Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/11/1994MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR April 11, 1994 CALL TO ORDER Vice Chairwoman Plunk called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Fong. ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chairwoman Plunk; Commissioners: Flamenbaum, Schad, and Fong Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Associate Planner Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; and Recording Secretary Liz Myers -, Absent: Chairman Meyer (excused) I r, d MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of March 28, 1994 CDD/DeStefano stated that the Minutes of March 28, 1994 will be amended to indicate his absence at that meeting. C/Fong, noting that page 2 is missing from the Planning Commission's copies of the minutes, requested that a complete version of the Minutes of March 28, 1994 be brought back at the next meeting for consideration. The Planning Commission concurred to table the matter. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS 2. Review and Recommendation Regarding Fences & walls AP/Searcy reported that the Planning Commission directed staff to investigate development standards in other cities and compare those standards with the City's current development standards relating to fences and block walls mainly in front l� 1 :I II II'1IIIIIIIII 1...�.,_ Tr --F I - 1 ill 1111 11 11 fli 1 April 11, 1994 Page 2 yard setbacks. He then reviewed current City development standard and the comparative study of the standards in other cities, as outlined in the staff report, which indicated that Diamond Bar's current development standard is consistent with other communities. He stated that staff feels the current standard is an effective tool for addressing requirements for walls and fences, and to address any basis for modification of that standard. However, if the Planning Commission desires an alteration of the policy, he reviewed the following possible alternatives to address the requirements for walls: 1. Maintain current ' development standards and processing procedures; 2. Create a policy whereby staff can utilize the Yard Modification procedure to address minor modifications (5 ft. maximum height of fences in the front yard setback with non -view obstructing materials) within The Country.Estates; and 3. Develop a policy that would allow front yard fences within The Country Estates to be constructed up t6'6 ft. in height. It is recommended that the Planning Commission take no action to change the policy in effect'. However, should the Planning Commission. desires a modification to the policy, it is recommended that. the Planning Commission allow staff the discretion to use a 5 ft. height limit with non -view obstructing material for any fences that may exceed the current development standard. C/Schad inquired if current policy requires a permit and Planning Department review for the construction of walls. AP/Searcy stated that the current Development Code only requires a permit for block walls over 6 feet. However, any wall constructed with pilasters must be permitted by the Building Department. He stated that staff would suggest that' all fences and walls be permitted, or require Planning) Department and Building Department review, because sometimes a problem does occur with people constructing walls within the! easement or the dedicated area. C/Schad, concerned with cracking and leaning walls throughout; the community, inquired if requiring permits for walls andi fences over 4 feet would provide for better constructing; procedures. AP/Searcy suggested that it would be preferable if any block wall required some type of permit and review. He explained that because the City does not require contractors to obtain a business license, it is very difficult to track the quality of some of the contractors. i C/Schad stated that, when it is appropriate for discussion, he would recommend that the City consider utilizing a more stringent standard requiring permits for all block walls. "��r..i° �4'` April 11, 1994 Page 3 C/Flamenbaum suggested that since only about 5 to 10 walls a year, out of the approximate 10,000 residences with block walls, have suffered damage, perhaps during an earthquake, due to poor construction, it may not be appropriate to burden the entire community with a permit requirement. AP/Searcy pointed out that, as a health and safety issue, the community would benefit from quality construction guaranteed with a more stringent permit requirement. He stated that currently a variance is required to exceed the standards. However, a variance requires a public hearing, which is more costly for the applicant than a permit, should the policy be amended. CDD/DeStefano stated that the Planning Commission recently held a public hearing on a variance application requesting relief from the development standards to construct a wall in the front yard setback. This application resulted in Planning Commission direction to staff to review the current development standards and investigate any other tools available in the City's code that -could be utilized. He stated that staff has determined it would be inappropriate to i" allow the proliferation of 6 ft. high walls in the front yard, for reasons indicated in the staff report, and if there are circumstances supporting a variance, it should be handled through the appropriate means, either the yard modification or the variance. