HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/26/1993Chair/Meyer explained that the City will be able to
review parts of it's ordinance procedures when, and
if, the City adopts a General Plan.
CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Li indicated that he will not vote on the minutes
because he was not present during the subject
Minutes of meeting.
July 12, 1993
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of July
12, 1993, as presented.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Flamenbaum, and
Chair/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Li.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk.
The Motion CARRIED 3-0-1.
OLD BUSINESS:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Disc. of
JULY 26, 1993
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:04
i�
j
p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management
Policy &
District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond
Procedure
Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE:
Chairman Meyer.
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners: Grothe, Li, and Chairman Meyer.
C/Flamenbaum arrived at 7:07 p.m.. Vice Chairman
Plunk was absent (excused).
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
City Attorney Bill Curley, and Contract Recording
Secretary Liz Myers.
MATTERS FROM
Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star,
THE AUDIENCE:
suggested that the City review their public
notification policy, and perhaps consider
displaying a billboard at the site of a proposed
project, which is a procedure utilized in San
Dimas.
Chair/Meyer explained that the City will be able to
review parts of it's ordinance procedures when, and
if, the City adopts a General Plan.
CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Li indicated that he will not vote on the minutes
because he was not present during the subject
Minutes of meeting.
July 12, 1993
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of July
12, 1993, as presented.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Flamenbaum, and
Chair/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Li.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk.
The Motion CARRIED 3-0-1.
OLD BUSINESS:
Chair/Meyer suggested that the Planning Commission
review. the Planning Commission's Policy and
Disc. of
Procedure Manual to update the procedure for
Planning
conducting meetings, and to reestablish some of the
Commission
roles and responsibilities of the Commission. One
Policy &
item worthy of reconsideration involves Planning
Procedure
Commission actions that are appealed to the City
Council. Perhaps there should be a designated
individual from the Planning Commission available
at City Council meetings to represent the
Commission on such items. If the Commission
concurs that the manual should be reviewed, a
July 26, 1993 Page 2
subcommittee could be established to work with
staff to bring back some recommendations to the
Commission for consideration.
C/Li and C/Flamenbaum volunteered to be on the
subcommittee.
Chair/Meyer suggested that the subcommittee obtain
some of the Planning Commissioner's handbooks from
the League of California Cities, as well as
appropriate documents from adjoining communities.
C/Flamenbaum concurred that it may be appropriate
to have a representative of the Commission present
at City Council meetings to represent the
Commission on items of appeal or other projects
being presented. Also, there needs to be a
discussion on who sets the agenda, as well as a
discussion of establishing a policy on how
recommendations are made to the City Council on
items that -may be beyond the purview of the
Commission but may still be of interest to the City
Council.
C/Li suggested that it seems appropriate for the
Chairman to represent the Planning Commission at
City Council meetings.
C/Grothe requested that staff include, in the
agenda, a status of upcoming projects.
Chair/Meyer suggested that there also be discussion
regarding the information presented in the staff
report to help the Commission, in deliberation,
focus the review of projects, and to create
consistency in reviewing various projects before
the Commission He then remanded the item to the
subcommittee.
C/Flamenbaum inquired if there is any violation of
law if the Commission was to pass nonbinding
resolutions without adequate public notice.
CA/Curley stated that Commissioners may bring up
issues of concern during the Commission Comments
portion of the agenda. If the, concern receives
consensus from the Commission that it should be
brought to someone's attention, the direction to
staff to take that consensus of the issue to
whatever bodies appropriate, would not be a Brown
Act violation.
Disc. regarding Chair/Meyer explained that this item was placed on
acquisition of the agenda for discussion in response to a great
land for parks deal of demand, resulting from the South Pointe
11
July 26, 1993
Page 3
and/or project deliberation, to be placed on the ballot
nat'l area regarding the establishment of a conservancy, or
conservation issuance of bonds to acquire the property at a fair
market value. Perhaps there should be some sort of
recommendation by the Planning Commission to the
City Council regarding this demand from, what
appeared to be a significant portion of the
population in the community. Additionally, address
the issue of exploring public sentiment regarding
additional revenue generation to acquire property
within the corporate boundary for preservation in
its existing state.
C/Flamenbaum also suggested that it may be
appropriate, under natural area conservation, to
send forth a message to the City Council suggesting
the need to revisit the Tree Ordinance.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by
C/Grothe that the Commission recommend that the
City Council explore a bond issue for the purpose
of acquiring open space, and/or unused land in the
City of Diamond Bar, in an amount to be determined
by the City Council.
C/Grothe stated that he feels that the City has
higher -needs for bond money other than acquisition
of natural areas to conserve in the City of Diamond
Bar, such as acquiring Site D for active parks, a
library, a public facility for uses such as a pool
or gym, etc. For projects to conserve something
the size of a Tonner Canyon, or a Sandstone Canyon,
should'be explored on a County -wide or State-wide
basis.
Chair/Meyer concurred that there are a lot of other
needs of the City, however, the reason for the
recommendation to the City Council is not to
express a preference of the Commission but rather
to ' communicate to them that there seemed to be a
great deal of demand expressed by the citizens for
the need to explore such a bond issue, not limited
to just Tonner Canyon and Sandstone Canyon. -
The Commission voted upon the Motion made 'by
C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Grothe that the
Commission recommend that the City Council explore
a bond issue for the purpose of acquiring open
space, and/or undeveloped land in the City of
' Diamond Bar, in an amount to be determined by the
City Council.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Flamenbaum, and
Chair/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe.
Trl.11 6 ifillll-�.T�"T N
July 26, 1993 Page 4
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.,
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk.
The Motion CARRIED 3-1.
Chair/Meyer, responding to C/Flamenbaum's
suggestion regarding the tree ordinance, stated
that there must be a,G'eneral Plan in place before
making modification of the zoning 'code to assure
that it is consistent with the General Plan.
NEW BUSINESS: AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the
request made by the applicant Acme/Wiley to develop
Planned Sign a Planned Sign Program to install a monument sign
Program 93-3 six (6) feet in height and 18.21 square feet in
sign face area located at 1196 S. Diamond Bar Blvd.
within an existing retail shopping center. It is
recommended that the Planning Commission approve
Planned Sign Program No. 92-3 with the base of the
monument sign constructed from the same block
utilized for the wall within the landscape -area of
the project site, the addition of an address plate,
Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within
the attached resolution. AP/Searcy then stated
that Sign No. 8, identified as existing and on
2V=
site, is not existing at that location and needs to
be revised on the final set of plans which will be
turned into the Planning Department for the
Community Development Director's final approval.
