Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/13/1993CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 13, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman ALLEGIANCE: Meyer. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Vice Chairman Plunk, and Chairman Meyer. C/Flamenbaum arrived at 7:12 p.m. C/Li was absent. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy, City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. C 0 N S E N T Chair/Meyer requested that the minutes of August 9, 1993 be CALENDAR: corrected on page 5, second paragraph to read, "...affects a non conforming status. Most nonconforming Ordinances allow minor Minutes of modification in the scope and scale of a non conformity, if that Aug 9, 1993 & nonconformity is not increased."; and page 7, sixth paragraph, to Aug. 23, 1993 omit the word "structural" and replace the word "to" with "with". Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of August 9, 1993, as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, VC/Plunk, and Chair/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li and Flamenbaum. C/Grothe indicated that he will abstain from voting on the minutes of August 13, 1993 because he was not present during the subject meeting. Motion was made by VC/Plunk, seconded by Chair/Meyer and CARRIED to approve the minutes of August 13, 1993 as presented. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: V C/ P l u n k a n d Chair/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li and Flamenbaum. September 13, 1993 Page 2 STUDY SESSION: CDD/DeStefano explained that the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance study session is meant to be an open discussion Draft Property between the Planning Commissioners, staff, and the Council's Maintenance subcommittee who crafted the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance Ordinance, to generate comment in the early stages of the adoption process for this Ordinance. Those committee members - present this evening are MPT/Papen, President of the DBIA Bob Zirbes, Code Enforcement Officer Al Flores, DBIA Board member Kathy Solice, and Traffic and Transportation Commissioner Don Ury. The City, upon incorporation, adopted Los Angeles County codes dealing with zoning enforcement, animal control, property maintenance, building and structural adherence to code, and, so forth. Through the myriad of the LA County codes, it became increasingly difficult for the City to enforce the regulations important to maintain the quality and character of Diamond Bar. A variety of different cities' Property Maintenance Ordinances were examined, through the efforts of the subcommittee members, and what is believed to be the best parts of those ordinances were pulled and included in the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance for implementation within Diamond Bar. w The City Attorney has reviewed the draft Ordinance, ,rye rP recommending that it be divided into two pieces, Regulations and Standards, and the Abatement Process, and a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, Bill Woods, has also reviewed the documents during the drafting process. It is recommended that the Planning Commission open the meeting and receive public comment, and that the Planning Commissioner provide direction or comment to staff and the working committee. Bob Zirbes, the President of the DBIA, explained that the right to enforce the CC&R's was granted to DBIA in 1990 by assignment from the TransAmerica Corporation. One of the major functions of the DBIA has been the abatement of property violations. Ninety five percent of the homeowners in violation will almost immediately comply with the DBIA's requests. However, one of the problems are that the CC&R's are not uniformed City wide, and, because of the age of a majority of tracts in Diamond 'Bar, many are set to expire the beginning of next year. Furthermore, according to District Attorney Bill Woods, the current Ordinance followed by the City, Chapter 99, is not fully enforceable, thus creating the desire to draft our own standards. Many areas in the a City are beginning to degenerate, detracting from the overall appearance and property values of the neighborhood. The Property Maintenance standards were drafted by people who have exposure to these types of issues. These standards will not September 13, 1993 Page 3 replace nor conflict with current CC&R's. However, these standards will govern those tracts where the CC&R's are set to expire. C/Flamenbaum stated that he does not have any difficulty with the intent of the Property Maintenance Standards, but he is concerned that the standards are written broad brushed, leaving many holes in it's definition, particularly items #2, #4, #5, #6, #8, and #10. The standards need to be more succinct, or specific in terminology as to what they apply to. He stated the following examples: it is not specifically stated if the standards apply to homes, commercial structures, or both; how is "abandon or vacate" defined in item #2; items #4 and #5 do not address vacant land; how is "operable condition" defined in item #6; front yards, back yards, and rear yards are not defined in terms of