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take no action to change, the policy currently in effect. Acting Chair/Plunk inquired why The Country Estates was singled out in one of the alternatives. AP/Searcy explained that The Country Estates is unique with its large lots, bigger than average frontages, and some of the homes are constructed further back from the right-of-way. He stated that most of the interest for a variance, on the part of residents, occur in The Country Estates. He then reported that staff has recently received an application applying for a variance to construct a non -view obstructing wrought iron fence with pilasters to be constructed in the front yard setback, of a home in The Country, indicating safety concerns. C/Schad inquired if The Country Estates' Home Owners Association (HOA) would have guidelines regarding the construction of walls in the front yard setback. + AP/Searcy stated that the only HOA guideline he is aware of is the design plan must be submitted for review and approval of -by the architectural committee. April 11, 1994 Page 4 �I Apr, C/Flamenbaum suggested that the Planning Commission consider the staff report received and filed, and that no action be taken. AP/Searcy noted that there is a member of the audience that desires to speak on the issue. Acting Chairwoman opened the meeting and invited those wishing to speak to come forward. Mrs. Rona, residing at 23107 Ridgeline Road in The Country, who currently has filed an application for a variance, explained that because her family has been victimized by four' (4) cases of vandalism in the last year, they have requested a variance to construct a 6 foot wall in the front yard setback for security reasons. She offered to submit photos to the Planning Commission illustrating the damage done to her, home. CDD/DeStefano explained to the Planning Commission that Mrs. Rona's request for a variance is currently being processed. It is being scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission next month. Therefore, the Planning Commission should be cautious with respect to the details of this case.i He stated that Mrs. Rona could leave the photos with staff, 10 which will be part of the public record. ICA/Montgomery advised Mrs. Rona to submit her photos to staffs at a later time since the ,public hearing is pending. AP/Searcy, in response to Acting Chair/Plunk, stated that one of staff's suggested alternatives to the current policy might be to allow staff to use the yard modification -procedure,, rather than a variance procedure, to allow people _to constructs' fences higher than 42" up to 5' of non view obstructing] material, thus expediting processing of those projects that, are not a gross non-compliance of the current standard. There being no one else wishing to speak, Acting Chair/Plunk closed the meeting, and returned the matter to -the Planning' Commission for consideration. C/Schad recommended that the public hearing for Mrs. Rona's application for a variance be scheduled for public hearing before the Planning Commission•as soon as possible. C/Flamenbaum pointed out that a 6' wall in the front yard setback would not provide security. He stated that the Code ara should be uniform in its application to all residents, anda: residents in The Country should not be given special services from staff because of their location. f. April 11, 1994 Page 5 Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Schad and carried unanimously to maintain the current development standards and processing procedures. C/Schad requested that the building standards be increased on wall construction at any height. 3. Review of Parking Standards C/Flamenbaum recommended that staff provide a report on each of the items listed in the staff report regarding Parking Standards, allowing the Planning Commission an opportunity to provide input on each item. The Planning Commission concurred. AP/Lungu reported that the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare - a draft parking ordinance for their review, utilizing parking ordinance from other cities and incorporating th,ee Commission's comments from the November 8, 1994 meeting. S'he stated that, after reviewing the parking standards in Los Angeles County's Planning and Zoning Code as well as the parking ordinances from cities surveyed, and considering the parking situations at commercial sites within the City, the following are staff's recommendations for incorporation into a parking ordinance for the City: o Landscaping - Landscaping shall not be less than 8% of the total paved area of the parking lot. Fifty percent of the landscaping shall be distributed within the parking area and 50% shall be distributed around the perimeter of the parking area. Landscape planter areas shall not be less than three (3) feet wide. One - 24 inch box tree shall be installed every 10 parking spaces