Chair/Meyer noted that there is not a condition
requiring the removal of the existing pole sign to
be replaced by the monument sign.
William Barker, representing Acme/Wiley who
represents Bank of America, stated that they concur
with the conditions, except that they would prefer
to match the plaster, instead of putting block
underneath the sign, because the block is not a
predominate architectural feature in the building,
and the use of block is more expensive. There is a
plaster match on Vineyard Bank, Standard Brands,
Jack -in -the Box, and First Interstate Bank. An
exact match of the scored plaster will be made., In_
response -to Chair/Meyer, he stated..that he -was not
aware of the pole sign, but it is most likely the
intent of the applicant to replace the pale'if
deemed necessary.
Chair/Meyer requested that a condition be added for
the removal of the pole sign.
m ;.
July 26, 1993 Page 5
C/Flamenbaum expressed his support to allow the
applicant to use the stucco material for the
construction of the monument sign.
C/Grothe stated that, in his opinion, he feels that
the building does not need any more signs.
However, it is for the replacement of a pole sign
and he would concur with staff's recommendation
that block be utilized because it is a sturdier
material that will look nicer for a longer period
of time. He then suggested that Bank of America
readjust the security lights recently added so as
not to intrude on the neighboring property.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by
Chair/Meyer to approve the Planned Sign Program as
proposed, amending condition 5(c). from block wall
to stucco, and adding a condition for the removal
of the existing pole sign.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: F 1 a m e n b a u m and
Chair/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Li.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk.
The Motion FAILED 2-2.
Motion was made by Chair/Meyer and seconded by C/Li
to continue the item to the next meeting when there
will be a full Commission.
CDD/DeStefano explained that staff recommended the
utilization of the block because it is a more
durable material than stucco, which often
discolors, cracks, peels and chips off of the
surface generally as a result of watering. The
other reason for recommending block is for
architectural consistency to the existing slump
stone block wall, and to the other existing signs
within the Ralphs shopping center that utilize
slump stone.
Chair/Meyer asked Mr. Barker if there would be a
problem with building the base and attaching
masonry veneer.
William Barker explained that masonry veneer would
-� not really be compatible with the building. Bank
4 of America indicated their preference of utilizing
stucco material.
Chair/Meyer withdrew his Motion and C/Li withdrew
the second to the motion.
July 26, 1993 Page 6
Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Li to :4'y'
approve the Resolution approving the Planned Sign
Program 93-3 with listed conditions, adding a
condition for the removal of the pole sign.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Grothe, Flamenbaum,
and Chait/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk.
The Motion CARRIED 4-0.
C/Grothe directed staff to investigate the
adjustment of the security lights at Bank of
America.
CONTINUED
CDD/DeStefano reported that the Planning
PUBLIC HEARING:
Commission, at the last meeting, decided to split
the review and decision of CUP 93-4, which is for
CUP 93-4
the land use entitlement of the sale and on-site
consumption of alcoholic beverages and a bar/lounge
with live entertainment for property located at
21671 E. Gateway Center Drive, and the Development
Review for the restaurant. Pursuant to the$
direction of the Planning Commission, a resolution
approving CUP No. 93-4 has been prepared for the
Commission's review. However, it is staff's
recommendation that the issues of the CUP cannot be
concluded without knowing the facility to which it
would be attached to. It is strongly recommended
that the Commission table the CUP No. 93-4 for the
sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages
and a bar/lounge with live entertainment until the
type of live entertainment is identified and the
Development Review for construction of a restaurant
structure is approved.
C/Flamenbaum pointed out that the nature of the CUP
is for a land use application. There is really no
question that the particular site should be
anything other than a restaurant.
.e
CDD/DeStefano explained that the restaurant is
permitted by right within the C-3-BE-U/C Zone; and
there is no'question that a restaurant is both
needed and appropriate within the Gateway- Corporate -
Center. Staff is concerned that a CUP for the sale
of alcohol and for live entertainment runs with the
land, and specifically that CUP is not:- being
attached to a building. Therefore, the' CUP is
being approved for a dirt lot. The appropriateness
of the building for the site should be -determined
first, then the decision on the type of alcohol,
July 26, 1993
Page 7
r"
the hours of operation, the type of live
entertainment, etc. should be made for that
specific building.
CA/Curley explained that the CUP, while serving as
an agreement for the land use, is also a fine
tuning devise to fit the use to the community's
needs. The Planning Commission could develop a set
of the most onerous conditions for virtually
everything that could come up, thus requiring the
applicant to come back and petition the Commission
for relief, which may create a more difficult
situation for the applicant. It is questionable if
giving an approval to an idea as a marketing device
fits the intent of a CUP.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened.
The applicant, nor the applicant's representative,
was not present at the meeting to provide
testimony.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by
F C/Li to continue the matter to the second meeting
in August of 1993.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Grothe, Flamenbaum,
and Chair/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk.
The Motion CARRIED 4-0.
Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:15 p.m. The
meeting was reconvened at 8:25 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the
request made by the applicant PETsMART to operate a
CUP 93-6 commercial retail pet facility, located at Diamond
DR 93-3 Creek Village Shopping Center, 21050 Golden Springs
PETsMART Drive, which includes the sale of pets, supplies,
tropical fish and birds, and provides pet grooming
and health care services. The Development Review
application is necessitated by interior and
exterior renovation and addition to the existing
building "C". The application is requesting to add
approximately -8,398 square feet to the existing
commercial center in a three phase project. The
CUP application is a request for approval to
operate a business which features the retail sales
of animals and pet supplies as well as ancillary
uses which include grooming and veterinarian care.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission
July 26, 1993 Page a
adopt the draft Resolutions of Approval with
ME
findings of facts and conditions of approval for
the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review.
C/Grothe indicated that he will abstain from
discussion of this project due to a possible
conflict of interest.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened.
C/Flamenbaum inquired why the applicant has a vault
in one of the three rooms as indicated on the floor
plan, section 202.
Frank Arciero Jr., 950 N. Tustin Ave., Anaheim, one
of the owners of the center, stated that he concurs
with the conditions listed by staff except for the
Engineering conditions 11, 12, & 14 for the
following reasons: #1 - the parking lot is
currently is good condition and does not need to be
repaired, slurry sealed nor restriped; 02 - a
prorata share has already been paid and to pay a
portion of the overlay and striping costs for
lengths of Golden Springs, Drive and Brea Canyon
road is a financial burden, particularly since the F.
striping is adequate enough for the center; and 14
- the owners initially paid a pro rated share for
the modifications of the signals. In regards to
Engineering condition #6, he requested
clarification since the parking area already has
painted Fire Lane legends. He also inquired how
they would be able to protect the wall from future
vandalism or graffiti, as indicated in item #8.