how the lines are drawn; "unprotected" is not defined in item #8 (B); and item #10 appears to apply to commercial areas, which is does not seem contiguous with the rest of standards which seem to apply to homes. C/Grothe, referring to items #4, #5, and #6, stated that if the ' intent is to have owners maintain and landscape all of their hills, ithen the City should also maintain -it's property in the same manner. However, those residents who don't water or landscape their hillsides actually meet the City's Hillside Management Ordinance which talks about maintaining the natural characteristic of the landscape. VC/Plunk stated that the standards are written in such a manner that those outside the system may not understand the intent because they are nebulously written. Referring to item #14, VC/Plunk inquired how the size of a commercial vehicle is determined. Al Flores explained that the Sheriff Department is usually consulted before making a determination on the weight of the vehicle. The City does not go looking for violators but rather responds to complaints, unless there is a safety hazard involved to the public. In response to C/Grothe's concern, Al Flores stated that weeds on vacant land are taken care of by the Weed Abatement District and the Fire Department, not by the City. C/Flamenbaum expressed his concern that, though the City's intent is to be reactive rather than proactive, the draft ordinance, as written, does not indicate that the Code Enforcement Officer will only respond upon receipt of a valid complaint. September 13, 1993 Page 4 CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the document will be brought hili back to the Commission again for review once the document has been refined, taking into consideration the comments made this evening. MPT/Papen, residing at 1124 Cleghorn, explained that this issue has been a concern throughout the community. There are multiple neighborhoods where properties are not maintained to the standards of the other homeowners in the tract. Many people are concerned about maintaining high property values, and the aesthetic appeal of the community. There are problem homes that are difficult to enforce through the CC&R process, which can take up to a year to handle and is often times inefficient in dealing with the situation. The intent is to look for a way to streamline this process. The subcommittee would like the Planning Commission to review the definitions and the standards, and then make a recommendation to the City Council as to what would be acceptable for the Development Standards of this community. Chair/Meyer suggested that the subcommittee use the statement made by MPT/Papen as the goal of the Property Maintenance Ordinance. It is helpful, from an enforcement standpoint, if the goal, the intent, and the purpose were spelled out in the Ordinance. MPT/Papen also pointed out that most of the drafts used in this document came from well established cities where the average house would be about 30+ years old. The subcommittee looked at not only what is needed for today, but what would be effective in the long range in a consistent application of standards. The subcommittee focused on such issues as public safety, and stayed away from items that could be construed as a personal preference. Chair/Meyer made the following comments on the draft Ordinance: there should be an intent and goal section in the document; code enforcement tends to become a free legal service for neighborhood disputes; perhaps a system of incentives can be utilized in the code enforcement program to encourage people to maintain their property in a reasonable fashion; it is not clear in the abatement section if one is dealing with infractions or misdemeanors; there needs to be input from the City Attorney and the District Attorney if the standards are enforceable; the standards need to be written in a more clear and concise manner' to avoid a judgment call as to what is considered a public nuisance; there is no appeal process; and there should be clearly defined units of measurement to determine a hazardous condition. September 13, 1993 Page 5 Al Flores stated that the response received from the District -' Attorney on August 6, 1993 indicated that the Ordinance as drafted could be effectively enforced by the City. He noted that there is a hearing process for the right of appeal. Chair/Meyer pointed out that the receipt of notice for the hearing process is not clearly defined regarding how the actual receipt of notice is determined, nor how the 7 day period is measured. One could also debate if a pool is considered to be a landscaping item or a structure. These type of issues can be taken care of by the attorneys. However, the goal, the intent, and the purpose should specifically outline the City's intent for this Ordinance. VC/Plunk suggested that the Commission compile their comments on the draft Ordinance and submit it to staff this week. C/Grothe reiterated his concern for items #5 and #6, and warned that the City should expect a fight from those homeowners with properties facing the street if a complaint is ever filed. In regards to item #14, he stated that it should not be a violation for a person