a criteria be developed (` that any commercial monument signs under "X" size (shape and color) be approved administratively, with the requirement that they be compatible with the architecture of the surrounding area. He also suggested that the "Exemption of City Signs" be deleted, and pointed out that the criteria that November 8, 1993 ANNOUNCEMENTS: C i� Page 4 would apply to the commercial sectors should also apply to the City. C/Flamenbaum stated that 'he feels the Sign Ordinance imposes a particular hardship upon the community that is not warranted. C/Grothe concurred there should_ be some form of standards on a monument sign that can be approved administratively. Chair/Meyer stated the Sign Ordinance could be condensed and written more clearly. Many of the factors of measure in the Sign Ordinance are being violated which,could also include the City Monument Signs located in a median. Controlling signs and advertisement is important. Staff should have a clear set of guidelines to measure a product. Staff should also have the opportunity to bring disputes to the Planning Commission for discretionary review if necessary. C/Flamenbaum noted that the section on prohibited signs are clear. The section on monument signs needs to be expanded to include a larger category that can be handled administratively. I C/Li stated that any sign, other than a monument sign, should go through the administrative process. Chair/Meyer reiterated that staff needs a clear set of standards to implement over the counter. C/Grothe indicated a six foot height restriction on monument signs seems appropriate. C/Li stated the height of a sign should depend upon the environment and other factors. C/Flamenbaum noted that staff would have a better understanding of the topography of the City, ,and would be a better judge on the appropriate height of the sign. C/Grothe also suggested that any items unenforceable in this community should be taken out of the Sign Ordinance. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and carried unanimously to direct staff to draft a proposed Sign ordinance per the Commission's comments. C/Flamenbaum inquired if the Commission should continue to review the draft EIR for Tentative Tract No. 51169 given the status of the General Plan. November 8, 1993 Page 5 CDD/DeStefano responded that since the project is currently eligible for process, it is recommended that the Commissioners review the draft EIR to provide for discussion on the December 13, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. C/Flamenbaum requested an update to the Hamburger Hamlet project. CDD/DeStefano stated that it would appear Hamburger Hamlet will not be able to open in 1994 as was first anticipated. The hearing for their appeal regarding their alcohol beverage control license has been scheduled in January of.1994. Hamburger Hamlet has indicated that they are still committed to the site and will continue to move forward. CDD/DeStefano also reported that the remediation equipment at the former Chevron site, immediately next door to Hamburger Hamlet,, -is now operational. C/Li requested an update on the status of the General Plan. CDD/DeStefano stated that the City has received the order from the judge directing the City Clerk to ,f begin counting the signatures within the petitions ` submitted. The City does have a 30 day window to analyze the City's options of the judge's decision. The City is currently processing either under the General Plan and/or Ordinance No. 4. CDD/DeStefano then reviewed the Council/Commission meeting projections as included in the staff report. He reminded the Planning Commission of the East San Gabriel Valley Planning Committee Dinner Meeting scheduled this month in the City of Claremont. He then reported that, under administrative development review authority, he approved a second floor addition to a single family home located on Rim Lane. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Li's request at the last meeting, reported that there has been a debate between residents, CalTrans, the City, and merchants related to the location and length of a sound wall on the east side of the 57 freeway. The sound wall is currently proposed .to start at Diamond Bar Blvd. to Heritage Park. C/Li suggested that CalTrans to include t northbound 57 freeway, freeway, and south of Bullet Street. An EIR that sound wall. the City gently encourage he sound wall in the area on the east side of the 57 Diamond Bar Blvd. to Silver has already been issued for November 8, 1993 Page 6 ADJOURNMENT: Moved by C/Flamenbaum,' seconded, by C/Grothe and carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. At Da, Ch Respectively, - J it WDe kSt. e f ean"o- Secretary I CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MIN LITE S OF THE PLANNING CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:10 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: Commissioner Grothe. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Li, Flamenbaum, and Chairman Meyer. Vice Chairwoman Plunk was absent (excused). Also present were Community Development Director James DeStef ano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT Minutes of Moved by C/Grothe, - seconded by C/Li and carried Oct. 25, 1993 unanimously to approve the Minutes of October 25, 1993, as presented. NEW BUSINESS: Chair/Meyer noted that, per Commission's direction at the October 25, 1993 meeting, staff has provided Parking the Commission, for it's review, a copy of the Standards parking standards of the City of Diamond Bar and the City of Walnut, ' as well as a copy of the information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers. C/Grothe, dissatisfied with the compact parking requirements in Diamond Bar's parking standards, stated that he prefers many of the compact parking items in the parking standards of the City of Walnut because they are easier to read, are more straight forward, and the length of the parking stall is longer and remains constant. He pointed out that the elimination of compact parking stalls altogether would simply mean that the building density would have to be somewhat smaller. it would have been more appropriate had Diamond Bar adopted parking standards of a city representative of Diamond Bar rather than adopting L.A. County parking standards blanketly. C/Grothe then indicate that he would also prefer to add "No Overnight On Street Parking" to the Parking ordinance. November 8, 1993 Page 2 Chair/Meyer suggested that the Commission direct staff to analyze existing ordinances and bring back those ordinances that would meet the needs of the City for the Commissions review and recommendation to the City Council. C\Li suggested that,staff investigate the Parking ordinances of the City of Glendale, as well as the City of Walnut, because Glendale has a similar terrain as Diamond Bar and a freeway traversing the city. Chair/Meyer noted that parking standards often have a major impact on the design of the development. Parking ordinances, in its attempt to accommodate vehicles, can tend to run the design of the project. He suggested that incentives be provided in the development standards to assist developers in designing projects for the City, and to develop synergy within centers to reduce the number of parking spaces required. There needs to be a mechanism in the development standards to adjust the number of off-street parking standards antto provide incentives for adjacent property owners—Ito motivate them to combine their projects, to provide a reasonable on site circulation system, and to solve common problems. C/Grothe concurred with the statements made by Chair/Meyer. Chair/Meyer also noted that in some instances projects are dropped for lack of one parking space. He suggested a provision that if a developer comes close to the parking standard, he is provided two financial alternatives: either lease an off site piece of property to maintain, parking spaces in perpetuity to serve his project; or make a contribution to a "parking acquisition fund" with the community. This contribution then provides—the community with an incentive to develop public parking lots. C/Grothe stated that he would concur to providing alternatives to the parking standards on redevelopment projects, but not new projects. Chair/Meyer suggested that parking standards be established for single family residential that—arq consistent with the type of development. Usually the market will prevail, but, as a community ages, there are occurrences in which garages are turned into habital space, omitting any type of covered parking. November 8, 1993 Page 3 Chair/Meyer stated that the provision for handicap parking in the ordinance is acceptable. He then noted many parking ordinances base the number of parking spaces on the number of employees during the most dense shift. It may be easier, f rom a stat f perspective, if the number of spaces were tied into the gross building area instead. He also noted that many cities do not allow change of uses to occur in shopping centers because additional of f street parking may be required. However, he stated that he feels once a shopping center is built and approved, any commercial use permitted in that zone should be allowed to locate in that type of center and not have to make some paper work parking adjustment. C/Flamenbaum. suggested that the ordinance include carpooling. He then questioned the reasoning for distinguishing between motels and hotels, and f or placing mortuaries under "entertainment'. He also suggested that the parking ordinance address unique situations dealing with fast food restaurants. Chair/Meyer stated that, in his judgement, the greatest of f street parking ordinance prohibits all parking on the street, as , is done in the City of Industry. Thus the demand for parking is a function of the commercial ventures. C/Grothe suggested that parking stalls behind a building not be counted in the parking standard to discourage their installation. Such parking stalls are rarely utilized. He then suggested that parking, lots be encouraged to be designed with more than one main entrance and exit, and that they include landscaping to provide shade and aesthetic appeal. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to direct stat f to drat t a proposed ordinance utilizing the comments made by the commission, and to bring it back to the Commission at a later date. Sign Ordinance chair/Meyer suggested that the Commission begin review of the Sign Ordinance included in the staff report. C/Flamenbaum suggested that a criteria be developed that any commercial monument signs under 11X11 size (shape and color) be approved administratively, with the requirement that they be compatible with the architecture of the surrounding area. He also suggested that the "Exemption of City Signs" be deleted, and pointed out that the criteria that pply to the City. C/Flamenbaum. stated that he eels the Sign Ordinance imposes a particular iardship upon the community that is not warranted. Grothe concurred there should- be some form of tandards on a monument sign that can be approved dministrativel . Chair/Meyer stated the Sign Ordinance could —be condensed and written more clearly. Many of the actors of measure in the Sign Ordinance are being violated which, could also include the City Monument Signs located in a median. controlling signs and advertisement is important. Staf f should have tear set of guidelines to measure a product. taf f should also have the opportunitV to bring is utes to the Planning Commission for Jiscretionary review if necessary. Flamenbaum, noted that the section on prohibited i ns are clear. The section on monument signs" eeds to be expanded to include a larger category hat can be handled administratively. Li stated that any sign, other than a monument i n, should go through the administrative process. hair/Me er reiterated that staff needs a clear set f standards to implement over the counter. Grothe indicated a six foot height restriction on onument signs seems appropriate. Li stated the height of a sign should depend upon he environment and other factors. I Flamenbaum. noted that staff would have a better inderstanding of the topography of the City, and ould be a better judge on the appropriate height f the sign. C/Grothe also suggested that any items unenforceable in this community should be taken out of the Sign Ordinance. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/G 'rothe and carried unanimously to direct staff to draft a proposed Sign Ordinance per the Commission's comments. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Flamenbaum inquired if the Commission should continue to review the draft EIR for Tentative Tract No. 51169 given the status of the General Plan. November 8, 1993 Page 5 CDD/DeStefano responded that since the project is currently eligible f or process, it is recommended that the Commissioners review the draft EIR to provide for discussion on the December 13, 1993 Planning Commission meeting. C/Flamenbaum requested an update to the Hamburger Hamlet project. CDD/DeStef ano stated that it would appear Hamburger Hamlet will not be able to open in 1994 as was first anticipated. The hearing for their appeal regarding their alcohol beverage control license has been scheduled in January of '1994. Hamburger Hamlet has indicated that they are still committed to the site and will continue to move forward. CDD/DeStefano also reported that the remediation equipment at the former Chevron site, immediately next door to Hamburger Hamlet„is now operational. C/Li requested an update on the status of the General Plan. CDD/DeStefano stated that the City has received the order from the judge directing the City Clerk to begin counting the signatures within the petitions submitted. The City does have a 30 day window to analyze the City's options of the judge's decision. The City is currently processing either under the General Plan and/or Ordinance No. 4. CDD/DeStefano then reviewed the Council/Commission meeting projections as included in the staff report. He reminded the Planning Commission of the East San Gabriel Valley Planning Committee Dinner Meeting scheduled this' month in the City of Claremont. He then reported that, under administrative development review authority, he approved a second floor addition to a single family home located on Rim Lane. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Lits request at the last meeting, reported that there has been a debate between residents, CalTrans, the City, and merchants related to the location and length of a sound wall on the east side of the 57 freeway. The sound wall is currently proposed to start at Diamond Bar Blvd. to Heritage Park. C/Li suggested that the City gently encourage CalTrans to include the sound wall in the area northbound 57 freeway, on the east side of the 57 freeway, and south of Diamond Bar Blvd. to Silver Bullet Street. An EIR has already been issued for that sound wall. November 8, 1993 Page_6 ADJOURNMENT: Moved by C/Flamenbaum,' ' seconded, by C/Grothe and 31 carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m. Respectively, DeStefaao Secretary A D