Mr. Arciero stated that a change will be made to
the parking area on the back side to make sure that
the tractor trailers are able to circulate through
there without interfering with any existing or
future parking spaces.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the applicant consider
planting overhanging ivy on the wall as a method of
impeding graffiti.
Clay Alminchapini, the architect with Kurt Reed
Associates, Scottsdale, Arizona, stated that the
issue of impeding any truck traffic at therear
corner of the building has been resolved. He
clarified that PETsMART does not sell dogs and
cats, but does have an adoption facility set up G"
inside the store for the Humane Society. Also,
there are no exterior dog runs, nor are there
animals kept over night at these facilities. With
the exceptions of those clarifications, PETsMART,
nor Kurt Reed Assoc., does not have any conflict
July 26, 1993
Page 9
with any of the conditions, other than what has
been brought up by the developer. In response to
C/Flamenbaum's inquiry, he explained that the vault
is used to count receipts. There is a separate
secured storage area in the veterinary clinic that
has been provided for veterinary pharmaceuticals.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Meyer declared
the Public Hearing closed.
C/Flamenbaum, in response to the applicant's
request to delete Engineering condition #1,
inquired of staff if the parking lot needs to be
slurry sealed.
AP/Searcy explained that the condition is a
preventative maintenance task. Based on Planning
staff's review, the subject site does not appear to
be in any type of major disrepair.
The Planning Commission concurred to omit
Engineering condition #1.
AP/Searcy, in regards to Engineering condition #2,
stated that the costs were generated based upon a
prorata share of the impacts those projects might
have on existing infrastructure. However, there
was no available information submitted to the
Engineering Department to indicate that the
applicant had participated in any type of program
previous to this approval.
The Planning Commission concurred to delete
Engineering condition 12.
AP/Searcy stated that Engineering condition #4 runs
in the same category as Engineering condition #2.
C/Flamenbaum pointed out that it may be appropriate
that some modification to the traffic signal be
made, as indicated in Engineering condition #4, in
an amount to be determined, since there may be an
increase in traffic.
Frank Arciero, Jr. stated that PETsMART traffic is
little more than half of the traffic frem." .he.R,.
previously existing National Lumber. When the
Center was built, the signals were designed to
j accommodate the flow of traffic anticipated with
j I National Lumber. The existing signal is more than -
adequate to carry the amount of traffic generated
within the Center.
TT— °°IISn
,c
July 26, 1993
Page 10
The Planning Commission concurred to delete
Engineering condition #4.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum to approve the
Resolution for CUP No. 93-6, with the removal of
Engineering conditions #1, #2,,& 14.
C/Flamenbaum withdrew -his motion in order to first
take action on the design review.
CDD/DeStefano stated that, if the Commission
considers approval of the design review first, then
it is staff's recommendation that general
conditions of approval #4, #5, #6, & #7 of CUP No.
93-6 be located in Development Review No. 93-3 as
conditions #8, #9, #10, & #11.
Chair/Meyer inquired if this operation would have
an impact on the City's sewer system, and if a
clarifier is required.
Clay Alminchapini stated that there are separate
hair traps for the bathing area at the grooming
department, as well as for the surgery tub and the
health service. The hair traps are completely
isolated, with a separate sewer line before it is
tied into the sanitary sewer.
AP/Searcy stated that those plans will be submitted
to the Building Department during final plan check.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by
C/Li to approve Development Review No. 93-3, moving
general conditions of approval #4, #5, #6, & #7 of
CUP No. 93-6 to be located in Development Review
No..93-3 as conditions #8, #9, #10, & #11.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Flamenbaum, and
Chair/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk.
The Motion CARRIED 3-1.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by
C/Li to adopt a Resolution approving CUP No. 93-6,
deleting Engineering conditions #1, #2, & 14, and
moving general conditions of approval 14, 15, #6, &
17 of CUP No. 93 -6 -to be located in Development
Review No. 93-3 as conditions #8, #9,,#10, & #11,
and adding a condition to tie the use of the CUP to
the activation and use of the Development Review
application.
Y
� :
F a
July 26, 1993 Page 11
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
The Motion CARRIED 3-1.
Li, Flamenbaum,
Chair/Meyer.
None.
Grothe.
Plunk.
and
C/Flamenbaum requested staff, in the future, to
number all conditions consecutively, without
differentiating between engineering and general
conditions.
CUP 92-13(1) AP/Searcy reported that the application for the
Karaoke family karaoke studio, located in the center at the
Studio intersection of Colima Road and Lemon Avenue, was
originally approved by the Planning Commission on
November 23, 1992, which began it's operation late
February of 1993. The hours of operation were
limited to the hours between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00
a.m. midnight Sunday through Thursday and until
2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday with uniformed
security on premises. Some of the concerns for the
project were as follows: the hours of operation;
the security; the noise generated by late night
uses within the center; and it's proximity to the
neighborhood residential developments surrounding
the project. The application for the amendment to
the CUP would allow the karaoke studio to expand
the hours of operation from the current allowance
to 4:00 a.m. daily. However, staff feels that
intensifying the hours of operation would intensify
the use on site. Review of the County's records
indicates that there are two karaoke studios in
Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights that are in
operation, both not extending past the hours of
1:30 a.m.. Additional research indicates that the
County Ordinance does not allow live entertainment
from the hours of 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m., thus the
applicants request to operate between the hours of
2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. is not in compliance with
their business license. Furthermore, the karaoke
studio has been in operation less than 6 months and
has not experienced a complete seasonal cycle of
business which can be analyzed. It is recommended
that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to
deny the applicant's request.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened.
Daisy Del Valle, the leasing agent for the shopping
agent, stated that because the karaoke studio is an
evening type of business, some sort of an extension
of hours is needed for it to succeed. She
i � IJ NClIi
July 26, 1993 Page 12
submitted a handout on an analysis of the business,
done by Mr. Lee, indicating that the busiest time
for his operation is between 12:00 and 2:00 a.m.
An extension ,of time during the week should be
granted, taken into consideration that alcohol is
not allowed, there have been no problems with the
other tenants, and there have been no problems with
the Sheriff Department.
Dong Min Lee, 3461 Marble Ridge Drive, Chino,
owner, reviewed the analysis submitted to the
Commission indicating the busiest time for his
business. Most people come to his establishment
after work around 9:00 p.m. during the week, and
between'12:00 a.m. midnight to'2:00 a.m. Friday and
Saturday. The biggest complaint that he receives
from his customers is that they need more time. He
requested an extension of time.