to have a service vehicle parked in his driveway if it is used as part of his business. Don Gravdahl pointed out that Japanese 1/4 ton pickups receive commercial license plates unless it has a permanent camper shell. Also, many full size "1 /2" ton pickups with heavy duty suspension have a gross weight of 6,400 pounds. There are many mini vans, or 1/2 ton vans, not weighing 3 tons, but should be considered commercial vehicles because of the logos painted on the side. He also pointed out that if people are required to move their motor homes, the City could lose a lot of revenue in gas, VC/Plunk, noting that many City trees are overgrown, stated that the City should be required to do anything that is being required by the Ordinance. Chair/Meyer opened the meeting for public comment. Edie MacDowell stated that she deserves to live in a nice, well maintained safe environment, given the amount of property tax paid each year. Furthermore, commercial vehicles belong in com ercial areas. The City needs a Property Maintenance Ordi ance that is enforceable. Jack Clare, residing at 24215 Gem Court, stated that many of the hom s in his neighborhood are not maintained. Some of the September 13, 1993 Page 6 14, ppi problems include: front yards that do not have grass; overgrown' weeds; trash cans left out all week; XMAS lights left on all year; and homes that need painting. Rick Imperial, residing at 1318 Crestmont Drive, stated that he does not have a personal vendetta against those that do- not maintain their yards in his neighborhood, however, it is frustrating that nothing can be done to remedy the situation. Many people moved to Diamond Bar for it's prestige and beauty, and something should be done to preserve that. Richard Engdahl, residing at 24051 Willow Creek, stated that,;, in the last 28 years residing in Diamond Bar, he has noted, a deterioration in the area. The Planning Commission should be offering the subcommittee more encouragement in their efforts. Since the District Attorney has approved the matter, then the Commission should focus on the overall attempt, and make a recommendation on that basis. Kevin Chirb, a resident, concurring with the individuals that spoke previously, stated that he will be forced to move if things continue to go in a downward trend. ti,Eyrt Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, pointed out that there is a recession -and many people may not have the means, at this time, to change the appearance of their front and back yards,. Hearing no further comment, Chair/Meyer closed the meeting. C/Flamenbaum encouraged those individuals in favor of the Ordinance to attend the Planning Commission and the City Council meeting during their review of, the Ordinance because there are many individuals opposed to it. VC/Plunk pointed out that one of the goals of the ordinance is, the stabilization of the community and the property values. Chair/Meyer thanked the subcommittee for their efforts in, the drafting of the Property Maintenance Ordinance. The ordinance will be back before the Planning Commission in final form for a recommendation to the City Council for their consideration.; He reiterated the importance of laying out the intent, which sets the Jy broad framework of what the City is trying to achieve. The intent to stabilize our community and property values is good, however, it is important to maintain tolerance of our neighbors. r September 13, 1993 Page 7 Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:38 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:53 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: CDD\DeStefano reported that the City Council, via its subcommittee, in conjunction with the Historical Society, has Review of approved a design and four locations for installation of the entry Entrance Signs signs. Pursuant to the City's sign Code, the Planning Commission is required by the Sign Ordinance to review and comment on all City entry signs. The sign locations have been proposed for the medians at the following locations: southbound Diamond Bar Blvd. south of Temple; northbound Diamond Bar Blvd. east of Brea Canyon Road; westbound Grand Ave. west of Longview Dr.; and eastbound Grand Ave. east of State Route 57 freeway. Pursuant to the Sign Code, official City signs located at the City limits are exempt signs. The Planning Commission's comments will be forwarded to the City Council and City Manager. VC/Plunk expressed her opinion that the City's entrance signs should not be exempt from the Sign Ordinance. It seems that it would have been more appropriate had the matter first been presented to the Planning Commission for a variance before going to the City Council. C/Grothe suggested that the standards could have been improved and the letters enlarged. Chair/Meyer opened the meeting for public comment. Don Gravdahl, a member of the Historical Society, made the following explanations as to how the design of the sign was determined: it is designed to hold an 8 foot wide banner or a two 4x3 foot banner to advertise City events; it is graffiti resistant; bougainvillaea can be planted at the base, camouflaging the steel sign post; the rustic appearance was desired for