and five (5? gallon minimum size for all shrubs. C/Flamenbaum suggested that landscaping requirements be more focused on the use of trees, rather than bushes, to reduce the reflectivity in the parking lots. AP/Lungu stated that the ordinance specifically indicates the number lof trees, and only the planter areas are calculated in terms of percentages. In respons I to C/Fong, AP/Lungu explained that staff determined hat 8% landscaping would be appropriate for the City based upon the percentage used in other cities, j what is currently utilized Diamond Bar, and what is suggested in the General Plan. C/Schad suggested that landscaping be increased to not less than 2d% of the total paved area of the parking lot to add more beauty to the parking areas. April 11, 1994 Page 6 AP/Lungu, in response to Acting Chair/Plunk, stated that the percentage used by other cities surveyed ranged from 2% to 10 %. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the Planning Commission receive the entirety of the presentation, providing input with respect to each of the components. Then provide direction to staff with appropriate amendments to the, ordinance. C/Flamenbaum expressed his desire to seek consensus and provide direction on each component as it is reviewed.; He then stated that he feels 20% is not appropriates because it is too prohibitive. He stated that -the 5i gallon shrubs should be eliminated, and the number of trees should be increased, requiring them to be, indigenous and/or drought tolerant. C/Fong inquired if the ordinance allows some creativity on the part of the landscape architect. AP/Lungu stated that the -landscape architect is allowed some creativity in terms of the amount of landscaping used above the minimum requirement, the variety of trees, and so forth. CDD/DeStefano stated that the purpose of the report is to respond to the Planning Commission's direction in reviewing the parking standards of the community, which will lead to a specific zoning ordinance amendment with specific changes to the zoning code. He suggested that the Planning Commission may prefer to provide staff with some general direction regarding the Parking Standards, understanding that the specifics will be debated when, the zoning ordinance comes back before the Commission for review. The Planning Commission concurred that a higher percentage of landscaping is desired, with more trees than bushes, using 2411,box trees about every 5 spaces, and with trees that ate indigenous and drought tolerant.; o Compact Parking a. To allow for flexibility within the parking standards, if a new commercial development can not meet the number of parking spaces required,' consider utilizing compact parking spaces for employee only. b. 'Utilize compact parking for businesses which incur long-term stays. C. Dimensions for compact parking spaces shall be eight (8) feet wide and sixteen (16) feet long. April 11, 1994 Page 7 i C/Flamenbaum suggested that the compact parking definition be increased to 9 feet wide and 16 feet long. C/Fong inquired what percentage of compact parking is allowed by the County. AP/Lungu stated that the LA County Code allows the City up to 40% for compact parking. She stated that the cities surveyed range for 20% to 40% for compact parking. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will come. back with a specific recommendation upon further investigation. However, the percentage allowed for compact, parking most likely will depend upon the type of use, such office, retail, manufacturing, etc. C/Schad concurred with the 9 foot width and 16 foot length on the dimensions for compact parking. Acting Chair/Plunk stated that she would prefer to see dimensions for compact parking spaces to be no less than 8.5 feet wide and larger than 16 feet wide. o Standard Parking a. Nine (9) feet wide and eighteen (18) feet long" C/Fong and C/Schad concurred with the suggested minimum dimensions. Acting Chair/Plunk suggested a minimum of 19 feet in length. o Churches, Temples, Other Places Of Worship a. One (1) parking space for every three -(3) fixed seats within the sanctuary area or for every 35 square feet of seating area where there are no fixed seats. b. Eighteen (18) lineal inches of bench shall equal one (1) fixed seat. C. Occupant load determined pursuant to Uniform Building Code. C/Schad indicated his desire for further input from some of the larger churches before making a decision. He pointed out that the larger vehicle, that can hold more family members, is usually taken to church. k The Planning Commission concurred that more information is needed to make a final determination. However, if the information gathered confirms the recommendation, then the Commission would concur with the recommendation as stated. April 11, 1994 Page 8 ilfi C/Fong suggested that staff contact a church planning architect to gather information. Acting Chair/Plunk noted that the requirements for churches, etc. seems the same as the requirements for entertainment and assembly. The Planning Commission concurred to use the same standard for each use. o Commercial Uses/Professional Offices. a. one (1) parking space for every 250 square feet