Dan Sobieski, residing at 1248 S. Lemon, opposed
the extension of hours during the week because of
the additional traffic in the area for those
extended hours, plus the additional distractions in
the neighborhood. it seems that the owners should
have sought out a different type of location other
than a residential neighborhood.
Betty Woo, residing at 1245 S. Lemon, opposed to
the extension of hours, made the following
comments: there are never any families going to
the karaoke studio from 12:00'a.m. midnight to 2:00
a.m.; many karaoke studios in'Taiwan are not known
for their pleasant atmosphere, and many avoid
living 'near one; and this studio is located in a
quiet residential neighborhood and the hours should
reflect this.
Jim Molina, residing at 20521 E. Clear Spring
Court, stated that he was disturbed by loud
shouting coming from the vicinity of Golden Springs
and Lemon Avenue, near the studio. He expressed
his concern that an extension of time will increase
activity in the area, create additional noise and
traffic, and that the disturbing noise from the
blowers used. for cleaning the', establishment will go
late into the niglit. - -•
- a
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Meyer declared
the Public Hearing -closed.
C/Grothe, in support of the staff's recommendation, '
stated that the karaoke studio' is located in a
neighborhood shopping center that should remain
.m..,_-..,..�. _.... ,_.. ,. _., ,.e�„,..,.... �h
July 26, 1993 Page., 13
r ;
compatible with the quiet residential neighborhood
"y and not the regional area.
C/Li suggested that the hours of operation be
extended to 1:00 a.m. weekdays on a trial basis.
He pointed out that there is no correlation between
a karaoke studio in Taiwan and one here, as was
indicated by Ms. Woo.
C/Flamenbaum recalled that the Planning Commission
had approved this application, for the hours of
operation indicated, as a trial basis because of
the various reports of criminal activities
associated with these studios in other outlying
cities. The Commission had recommended that the
applicant come back after a considerable period of
time, and if there were no police reports or other
objections, the Commission may consider extending
the hours on weekdays. Four months of operation
does not seem to be an adequate period of time for
review to consider extending the hours of operation
on weekdays to 2:00 a.m. He stated his support for
staff's recommendation simply because' there is
insufficient data for analysis. He pointed out
that most businesses take at least a year before it
becomes established. The applicant can come back
at a. later date with his request, with the
understanding that a 4:00 a.m. extension would
never be supported.
Chair/Meyer concurred with C/Flamenbaum that the
Planning Commission's original approval was on a
trial period basis, for at least a year, to collect
some data before considering modification of the
application. Four months of operation is an
inadequate time for review. The request made is
premature.
C/Flamenbaum, noting that the applicant has already
paid the application fee, suggested that the item
be tabled for eight months, thus allowing a year of
review.
CA/Curley stated that, if it is the consensus of
the Commission to take some action of this sort, he
would recommend a continuance toga date certain,
with the consent of the applicant.
C/Grothe, preferring not to continue the matter,
stated that if it were to be continued, it should
be republicized and readvertised, particularly to
the residents in the area.
July 26, 1993 Page 14
Dong Min Lee stated that to his recollection, the
trial period basis was for 6 months after the
opening of the business. The reason for this early
application is because the extension of time is
needed for the business' success. 'There have not
been any problems with the studioto date. He
requested that the Commission' grant an extension of
time.
Chair/Meyer inquired if the applicant would be able
to appeal if the Planning Commission made a
decision to continue the matter.
CA/Curley stated that, without the consent of the
applicant for a continuance, he would suggest that
the Commission take a final action, in the sense of
an approval or denial, due to the Streamlining Act.
Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by
C/Flamenbaum to adopt a Resolution for Denial
without prejudice.
C/Flamenbaum, in response to Chair/Meyer, stated
that the intent of continuing the matter was to
save the applicant the fee for having- to refile.
There has not been an adequate time of review to
provide the Commission with sufficient information
to make a decision regarding an, extension of hours.
Daisy Del Valle stated that Mr. Lee is confused
because he was told to come back in 6 months, and
he now wonders why he paid the $1,000 fee. She
pointed out that the Commission can pull a
condition from the CUP at any time.
Chair/Meyer stated that there is a procedure to
revoke a condition of the CUP, which is a more
difficult procedure than placing conditions. The
Commission had considered a continuance with the
idea to save the applicant the fee paid.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the meeting be recessed
to allow C/Li an .opportunity to explain the
situation to the applicant.
Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. The
_
-, meeting was recpnvened „sot aq: 08 Rim.
CA/Curley stated that it would be appropriate to
ask the applicant if he has reached any conclusion.
'7
Dong Min Lee requested that the Commission continue
the item.
E P tl
i TE Ian
rm
July 26, 1993 Page`15
CA/Curley stated that, if the Commission wishes to
entertain a continuance, it is recommended that the
extension not go beyond 120 days and that if more
information is required, it should be presented to
the applicant as a component of the extension.
C/Grothe stated that he would like to keep his
motion for _denial, without prejudice because an
additional 120 days would still not give a adequate
period of time for review. The request for
additional information may end up costing the
applicant additional money, and it may be least
costly to take action on the issue at this time.
CA/Curley clarified that the City Planning
Department applies a flat hourly rate, which is
debited from the initial deposit, so that the total
dollar amount for either a continuance or a denial
with a reapplication would remain the same.
The Commission voted upon the Motion made by
C/Grothe and seconded by C/Flamenbaum to adopt a
Resolution for Denial without prejudice.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Li, Flamenbaum,
l and Chair/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk.
The Motion CARRIED 4-0.
Variance 93-2
CDD/DeStefano reported that it is staff's
Mobil Service
recommendation that the public hearing be continued
Station
to the meeting of August 9, 1993 due to scheduling
conflicts with the applicant per his request.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by
C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to themeetingof August 9, 1993.
INFORMATIONAL
CDD/DeStefano report that, as Administrative
ITEMS:
Development Director, he approved a new single
family Piermarini home approximately 6,700 square
feet. He also reported that another General Plan
public hearing is scheduled for July, 27, 1993.
CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will provide the
subcommittee with some Planning Commission's Policy
and Procedures Manual generated from other cities
to help refine our Policy and Procedures Manual.
Staff will also resume prior efforts to.inform the
_ w -__.-_
July 26, 1993 Page 16
I
Commission of upcoming meeting schedules and
project scheduling.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that it may be appropriate
if the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond
Bar met with the Planning Commissions of -adjacent
cities to keep informed of ,each others plans.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C%Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Li
and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at
10:26 p.m.