authenticity; and there will be a one inch pipe on the bottom to hold the sign. When the signs are properly mounted, they should have a pleasant appearance. C/Grothe stated that it would have appreciated has the Planning Commission been given a presentation during the design phase of the entrance signs. He suggested that articles be printed in the local newspapers explaining the significance of the design of the sign. C/Flamenbaum stated that he likes the design of the sign but is troubled with the height, which is in clear violation of the City's September 13, 1993 Page 8 �q;;1,y Sign Ordinance.;PI'i Chair/Meyer reported that Senior Engineer David Liu indicated that the sign had been reviewed by the Engineering staff and they determined that the sign would not impede visibility for the motoring public. He then stated that it appears, relative to our review of those signs in the public right-of-way, that it isn't as important to meet the sign code requirements as it is to achieve the intent of the law. Don Gravdahl stated that there is an article in the the Windmill from the Historical Society regarding the entrance signs. CONTINUED Chair/Meyer reported that the applicant made a written request for PUBLIC HEARING: a continuance for DR No. 93-1 and CUP 93-4. It is recommended by staff that the hearing date be continued to October 11, 1993 Development in order to have sufficient time to review the revised plans for this Review No. 93-1 project. & CUP No. 93-4 Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened. Hearing no testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed, and to be continued. Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue DR No. 93-1 and CUP 93-4 to October 11, 1993. ANNOUNCEMENT CDD/DeStefano stated that as Administrative Development S: Director, he approved the following four specific projects: the addition of a 275 square foot cooler to the existing Diamond Jinn's Dairy; a 2,800 square foot addition to an existing 5,000 square foot residence at 2331 Clear Creek; a minor architectural change to a new Pizza Hut located within the Sunset Village Shopping Center on Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Boulevard; and', an amendment to a previous single family home project approved November of 1992 located at 2625 Blaze Trail. CDD/DeStefano then made the following announcements: the Economic Resource Strategic Planning subcommittee, consisting of C/Forbing and C/MacBride, held a second Roundtable on September 9, 1,993 meeting; there will be a court hearing on September 24, 1893 dealing with the appropriateness of the City Clerk's decision to reject the referendum petition; and the first public hearing or) the " k South Point Master Plan is scheduled for September 14, 1993 at 7:00 p.m.. i f I� September 13, 1993 Page 9 C/Flamenbaum reported that he and C/Li, as members of the Planning Commission's Procedural Policy subcommittee met and concurred that it would be beneficial to combine parts of the City of San Bernardino's Planning Commission's manual with the present City of Diamond Bar's manual, providing that the following are done: the formation of a coordinating subcommittee to work with staff to identify those items coming up on the agenda and future agendas, future projects, and future plans; there should be a mechanism as to how the agenda is set, allowing any Commissioner to request an item to be placed on the next available agenda; create the office of Sergeant at Arms to control ruckus debate; and a policy, concerning a split vote, by which a split vote would connote a negative action, a denial of the request. C/Flamenbaum stated that a formalized report will be presented to the Commission after the subcommittee has had the final meeting. Chair/Meyer suggested that the subcommittee reconsider allowing each Commissioner independently to place an item on the agenda because such an action may allow one Commissioner an opportunity to hamstring the Planning Commission by loading up the agenda. It may be more appropriate to require a consensus of the Commission for requests of items on the agenda. If there is an urgency item, then the Chairman can be given authority, working with the Secretary, to place it on the agenda. ClGrothe requested staff to investigate if the Mobile Home Park on Washington Avenue is following the requirements set by the City. VC/Plunk suggested that the Planning Commission consider changing the meeting place to a smaller room more appropriate in size for the crowd attending the meeting- Chair/Meyer reported that the Planning commission's decision of the Mobile Oil sign is being appealed to the City Council. He inquired if it would be appropriate to have a representative of the Planning Commission attend the City Council meeting to reiterate the Commission's decision. CDD/DeStefano stated that, in an appeal, to ensure that the Council understands the issues relating to the Planning r" Commission's decision, the City Council receives the Planning Commission's staff report, minutes of all the meetings, and a newly prepared staff report. The Planning Commission's decision, even if it is at odds with staff's recommendation, is the recommendation presented to the