of, gross floor area. CDD/DeStefano pointed out that the parking problems for commercial/ professional uses, as well as medical uses, are the two biggest problem areas in the City. He noted, that shopping centers with high occupancy rates having parking ratios of 1 for every 250 square feet of gross floor area don't seem to have a problem. C/Flamenbaum suggested that five (5) parking spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, as is used by the Intercommunity Hospital, may be more appropriate.':;j,, He noted that professional uses in a center could also' include medical uses. Therefore, one should not really differentiate between the two uses for parking requirements. C/Fong concurred with staff's recommended requirements for both commercial uses, professional office and medical uses. C/Schad, noting the parking problems in the centers throughout the City, concurred with C/Flamenbaum's suggested requirements. Acting Chair/Plunk concurred that professional ands medical uses are interchangeable, and should have the same parking considerations. She stated that the parking!, requirements for medical uses should be five (5) spaces, per doctor. C/Flamenbaum suggested that the parking ratio be determined on floor space rather than the number of physicians in attendance. o Medical Uses, a. One (1) parking space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area. b. In no case shall there be less than five (5) spaces per doctor. �. (-I _. �� ..• -•—.-- ^••.-�—�±-.ex1-�- ;• --. .-uaaWfl�dl lnleideYu.wixWYl�JwIJ�.��,ix, .� ` _V_`____.; , _. _ April 11, 1994 Page 9 The Planning Commission concurred with the recommended requirements, understanding that the floor ratio is preferred over the number of physicians in attendance in determining the parking requirements. o Dining a. One (1) parking space per three (3) persons based on occupant load determined by the Uniform Building Code. b. One (1) parking space per 35 square feet of gross floor area with no fixed seats. C. Eighteen (18) lineal inches of bench shall be considered as one (1) fixed seat. The Planning Commission concurred with the recommended requirements. o Entertainment, Assembly The Planning Commission concurred that the parking requirements for entertainment and assembly should be the same as the parking requirements for churches, temples, j etc. o General Retail/Services a. One (1) parking space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Flamenbaum, stated that new developments in existing centers would need to comply with the current code in place at the time they apply for the project. C/Flamenbaum, noting that there is room for in -fill in many of the existing centers, expressed concern that changing the number of required parking spaces in existing commercial centers may result in the loss of the proposed business. He then suggested that it may be appropriate to require parking lots to be designed with relatively easy ingress and egress. CDD/DeStefano explained that all new projects will require, at minimum, a design review approval by the Planning Commission, allowing the Commission to address concerns regarding circulation. �a There was concurrence among - the Planning Commissioners j that the recommended standard is acceptable. i Acting Chair/Plunk suggested that copies of the parking standards be sent to the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations that may possibly be affected. April 11, 1994 no no C R •7 Page 10 I'r i Acting Chair/Plunk requested staff to investigate the affects of a grandfathering clause for in -fill structures at existing centers. Warehousing a. One (1) parking space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. b. one (1) parking space per 250 square feet of gross floor area utilized for office or sales area. Transportation Demand & Trip Reduction Measures AP/Lungu noted that the recommended standards, as' indicated on page 6 and 7 of the staff report, are measures recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council for adoption. Shared Parking Agreements 1. Shared parking agreement may be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit C/Flamenbaum requested a report on how well current) shared parking agreements in the City, and other' communities, are doing. Parking Acquisition fund AP/Lungu stated that since the City currently does not have a "down -town' area, it may not be appropriate to, incorporate this provision in a parking ordinance. The Planning Commission concurred. Residential Development 1. Single-family a. Two (2) standard parking spaces within a garage. 