Res ectivel
P ►
Ja s DeStefano t
Secretary
� K F! i 1 '�0.l.�:,'A 'y y� ■ "'�'�
'.,•,�... .-,. ,..,..._,� ,.r �.. nlF ,.. !'�. s'r—..-
7:_'.. _.._. ,y. :�,`... '�,..'�.. ..� ►.ii.. ,M IIl1fil9a PI�;t'-.�v�;'_.::FW�i^`91RF.'Xb'^IUi"Ci'u�CL,:..u�"'°4..u..�,.r.�,r�sa
=DGE
>c. of
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JULY 26, 1993
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:04 P -m. at the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Meyer.
ROLL CALL: commissioners: Grothe, Li, and Chairman Meyer. C/Flamenbaum arrived at 7:07 p.m.. Vice Chairman
Plunk was absent (excused).
Also present were Community Development Director
James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, City Attorney Bill Curley,
band Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers.
MATTERS FROM Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, THE AUDIENCE:
suggested that the City review their public notification policy, and perhaps
consider displaying a billboard at the site of a proposed project, which is a
procedure utilized in San Dimas.
Chair/Meyer explained that the City will be able to review parts of it's ordinance
procedures when, and
if, the City adopts a General Plan.
CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Li indicated that he will not vote on the minutes because he was not present during the
subject Minutes of - meeting.
July 12, 1993
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to
approve the Minutes of July 12, 1993, as presented.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Flamenbaum, and Chair/Meyer. NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Li. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -Plunk.
The Motion CARRIED 3-0-1.
OLD BUSINESS: Chair/Meyer suggested that the Planning Commission review. the Planning Commission's Policy
and
Manual to update the procedure for Planning conducting meetings, and to reestablish some of the Commission roles and
responsibilities of the Commission. One
Policy & item worthy commission Procedure of reconsideration involves Planning -actions that are
council. appealed to the City Perhaps there should be a designated from
individual at Citythe Planning Commission available Council meetings to
represent the
Commission on such items. if the Commission concurs that the manual should be
reviewed. a
July 26, 1993 Page 2
subcommittee could be e stablished to work with staf f to bring back some recommendations to the
commission for consideration.
C/Li and C/Flamenbaum. volunteered to be on the subcommittee.
Chair/Meyer suggested that the subcommittee obtain some of the Planning Commissioner's
handbooks from the League of California Cities, as well as appropriate documents.from. adjoining
communities.
C/Flamenbaum concurred that it may be appropriate to have a representative of the Commission present
at city council meetings to represent the commission on items of appeal or other projects being
presented. Also, there needs to be a discussion on who sets the agenda, as well as a discussion of
establishing a policy on how recommendations are made to the City Council on items that -may be
beyond the purview of the commission but may still be of interest to the City Council.
C/Li suggested that it seems appropriate f or the chairman to represent the Planning Commission at
City Council meetings.
C/Grothe requested that staff include, in the agenda, a status of upcoming projects.
Chair/Meyer suggested that there also be discussion regarding the information presented in the staff
report to help the Commission, in deliberation, focus the review of projects, and to create consistency
in reviewing various projects before the commission He then remanded the item to the subcommittee.
C/Plamenbaum inquired if there is any violation of law if the Commission was to pass nonbinding
resolutions without adequate public notice.
CA/Curley stated that Commissioners may bring up issues of concern during the Commission Comments portion
of the agenda. If the, concern receives consensus from the Commission 'that it should be brought to someone's
attention, the direction to staff to take that consensus of the issue to whatever bodies appropriate, would not be a
Brown Act violation.
Disc. regarding Chair/Meyer explained that this item was placed on acquisition of the agenda for discussion in response to a great land for
parks deal of demand, resulting from the South Pointe
-17-7
July 26, 1993 Page 3
and/or project deliberation, to be placed on the ballot nat'I area regarding the establishment of a conservancy, or
conservation issuance of bonds to acquire the property at a fair
market value. Perhaps there should be some sort of recommendation by the
Planning Commission to the city council regarding this demand from, what
appeared to be a significant portion of the population in the community.
Additionally, address the issue of exploring public sentiment regarding additional
revenue generation to acquire property within the corporate boundary for
preservation in its existing state.
C/Flamenbaum also suggested that it may be appropriate, under natural area
conservation, to send forth a message to the City Council suggesting the need to
revisit the Tree Ordinance.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Grothe that the
Commission recommend that the city council explore a bond issue f or the
purpose of acquiring open space, and/or unused land in the City of Diamond Bar,
in an amount to be determined by the City Council.
C/Grothe stated that he f eels that the City has higher -needs for bond money
other than acquisition of natural areas to conserve in the City of Diamond Bar,
such as acquiring Site D for active parks, a library, a public facility for uses such
as a pool or gym, etc. For projects to conserve something the size of a Tonner
Canyon, or a Sandstone Canyon, should` be explored on a county -wide or State-
wide basis.
Chair/Meyer concurred that there are a lot of other needs of the City, however,
the reason f or the recommendation to the City Council is not to express a
preference of the Commission but rather to'communicate to them that there
seemed to be a great deal of demand expressed by the citizens for the need to
explore such a bond issue, not limited to just Tonner Canyon and Sandstone
Canyon.
The Commission voted upon the Motion made 'by C/Flamenbaum and seconded
by C/Grothe that the commission recommend that the City Council explore a bond
issue for the purpose of acquiring open space, and/or undeveloped land in the
City of Diamond Bar, in an amount to be determined by the City Council.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Flamenbaum, and Chair/Meyer. NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: Grothe.
d Sign a
July 26, 1993 Page 4
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT:
The Motion CARRIED 3-1.
r Chair/Meyer, responding to C/Flamenbaum's suggestion regarding the tree
ordinance, stated that there must be a,General Plan in place before making
modification of the zoning code to assure that it is consistent with the General
Plan.
NEW BUSINESS: AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the request made by the applicant Acme/Wiley to develop
Sign Program to install a monument sign Program 93-3 six (6) feet in height and 18.21 square feet in sign face area located at 1196 S.
Diamond Bar Blvd. within an existing retail shopping center. It is recommended that the Planning commission approve Planned
Sign Program No. 92-3 with the base of the monument sign constructed from the same block utilized for the wall within the
landscape -area of the project site, the addition of an address plate, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached
resolution. AP/Searcy then stated that Sign No. 8, identified as existing and -on site, is not existing at that location and needs to be
revised on the final set of plans which will be turned into the Planning Department for the Community Development Director's final
approval.