City Council. Staff will also September 13, 1993 Page 10 report on some of the factors discussed by the Planning Commission, if so desired by the City Council. Staff will keep the Commission informed when the date of the appeal has been set. Chair/Meyer suggested that the Procedural Manual also address the issue of whether it is appropriate for an individual Planning Commissioner to address the City Council, during the public hearing process, as a representative of the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, motion was made by VC/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectively, games DeStefano Secretary Attest: 4id eyer Chair an i N,,�. inutes CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION r CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Vice Chairman Plunk, and Chairman Meyer. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy, City Attorney C 0 N S E N T Chair/Meyer requested that the minutes of August 9, 1993 be CALENDAR: corrected on page 5, second paragraph to read, "...affects a non conforming status. Most nonconforming Ordinances allow minor modification in the scope and scale of a non conformity, if that Aug 9, 1993 & nonconformity is not increased."; and page 7, sixth paragraph, to Aug.23,1993 omit the word "structural' and replace the word "to" with "with". Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of August 9, 1993, as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, VC/Plunk, and Chair/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li and Flamenbaum. C/Grothe indicated that he will abstain from voting on the minutes of August 13, 1993 because he was not present during the subject Motion was made by VC/Plunk, seconded by Chair/Meyer and presented. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: V C/ P I u n k a n d Chair/Meyer. NOES. ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. CDD/DeStefano explained that the draft Property Maintenance rdinance study session- is meant to be an open discussion Draft Property lbetween the Planning Commissioners, staff, and the Council's STUDY SESSION: Maintenance subcommittee who crafted the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance Ordinance, to generate comment in the early stages of the adoption process for this Ordinance. Those committee members - resent this evening are MPT/Pa en, President of the DBIA Bob irbes, Code Enforcement Officer Al Flores, DBIA Board member Kathy Solice, and Traffic and Transportation Commissioner Don Ur .The Cit , upon incorporation, adopted Los Angeles Count odes dealing with zoning enforcement, animal control, property maintenance, building and structural adherence to code, and so forth. Through themyriad of the LA County codes, it became ncreasingly difficult for the City to enforce the regulations m ortant to maintain the quality and character of Diamond Bar. variety of different cities' Property Maintenance Ordinances ere examined, through the efforts of the subcommittee members, and what is believed to be the best parts of those ordinances were pulled and included in the draft Property Maintenance Ordinance for implementation within Diamond Bar. The City Attorney has reviewed the draft Ordinance, recommending that it be divided into two pieces, Regulations and Standards, and the Abatement Process, and a Los Angeles Count Deputy District Attorney, Bill Woods, has also reviewed the documents during the drafting process. It is recommended that he Planning Commission open the meeting and receive public comment, and that the Planning Commissioner provide direction r comment to staff and the working committee. Bob Zirbes, the President of the DBIA, explained that the right to enforce the CC&R's was granted to DBIA in 1990 by assignment from the TransAmerica Corporation. One of them major functions of the DBIA has been the abatement of property violations. Ninety five percent of the homeowners in violation will almost immediately comply with the DBIA's requests. However, one of the problems are that the CC&R's are not uniformed City wide, and, because of the age of a majority of tracts in Diamond Bar, many are set to expire the beginning of next year. Furthermore, according to District Attorney Bill Woods, the current Ordinance followed by the City, Chapter 99, is not fully enforceable, thus creating the desire to draft our own standards. Many areas in the City are beginning to degenerate, detracting from the overall appearance and property values of the neighborhood. The Property Maintenance standards were drafted by people who have exposure to these types of issues. September 13, 1993 Pagoe 3 replace nor conflict with current CC&R's. However, these standards will govern those tracts where the CC&R's are set to expire. C/Flamenbaum stated that he does not have any difficulty with the intent of the Property Maintenance Standards, but he is concerned that the standards are written broad brushed, leaving many holes in it's definition, particularly items #2, #4, #5, #6, #8, and #10. The standards need to be more succinct, or specific in terminology as to what they apply to. He stated the following examples: it is not specifically stated if the standards apply to homes, commercial structures, or both; how is "abandon or vacate" defined in item #2; items #4 and #5 do not address vacant land; how is "operable condition" defined in item #6; front yards, back yards, and rear yards are not defined in terms of how the lines are drawn; "unprotected" is not defined in item #8 (B); and item #10 appears to apply to commercial areas, which is does not seem contiguous with C/Grothe, referring to items #4, #5, and #6, stated that if the intent is to have owners maintain and landscape all of their hills, then the City should also maintain -it's property in the same manner. However, those residents who don't water or landscape their hillsides actually meet the City's Hillside Management Ordinance which talks about maintaining the natural characteristic of the VC/Plunk stated that the standards are written in such a manner that those outside the system may not understand the intent because they are nebulously written. Referring to item #14, VC/Plunk inquired how the size of a commercial vehicle is Al Flores explained that the Sheriff Department is usually consulted before making a determination on the weight of the vehicle. The City does not go looking for violators but rather responds to complaints, unless there is a safety hazard involved to the public. In response to C/Grothe's concern, Al Flores stated that weeds on vacant land are taken care of by the Weed Abatement District and the Fire C/Flamenbaum expressed his concern that, though the City's intent is to be reactive rather than proactive, the draft ordinance, as written. does not indicate that the Code Enforcement Officer will September 13, 1993 Page 4 CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the document will be brought back to the Commission again for review once the document has been refined, taking into consideration the comments made this evening. MPT/Papen, residing at 1124 Cleghorn, explained that this issue has been a concern throughout the community. There are multiple neighborhoods where properties are not maintained to the standards of the other homeowners in the tract. Many people are concerned about maintaining high property values, and the aesthetic appeal of the community. There are problem homes that are difficult to enforce through the CC&R process, which can take up to a year to handle and is often times inefficient in dealing with the situation. The intent is to look for a way to streamline this process. The subcommittee would like the Planning Commission to review the definitions and the standards, and then make a recommendation to the City Council as to what would -be acceptable for the Development Standards of this community. Chair/Meyer suggested that the subcommittee use the statement made by MPT/Papen as the goal of the Property Maintenance Ordinance. It is helpful, from an enforcement standpoint, if the goal, the intent, and the purpose were spelled out in The Ordinance. MPT/Papen also pointed out that most of the drafts used in this document came from well established cities where the average house would be about 30 + years old. The subcommittee looked at not only what is needed for today, but what would be effective in the long range in a consistent application of standards. the subcommittee focused on such issues as public safety, and stayed Chair/Meyer made the following comments on the draft Ordinancethere should be an intent and goal section in the document; code enforcement tends to become a free legal service for neighborhood disputes; perhaps a system of incentives can be utilized in the code enforcement program to encourage people to maintain their property in a reasonable fashion; it is not clear in the abatement section if one is dealing with infractions or misdemeanors; there needs to be input f rom the City Attorney and the District Attorney if the standards are enforceable; the standards need to be written in a more clear and concise manner to avoid a judgment call as to what is considered a public nuisance; there is no appeal process; and there should be clearly defined units of September 13, 1993 Page 5 Al Flores stated that the response received from the District Attorney on August 6, 1993 indicated that the Ordinance as drafted could be effectively enforced by the City. He noted that there is a hearing process for the right of appeal. Chair/Meyer pointed out that the receipt of notice for the hearing process is not clearly defined regarding how the actual receipt of notice is determined, nor how the 7 day period is measured. One could also debate if a pool is considered to be a landscaping item or a structure. These type of issues can be taken care of by the attorneys. However, the goal, the intent, and the purpose should VC/Plunk suggested that the Commission compile their comments C/Grothe reiterated his concern for items #5 and #6, and warned that the City should expect a fight from those homeowners with properties facing the street if a complaint is ever filed. In regards to item #14, he stated that it should not be a violation for a person to have a service vehicle parked in his driveway if it is used as part of his business. Don Gravdahl pointed out that Japanese 1/4 ton pickups