Chair/Meyer noted that there is not a condition requiring the removal of the
existing pole sign to be replaced by the monument sign.
William Barker, representing Acme/Wiley who represents Bank of America, stated
that they concur with the conditions, except that they would prefer to match the
plaster, instead of putting block underneath the sign, because the block is not a
predominate architectural feature in the building, and the use of block is more
expensive. There is a plaster match on Vineyard Bank, Standard Brands, Jack -in -
the Box, and First Interstate Bank. - An exact match of the scored plaster will be
made.. Inrespon—;e'_to Chair/Meyer, he stated,.that he -was not aware of the pole
sign, but it is most -likely the intent of the applicant to replace the pole'if deemed
necessary.
Chair/Meyer requested that a condition be added for the removal of the pole sign.
July 26, 1993 Page 5
C/Flamenbaum expressed, his support to allow the applicant to use the stucco material
for the construction of the monument sign.
C/Grothe stated that, in his opinion, he feels that the building does not need any -
more signs. However, it is for the replacement of a pole sign and he would concur
with staffs recommendation that block be utilized because it is a sturdier material
that will look nicer for a longer period of time. He then suggested that Bank of
America readjust the security lights recently added so as not to intrude on the
neighboring property.
Motion was made by,C/Flamenbaum and seconded by Chair/Meyer to approve
the Planned Sign Program as proposed, amending condition 5(c). from block wall
to stucco, and adding a condition for the removal of the existing pole sign.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fl amen b a u ma n d Chair/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Li. None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk.
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
The Motion
FAILED 2-2.
Motion was made by Chair/Meyer and seconded by C/Li to continue the item to
the next meeting when there will be a full Commission.
CDD/DeStefano explained that staff recommended the utilization of the block
because it is a more durable material than stucco, which often discolors, cracks, -
peels and chips of f of the surf ace generally as a result of watering. The other
reason for recommending block is for
architectural consistency to the existing slump stone block wall, and to the other
existing signs within the Ralphs shopping center that utilize slump stone.
Chair/Meyer asked Mr. Barker if there would be a problem with building the base
and attaching
masonry veneer.
William Barker explained that masonry veneer would not really be compatible with
the building. Bank of America indicated their preference of utilizing stucco
material.
Chair/Meyer withdrew his Motion and C/Li withdrew the second to the motion
July 26, 1993 Page 6
Motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Li to approve the Resolution
approving the Planned Sign Program 93-3 with listed conditions, adding a
condition for the removal of the pole sign.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Grothe, Flamenbaum, and
Chaik/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: None. None. Plunk.
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:
The Motion CARRIED 4-0.
C/Grothe directed staff to investigate the adjustment of the security lights at Bank
of America.
CONTINUED CDD/DeStefano reported that the Planning PUBLIC HEARING: Commission, at the last
meeting, decided to split
the review and decision of CUP 93-4, which is for CUP 93-4 the land use
entitlement of the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages and a bar/lounge with live
entertainment for property located at 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive, and the Development Review for the
restaurant. Pursuant to the direction of the Planning Commission, a resolution approving CUP No. 93-4 has
been prepared for the commission's review. However, it 'is staffs .recommendation that the issues of the CUP
cannot be concluded without knowing the facility to which it would be attached to. It is strongly recommended
that the Commission table the CUP No. 93-4 for the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages and
a bar/lounge with live entertainment until the type of live entertainment is identified and the Development
Review for construction of a restaurant structure is approved.
C/Flamenbaum pointed out that the nature of the
CUP is for a land use application. There is really no question that the particular
site should be anything other than a restaurant.
CDD/DeStefano explained that the restaurant is permitted by right within the C-3-
BE-U/C Zonel- and there is no` question that a restaurant is both needed and
appropriate within the Gateway Corporate Center. Staff is concerned that a CUP
for the sale of alcohol'and for live entertainment runs with the land, and specifically
that CUP is not, --,being attached to a building. Therefore, the- CUP is being
approved for a dirt lot. The appropriateness of the building for the site should be -
determined first, then the decision on the type of alcohol,
July 26, 1993 Page 7
the hours of operation, the type of live entertainment, etc. should be made for
that specific building.
CA/Curley explained that the CUP, while serving as an agreement for the land
use, is also a fine tuning devise to fit the use to the community's needs. The -
Planning Commission could develop a set of the most onerous conditions for
virtually everything that could come up, thus requiring the applicant to come back
and petition the Commission for relief, which may create a more difficult situation
for the applicant. It is questionable if giving an approval to an idea as a marketing
device fits the intent of a CUP.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened.
The applicant, nor the applicant's representative, was not present at the meeting
to provide testimony.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/ti to continue the matter
to the second meeting in August of 1993.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: Li, Grothe, Flamenbaum, and
COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: Chair/Meyer.
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: None. None. Plunk. meeting at 8:15 p.m.
COMMISSIONERS: The Motion The
CARRIED 4-0. Chair/Meyer recessed 8:25 p.m.
the meeting was reconvened at
PUBLIC HEARIIgGS: AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the request made by the applicant
PETsMART to operate a
CUP 93-6 commercial retail pet facility, located at Diamond DR 93-3 Creek Village Shopping Center, 21050
Golden Springs PETsMART Drive, which includes the sale of pets, supplies,
tropical fish and birds, and provides pet grooming and health care services. The Development -Review application
is necessitated by interior and exterior renovation and addition to the existing
building "C". The application is requesting to add approximately -8,398 square
feet to the existing commercial center in a three phase project. The CUP
application is a request for approval to operate a business which features the
retail sales of animals and pet supplies as well as ancillary uses which include
grooming and veterinarian care. It is recommended that the Planning Commission
July 26, 1993 page a
adopt the draft Resolutions of Approval with f indings of f acts and conditions of
approval for the conditional Use Permit and Development Review.
C/Grothe— indicated that he will abstain from discussion of this project due to a
possible conflict of interest.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened.
C/Flamenbaum inquired why the applicant has a vault in one of the three rooms
as indicated on the floor plan, section 202.