receive commercial license plates unless it has a permanent camper shell. Also, many full size " 1 /2" ton pickups with heavy duty suspension have a gross weight of 6,400 pounds. There are many mini vans, or 1/2 ton vans, not weighing 3 tons, but should be considered commercial vehicles because of the logos painted on the side. He also pointed out that if people are required to move their motor VC/Plunk, noting that many City trees are overgrown, stated that the City should be required to do anything that is being required by the Chair/Meyer opened the meeting for public comment. Edie MacDowell stated that she deserves to live in a nice, well . tained safe environment, given the amount of property tax I paid each year. Furthermore, commercial vehicles belong in com ercial areas. The City needs a Property Maintenance Ordi ance that is enforceable. i Jack Clare, residing at 24215 Gem Court, stated that many of the hom s in his neighborhood are not maintained. Some of the September 13, 1993 Page 6 problems include: front yards that do not have grass; overgrown weeds; trash cans left out all week; XMAS lights left on all year; Rick Imperial, residing at 1318 Crestmont Drive, stated that he does not have a personal vendetta against those that do - not maintain their yards in his neighborhood, however, it is frustrating that nothing can be done to remedy the situation. Many people moved to Diamond Bar for it's prestige and beauty, and something Richa 'rd Engdahl, residing at 24051 Willow Creek, stated that,1 in the last 28 years residing in Diamond Bar, he has noted a deterioration in the area. The Planning Commission should be offering the subcommittee more encouragement in their efforts. Since the District Attorney has approved the matter, then the Commission should focus on the overall attempt, and make a Kevin Chirb, a resident, concurring with the individuals that spoke previously, stated that he will be forced to move if things continue to Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, pointed out that there is a recession,and many people may not have the means, at this time, Hearing no further comment, Chair/Meyer closed the meeting. CI/Flamenbaum encouraged those individuals in favor of the Ordinance to attend the Planning Commission and the City Council ing during their review of the Ordinance because there are VC/Plunk pointed out that one of the goals of the ordinance is—,the stabilization of the community and the property values. Chair/Meyer thanked the subcommittee for their efforts in the drafting of the Property Maintenance Ordinance. The ordinance will be back before the Planning Commission in final form for a recommendation to the City Council for their consideration.— He reiterated the importance of laying out the intent, which sets the broad framework of what the City is trying to achieve. The intent to stabilize our community and property values is good, however, it is September 13, 1993 Page 7 Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:38 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:53 p.m. NEW BUSINESS: CDD\DeStefano reported that the City Council, via its subcommittee, in conjunction with the Historical Society, has Review of approved a design and four locations for installation of the entry Entrance Signs signs. Pursuant to the City's sign Code, the Planning Commission is required by the Sign Ordinance to review and comment on all City entry signs. The sign locations have been proposed for the medians at the following locations: southbound Diamond Bar Blvd. south of Temple; northbound Diamond Bar Blvd. east of Brea Canyon Road; westbound Grand Ave. west of Longview Dr.; and eastbound Grand Ave. east of State- Route 57 freeway. Pursuant to the Sign Code, official City signs located atthe City limits are exempt signs. The Planning Commission's comments will be forwarded to the City VC/Plunk expressed her opinion that the City's entrance signs should not be exempt from the Sign Ordinance. It seems that it would have been more appropriate had the matter first been presented to the Planning Commission for a variance before going to the City Council. C/Grothe suggested that the standards could have been improved Chair/Meyer opened the meeting for public comment. Don Gravdahl, a member of the Historical Society, made the following explanations as to how the design of the sign was determined: it is designed to hold an 8 foot wide banner or a two 4x3 foot banner to advertise City events; it is graffiti resistant; bougainvillaea can be planted at the base, camouflaging the steel sign post; the rustic appearance was desired for authenticity; and there will be a one inch pipe on the bottom to hold the sign. When the signs are properly mounted, they should have a pleasant appearance. C/Grothe stated that it would have appreciated has the Planning Commission been given a presentation during the design phase of the entrance signs. He suggested that articles be printed in the r - local newspapers explaining the significance of the design of the sign. C/Flamenbaum stated that he likes the design of the sign but is troubled with the height, which is in clear violation of the City's i 77-71-' -!17177' September 13,-1993 Page 8 Sign Ordinance. Chair/Meyer reported that Senior Engineer David Liu indicated that the sign had been reviewed by the Engineering staff and they determined that the sign would not impede visibility for the motoring public. He then stated that it appears, relative to our review of those signs in the public right-of-way, that it isn't as important to meet the sign code requirements as it is to achieve the intent of the law. Don Gravdahl stated that there is an article in the the Windmill from the Historical Society regard-ing the entrance signs. CONTINUED Chair/Meyer reported that the applicant made a written request for a continuance for DR No. 93-1 and CUP 93-4. It is recommended by staff that the hearing date be continued to October 11, 1993 in order Development to have sufficient time to review the revised plans for this project. Review No. 93-1 Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing opened. Hearing no testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. and to be continued-. Motion was'made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue DR No". 93-1 and CUP 93-4 to October 11, 1993. ANNOUNCEMENT CDD/DeStefano stated that as Administrative Development S: Director, he approved the following four specific projects: the addition of a 275 square foot cooler to the existing Diamond Jim's Dairy; a 2,800 square foot addition to an existing 5,000 square foot residence at 2331 Clear Creek; a minor architectural change to a new Pizza Hut located within the Sunset Village Shop6 ing Center on Grand Ave. and Diamond Bar Boulevard; ands an amendment to a previous single family home project approved November of 1992 located at 2625 Blaze Trail. CDD/DeStefano then made the following announcements: the Economic Resource Strategic Planning subcommittee, consisting of C/Forbing and C/MacBride, held a second Roundtable on September 9, 1993 meeting; there will be a court hearing on September 24, 1993 dealing with the appropriateness of the City r7 September 13, 1993 Page 9 C/Flamenbaurn reported that he and C/Li, as members of the Planning Commission's Procedural Policy subcommittee met and concurred that it would be beneficial to combine parts of the City of San Bernardino's Planning Commission's manual with the present City of Diamond Bar's manual, providing that the following are done: the formation of a coordinating subcommittee to work with staff to identify those items coming up on the agenda and future agendas, future projects, and future plans; there should be a mechanism as to how the agenda is set, allowing any Commissioner to request an item to be placed on the next available agenda; create the office of Sergeant at Arms to control ruckus debate; and a policy, concerning a split vote, by which a split vote would, connote a negative action, a denial of the request. C/Flamenbaurn stated that a formalized report will be presented to the Commission after the subcommittee has had the final meeting. Chair/Meyer suggested that the subcommittee reconsider allowing each Commissioner independently to place an item on the agenda because such an action may allow one Commissioner an opportunity to hamstring the Planning Commission by loading up the agenda. It may be more appropriate to require a consensus of the Commission for requests of items on the agenda. If there is an urgency item, then the Chairman can be given authority, working with the Secretary, to place it on the agenda. C/Grothe requested staff to investigate if the Mobile Home Park on Washington Avenue is following the requirements set by the City. VC/Plunk suggested that the Planning Commission consider changing the meeting place to a smaller room more appropriate in size for the crowd attending the meeting. Chair/Meyer reported that the Planning commission's decision of the Mobile Oil sign is being appealed to the City Council. He inquired if it would be appropriate to have a representative of the Planning Commission attend the City Council meeting to reiterate the Commission's decision. CDD/DeStefano stated that, in an appeal, to ensure that the Council understands the issues relating to the Planning Commission's decision, the City Council receives the Planning Commission's staff report, minutes of all the meetings, and a newly prepared staff report. The Planning Commission's decision, even if it is at odds with staffs recommendation, is the recommendation presented to the City Council. Staff will also F-71 7711177 SepteTaber 13, 1993 Page 10 report on some of the factors discussed by the Planning Commission, if so desired by the City Council. Staff will keep the Commission informed when the date of the appeal has been set. Chair/Meyer suggested that the Procedural Manual also address the issue of whether it is appropriate for an individual Planning Commissioner to address the City Council, during the public hearing process, as a representative of the Planning Commission. With no further business to conduct, motion was made by VC/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUS LY to adjourn ADJOURNMENT the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectively, /A II ames DeStefano Secretary Attest: J,6id eyer Chair an