Frank Arciero Jr., 950 N. Tustin Ave., Anaheim, one of the owners of the center, stated that he concurs
with the conditions listed by staff except for the Engineering conditions J1, #2, & #4 for the following
reasons: #1 - the parking lot is currently is good condition and does not need to be repaired, slurry
sealed nor restriped; #2 - a prorata share has already been paid and to pay a portion of the overlay
and striping costs for lengths of Golden Springs Drive and Brea Canyon road is a financial burden,
particularly since the striping is adequate enough for the center; and 14 - the owners initially paid a pro
rated share for the modifications of the signals. In regards to Engineering condition #6' he requested
clarification since the parking area already has painted Fire Lane legends. He also inquired how they
would be able to protect the wall from future vandalism or graffiti, as indicated in item #8. Mr. Arciero
stated that a change will be made to the parking area on the back side to make sure that the tractor
trailers are able to circulate through there without interfering with any existing or future parking spaces.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the applicant consider planting overhanging ivy on the wall as a method
of impeding graffiti.
clay Alminchapini, the architect with Kurt Reed Associates, Scottsdale, A-rizona, stated that the issue
of impeding any truck traf f is at the -rear corner of the building has been resolved. He clarified that
PETsMART does not sell dogs and cats! but does have an adoption facility set up inside the store for
the Humane Society. Also, there are no exterior dog runs, nor are there animals kept over night at
these facilities. With the exceptions of those clarifications, PETsMART, nor Kurt Reed Assoc., does not
have any conflict
July 26, 1993 Page 9
with any of the conditions, other than what has been brought up by the
developer. In response to C/Flamenbaum's inquiry, he explained that the vault is
used to count receipts. There is a separate secured storage area in the veterinary
clinic that has been provided for veterinary pharmaceuticals.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing closed.
C/Flamenbaum, in response to the applicant's request to delete Engineering
condition fl, inquired of stat f if the parking lot needs to be slurry sealed.
AP/Searcy explained that the condition is a preventative maintenance task.
Based on Planning staff's review, the subject site does not appear to be in any
type of major disrepair.
The Planning commission concurred to omit Engineering condition #1.
AP/Searcy, in regards to Engineering condition #2, stated that the costs were
generated based upon a
16— prorata share of -the impacts those projects might have on existing infrastructure. However, there was no available
information submitted to the Engineering Department to indicate that the applicant
had participated in any type of program previous to this approval.
The Planning Commission concurred to delete Engineering condition #2.
AP/Searcy stated that Engineering condition #4 runs in the same category as
Engineering condition #2.
C/Flamenbaum pointed out that it may be appropriate that some modification to
the traffic signal be made, as indicated in Engineering condition #4, in an amount
to be determined, since there may be an increase in traffic.
Frank Arciero, Jr. stated that PETsMART traffic is little more than half of the traffic
previously existing National Lumber. When the7" Center was built, the signals were
designed to accommodate the flow of traffic anticipated with National Lumber. The
existing signal is more thanadequate to carry the amount of traffic generated within
the Center.
7-1
JU1Y 26, 1993 Page 10
The Planning Commission concurred to delete Engineering condition #4.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum to approve the Resolution for CUP No. 93-6,
with the removal of Engineering conditions #1, #2, & #4.
C/Flamenbaum withdrew -his motion in order to first take action on the design
review.
CDD/DeStefano stated that, if the Commission considers approval of the design
review first, then it is staff's recommendation that general conditions of approval #4,
#5, #6, & #7 of CUP No. 93-6 be located in Development Review No. 93-3 as
conditions #8, #9, #10, & #11.
Chair/Meyer inquired if this operation would have an impact on the city I s sewer
system, and if a clarifier is required.
clay Alminchapini stated that there are separate hair traps for the bathing area at
the grooming department, as well as for the surgery tub and the health service.
The hair traps are completely isolated, with a separate sewer line before it is tied
into the sanitary sewer.
AP/Searcy stated that those plans will be submitted to the Building Department
during final plan check.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Li to approve
Development Review No. 93-3, moving general conditions of approval #4, #5, #6,
& #7 of CUP No. 93-6 to be located in Development Review No. -93-3 as
conditions #8, #9, #10, & #11.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Flamenbaum, and Chair/Meyer. NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk.
The Motion CARRIED 3-1.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum and seconded by C/Li to adopt a Resolution
approving CUP No. 93-6, deleting Engineering conditions #1, #2, & #4, and
moving general conditions of approval #4, #5, #6, & #7 of CUP No. 93-6 -to be
located in Development Review No. 93-3 as conditions #8, #9, 010, & #11, and
adding a condition to tie -the use of the CUP to the activation and use of the
Development Review application.
%Tuly 26, 1993 Page 11 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Li, Flamenbaum, and Chair/Meyer.
The Motion CARRIED 3-1.
C/Flamenbaum requested stat f , in the future, to number all conditions
consecutively, without differentiating between engineering and general conditions.
CUP 92-13(I) AP/Searcy reported that the application for the Karaoke family karaoke studio, located in the center
at the Studio intersection of Colima Road and Lemon Avenue, was
originally approved by the Planning Commission on November 23, 1992, which
began it's operation late February of 1993. The hours of operation were limited to
the hours between 11:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. midnight Sunday through Thursday
and until 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday with uniformed security on premises.
Some of the concerns f or the project were as follows: the hours of operation; the
security; the noise generated by late night uses within the center; and it's
proximity to the neighborhood residential developments surrounding the project.
The application for the amendment to the CUP would allow the karaoke studio to
expand the hours of operation from the current allowance to 4:00 a.m. daily.
However, staff feels that intensifying the hours of operation would intensify the
use on site. Review of the County's records indicates that there are two karaoke
studios in Rowland Heights and Hacienda Heights that are in operation, both not
extending past the hours of 1:30 a.m.. Additional research indicates that the
County ordinance does not allow live entertainment from the hours of 2:00 a.m. to
6:00 a.m., thus the applicants request to operate between the hours of 2:00 a.m.
to 4:00 a.m. is not in compliance with their business license. Furthermore, the
karaoke studio has been in operation less than 6 months and has not
experienced a complete seasonal cycle of business which can be analyzed. It is
recommended that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution to deny the
applicant's request.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened. Daisy Del Valle, the leasing agent for
the shopping agent, stated that because the karaoke studio is an evening type of
business, some sort of an extension of hours is needed for it to succeed. She
II' -II -17
July 26, 1993 Page 12
submitted a handout on an analysis of the business, done by Mr. Lee, indicating that
the busiest time for his operation is between 12:00 and 2:00 a.m. An extension --of
time during the week should be granted, taken into consideration that alcohol is not
allowed, there have been no problems with the other tenants, and there have been no
problems with the Sheriff Department.
Dong Min Lee, 3461 Marble Ridge Drive, Chino, owner, reviewed the analysis
submitted to the Commission indicating the busiest time for his business. 1—lost
people come to his establishment after work around 9,:00 p.m. during the week, and
between 12:00 a.m. midnight to 2:60 a.m. Friday and Saturday. The biggest complaint
that he receives from his customers is that they need more time. He requested an
extension of,time.
Dan Sobieski, residing at 1248 S. Lemon, opposed the extension of hours during the
week because of the additional traffic in the area for those extended hours, plus the
additional distractions in the neighborhood. it seems tacit the owners should have
sought out a different type of location other than a residential neighborhood.
Betty Woo, residing at 1245 S. Lemon, opposed to the extension of hours, made the
following comments: there are never any families going to the karaoke studio from
12:00 A.m. midnight to 2:00 a.m.; many karaoke studios in Taiwan are not known for
their pleasant atmo'sphdre, and many avoid living 'near one; and this studio is located
in a quiet residential neighborhood and the hours should reflect this.
Jim Molina, residing at 20521 E. Clear Spring Court, stated that he was disturbed by
loud shouting coming from the vicinity of Golden Springs and Lemon Avenue, near the
studio. He expressed his concern that an extension of time will increase activity in the
area, create additional noise and traffic, and that the disturbing noise from the blowers
used. for cleaning the establishment will go late into the night.
Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing -closed
C/Grothe, in support of the staff Is recommendation, stated that the karaoke studio' is
located in a neighborhood shopping center that should remain
July 26„ 1993 Pagp,13
compatible with the quiet residential neighborhood and not the regional area.
C/Li suggested that the hours of operation be extended to 1:00 a.m. weekdays on
a trial basis. He pointed out that there is no correlation between a karaoke studio
in Taiwan and one here, as was indicated by Ms. Woo.
C/Flamenbaum recalled that the Planning Commission had approved this
application, for the hours of operation indicated, as a trial basis because of the
various reports of criminal activities associated with these studios in other outlying
cities. The Commission had recommended that the applicant come back after a
considerable period of time, and if there were no police reports or other
objections, the Commission may consider extending the hours on weekdays. Four
months of operation does not seem to be an adequate period of time for review to
consider extending the hours of operation on weekdays to 2:00 a.m. He stated his
support for staff's recommendation simply becausd there is insufficient data for
analysis. He pointed out that most businesses take at least a year before it
becomes established. The applicant can come back at a. later date with his
request, with the understanding that a 4:00 a.m. extension would never be
supported.
Chair/Meyer concurred with C/Flamenbaum that the Planning commission's
original approval was on a trial period basis, for at least a year, to collect some
data before considering modification of the application. Four months of operation
is an inadequate time for review. The request made is premature.
C/Flamenbaum, noting that the applicant has already paid the application fee,
suggested that the item be tabled for eight months, thus allowing a year of review.
CA/Curley stated that, if it is the consensus of the Commission to take some
action of this sort, he would recommend a continuance to -a date certain, with the
consent of the appiican 't-.—'
6 C/Grothe, preferring not to
continue the matter, stated that if it were to be continued, it should be
republicized and readvertised, particularly to the residents in the area.
July 26, 1993 Page 14
Dong Min Lee stated that to his recollection, the trial period basis was for 6 months
after the opening of the business. The reason for this early application is because the
extension of time is needed for the business' success. 'There have not been any
problems with the 'Studio to date. He requested that the Commission grant an
extension of time.
Chair/Meyer inquired if the applicant would be able to Appeal if the Planning Co
'mmission made a decision to continue the matter. I
CA/Curley stated that, without the consent of the applicant for a continuance, he
would suggest that the Commission take a final action, in the sense of an
approval or denial, due to the Streamlining Act.
motion was made by C/Grothe and seconded by C/Flamenbaum to adopt a
Resolution for Denial without prejudice.
C/Flamenbaum, in response to Chair/Meyer, stated that the intent of continuing the
matter was to save the applicant the fee for having- to refile. There has not been an
adequate time of review to provide the Commission with sufficient information to make
a decision regarding an extension of hours.
Daisy Del Valle stated that Mr. Lee is confused because he was told to come back in 6
months, and he now wonders why he paid the $1, 000 fee. She pointed out that the
commission can pull a condition from the CUP at any time.
Chair/Meyer stated that there is a procedure to revoke a condition of the CUP, which
is a more difficult procedure than placing conditions. The Commission had considered
a continuance with the idea to save the applicant the fee paid.
I
C/Flamenbaum suggested that the meeting be recessed to allow C/Li an -opportunity
to explain the situation to the applicant.
Chair /Meyer ,recessed the meeting at 10:00 p.m. The
meetinq was reconvened-„zljt aq:08
p.1 Cj_./Curley stated that it would be a to pprop
ask the applicant if he has reached any
conclusion.
Dong Min Lee requested that the Commission continue the item.
July 26# 1993 Pag6-15
CA/Curley stated that, if the Commission wishes to entertain a continuance, it is
recommended that the extension not go beyond 120 days and that if more
information is required, it should be presented to the applicant as a component of
the extension.
C/Grothe stated that he would like to keep his motion for -denial, without
prejudice because an additional 120 days would still not give a adequate period
of time for review. The request for additional information may end up costing the
applicant additional money, and it may be least costly to take action on the issue
at this time.
CA/Curley clarified that the City Planning Department applies a flat hourly rate,
which is debited from the initial deposit, so that the total dollar amount for either a
continuance or a denial with a reapplication would remain the same.
The commission voted upon the Motion made by C/Grothe and seconded by
C/Flamenbaum to adopt a Resolution for Denial without prejudice.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Li, Flamenbaum, and
Chair/Meyer.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: None. None. Plunk.
COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT:
The Motion CARRIED 4-0.
Variance 93-2 CDD/DeStefano reported that it is staffs Mobil Service recommendation that the public hearing be
continued Station to the meeting of August 9, 1993 due to scheduling conflicts with the applicant per his request.
Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened.
Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED
matter to themeeting of August 9, 1993. INFORMATIONAL CDD/DeStefano
report that, as Idministrative -ITEMS: Development Director, he approved a new single
family Piermarini home approximately 6,700 square feet. He also
reported that another General Plan _P1 I public hearing is scheduled for July, 27, 1993.
CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will
provide the subcommittee with some Planning Commission's Policy and
Procedures Manual generated from other cities
to help refine our Policy and Procedures Manual. Staff will also resume prior
July 26, 1993 Page 16
commission of upcoming meeting schedules and project scheduling.
C/Flamenbaum suggested that it may be appropriate if the Planning
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar met with the Planning Commissions of -
adjacent cities to keep informed of,each others plans.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/-Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 10:26 p.m.
Respective e i&vel J s DeStefano
eSte a —sD f ai Secretary Attest:
est' i4
d d a rmanyer airma