2. Two-family a. Two (2) standard parking spaces within a garage. C/Flamenbaum suggested that the garage space for single- family residential be increased to a minimum size of 12 feet by 18 feet, thus allowing more area for storage as well as parking. f7 M1a•'. Acting Chair/Plunk suggested that driveways be required to be constructed long enough to accommodate 2 cars on the driveway. April 11, 1994 Page 11 3. Bachelor/Efficiency/One, Two or More Bedroom Apartments a. One covered standard parking spaces per dwelling unit for bachelor apartments; b. One and one-half (1 1/2) covered standard parking spaces per dwelling unit for efficiency or one bedroom apartments; C. One and one-half (1 1/2) covered standard parking spaces, plus one-half (1/2) uncovered parking spaces per dwelling unit for two (2) or more bedrooms. Acting Chair/Plunk expressed concern with allowing 1/2 spaces. She stated that the one and one-half (1 1/2) parking space requirement for efficiency or one bedroom apartments is inadequate. o Senior Citizen Residential Development a. Efficiency/One Bedroom Apartments - one (1) standard parking space within a garage, plus one- half (1/2) space open guest parking per dwelling unit. L b. Two Bedroom Apartments - two (2) standard parking spaces within a garage, plus one (1) open guest parking space per dwelling nit. C. Three or More Bedroom Apartments - a minimum of two (2) standard parking spaces within a garage, plus one (1) open guest parking space per dwelling unit or as approved by the Planning Commission. C/Schad requested staff to insert a statement indicating that ADA requirements will be met. Acting Chair/Plunk stated that she would prefer to see the parking standards for seniors higher than what was allowed for the Heritage Park Senior Apartments. CDD/DeStefano explained that the parking standards for senior dwellings depend upon the type of care the facility is providing. He explained that independent care facilities tend to have higher parking standards because seniors are more active and mobile, as compared to congregate care type of living facilities, and so forth. He stated that Diamond Bar is likely to see independent care type facilities, for the next several years. ! In response to C/Schad's concern, AP/Lungu stated that the parking standard for three or more bedroom senior apartments suggested by staff requires a separate guest parking space, and not tandem parking. '1' I11h 1111,1.x7771 April 11, 1994 Page 12 Acting Chair/Plunk noted that it was the consensus of the Commission to direct staff to formulate a specific zoning code amendment, incorporating the Planning Commission's comments, and 'be brought back at a future meeting. for the Planning Commission's review. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 4.� Reconsideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850. CDD/DeStefano reported that the City Council took formal) action, at the April .5, 1994 meeting, to reconsider the City Council's action of December 1,. 1992, which approved a Resolution to deny VTM 47850 without prejudice, in order to meet a component -of the Settlement Agreement between the City, and Diamond Bar Associates (DBA). He then stated that Bernie Mazur, the senior vice president of DBA, will provide a' statement to the Planning Commission. Bernie Mazur, the senior vice president of DBA, 3480 Torrence Blvd. Ste. 301, Torrence, stated that his responsibility involves the oversight and supervision of the planning,'' engineering, and construction of their properties in the back' portion of the'Country Estates, which include tracts'47851, 48487, and VTM 47850. He stated that, as part of the settlement agreement in reconsidering VTM 47850, there will be a joint session of the City Council and the Planning Commission to rehear VTM 47850, whereby DBA will make available its professional and technical consultants to provide information and answer questions raised by the members of the Planning Commission 30 days prior to the joint session. He reported that construction of tracts 47851 and 48487, which is contiguous to proposed VTM 47850, is currently underway.) He stated that the construction of tracts 47851 & 48487, which are similar in area, density, topography, and geologic features to VTM 47851, provides a unique opportunity for the Commission to view the ground preparation, earthwork techniques, and remedial geologic measures which are being employed in the development of these properties, as well as be able to gain an impression on the size and view potential of the home sites being created as it relates to zoning, land use, and compatibility with the surrounding community. He stated, while the area has been under design for construction, the plant material, to.restore the hillsides and have been growing from native seed previously gathered from the site. He then invited the Commission and City staff to take a guided tour of the construction site, either individually or as a group, to view those phases of construction that are of interest, and to ask questions of the consultants on site. He stated that this phase of the construction, which involves ground preparation, earthwork techniques, and remedial geologic measures is anticipated to be completed within 30 days. April 11, 1994 Page 13 C/Flamenbaum suggested that pertinent material relating to the proposed project be presented to the Planning Commission prior to the joint meeting, particularly since none of the Commission members are familiar with the project. Bernie Mazur stated that review of the soils and geology report, recently resubmitted to the City for review by Leighton & Associates, the City's consultants, will take approximately 60 days. He stated an additional 30 days will be required for staff to prepare conditions of approval, and recommendations to be presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council. C/Flamenbaum suggested that staff conduct a study session of the Planning Commission, prior to formal presentation of the project, to educate the Commission as to the nature of the project. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will prepare, for the Commission within the next few working days, a summary package of information reviewing general information on all three projects regarding some of the issues, the mitigation measures, and the conditions, to be used as background information while visiting the current site under construction. He stated that staff will also prepare a complete package of all the issues pertaining to VTM 47850 to prepare the Commission for the joint public hearing in the near future. C/Fang inquired if a geologist has been on site, gathering much of the geological information, and properly mapping the geologic conditions as it is being exposed. Bernie Mazur stated that Mr. Jim Evans, a DBA geologist, Ms. St. Peters, a Leighton & Associates geologist, a supervisory soils engineer, and two engineer technicians, visit the site on a regular basis. He stated that a weekly report is prepared on their findings and submitted to the City for review. He suggested that each Commissioner visit the site to ask any questions from the engineers and geologists, and other professionals, at which time any request for geotechnical information will be provided. C/Fong requested to see some of the geological information being recorded out in the field. IV-' Bernie Mazur noted that soils testing is done and certified by Harrington Geotechnical, which also does all of the lab work for on -soils samples. He explained that Leighton & Associates is responsible for overseeing any problems, and reviewing the weekly and final reports that must be submitted. April 11, 1994 Page 14 ERR CDD/DeStefano, per direction of the Planning Commission, stated that staff will schedule a study session, prior to the joint session of the City Council and Planning Commission, to help prepare the Planning Commission. It has been strongly' recommended that the Planning Commission also visit the site as soon as possible. ICA/Montgomery, in response to Acting Chair/Plunk; explained that the Planning Commission will be part of the final decision in the joint session with the City Council.- C/Schad commended the efforts of DBA in boxing some of the prime tree specimens on site, and the gathering of the fruit and seeds to re-establish some of the vegetation in the disturbed areas. RECESS Acting Chair/Plunk recessed the meeting at 9:15 p.m. RECONVENE Acting Chair/Plunk reconvened the meeting at 9:27 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING 5. Zone Code Amendment No. 94-1 AP/Searcy reported that Zone Code Amendment (ZCA).No. 94-1 is a request to amend certain provisions of the Diamond Bar Code pertaining to the City's Sign Ordinance, and requesting an amendment, including but not limited to, the use of temporary signs including banners and inflatable signs. He stated that the City Council approved the final extension of Interim Ordinance No. 2B (1992), on June 15, 1993, thus extending the life of the ordinance originally adopted June 2, 1992. He stated that there is no opportunity for the City to extend this interim ordinance, which expires July 7, 1994, in its present form. He then reviewed staff's analysis of the use of the interim ordinance, as outlined in the staff report. It is recommended that the Planning Commission direct staff to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council to amend the City Sign Code to include the Temporary Sign section as amended. Additionally, staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff to bring the Sign Code in its entirety back to the Commission to address additional concerns. He then reviewed the following recommended changes to the temporary sign ordinance: Section 108 b.(9), letters a -h, a Section F to read that the total number of available days for temporary signage would be increased from 60 to 90 days; and 3 section 108 a. to add part (6) , the free standing monument j sign section relating to 6 foot 24 square foot sign, or April 11, 1994 Page 15 individual commercial users, be removed from the plan sign program section 110 d. (1) and moved to part 6, 108 (a). C/Schad, noting that many temporary signs are more offensive than permanent signs, suggested that there be some provision addressing the aesthetic appearances of temporary signs. Acting Chair/Plunk declared the public hearing opened. There being no one wishing to speak, Acting Chair/Plunk declared the public hearing closed. Moved by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Schad and carried unanimously to adopt the Resolution recommending approval to the City Council to amend the City Sign Code to include the Temporary Sign section as amended. C/Flamenbaum requested that a table of contents/index be included in the Sign Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS 6. Future Planning Commission Agenda Items CDD/DeStefano reviewed the listing of future major Planning Commission agenda items, as presented in the memorandum to the Planning Commission for information purposes only. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS 7. Verbal Presentation on the Status of the South Pointe Master Plan CDD/DeStefano reported that staff, per the direction of the City Council, established a public hearing on May 2, 1994 for further consideration of the South Pointe Master Plan project by the City Council with the Planning Commission. He stated that the purpose of the public hearing is to receive the latest information from the developers and all the interested parties with the possibility of looking at alternatives to the project. ICA/Montgomery explained that a proposal has been submitted on the exchange of properties which are, to some extent, subject to open space restrictions and park dedications. Therefore, the proposal must go before the Planning Commission prior to -'` City Council review. w Acting Chair/Plunk questioned how a proposal never considered by the City Council following Planning Commission deliberation can be brought back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration. I April 11, 1994 Page 16 �il�'i"iij�l' �! j ICA/Montgomery explained that the Code requires the removal of any open space restrictions or park dedications to be reviewed by the Planning Commission. He stated that the proposal being presented has been substantially changed from the. original, proposal. C/Flamenbaum inquired of the purpose of conducting a joint public hearing. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff was directed today of the City Council's desire for a joint public hearing. He stated that staff will have further information at the_ next Planning Commission meeting. ICA/Montgomery stated that joint meetings of the City Council and the Planning Commission, and sometimes with other commissions, are common in many cities to handle a project ati one time with the same set of facts. He noted that the most immediate way to get a decision is to meet jointly, 8. Verbal Presentation on the Status of the Unionwide's TT 51169 CDD/DeStefano reported that the Unionwide project, which is a 20 acre, 13 unit project in The Country,_ should be brought before the Planning Commission May 23, 1994. He stated that a verbal presentation on its status will be given at a later) date. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS C/Fong requested an update regarding his suggestion of adding a supplement to the grading ordinance. t CDD/DeStefano stated that staff has requested a copy of the grading ordinance from various cities, which will, upon receipt, be given to the City Engineer for review to determine if there is a need for refinement of, the current tools being utilized by the City. Staff will be presenting a report to the Planning Commission in the near future regarding the grading ordinance, as well as a report on Chair/Meyers' request regarding consideration of the City of Scottsdale's sign ordinance for possible inclusion, as appropriate, into our own sign ordinance. In response to Acting Chair/Plunk, CDD/DeStefano stated that the extension of the General Plan expires October 31, 1994. He stated that, should the Planning Commission not have the document for review by July 1994, staff would recommend that the City Council direct staff to file for another extension. Acting Chair/Plunk expressed concern that the Planning Commission may be inadvertently asked by Council Members to accept GPAC's document as presented. _. ....,.�................. �, ,,,,. _...._.__.,,_.., �.� ..�.,....i _ . .r. --...._r �-.n. rs.r.n..�, --.. - ..-� _.._ a.✓x uerll�,rdtiwkYl'Wrrllnlpxl.bkxlMl.xl,rvJl., - April 11, 1994 Page 17 ICA/Montgomery stated that a predetermination by either Planning Commissioners or Council Members is inappropriate. C/Flamenbaum, concerned that erosion continues on the slope behind the hospital project near the intersection of Grand Ave./Golden Springs, suggested that the Planning Commission may want to consider revocation of their CUP. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff will consult with the City Engineer to determine the progress of the remediation needed for the project. He stated that if it is concluded that the hospital is not responding appropriately, staff will send out a final notice and determine if a revocation discussion at the Commission level is necessary. C/Schad stressed the importance of a Tree Ordinance in the City of Diamond Bar to maintain the natural characteristics of the City. He stated that the following five trees need be preserved: the Coastal Oak; the Black Walnut; the California Sycamore; the Pepper; and the Arroyo Willow. He then inquired if a previous ruling of the City Council can cause an ordinance to be brought back without a great deal of review. k I ICA/Montgomery stated that any ordinance can be amended by three votes of the City Council, unless the ordinance was voter approved. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to conduct, Acting Chair/Plunk adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully, kes DeSte no Secretary Attest: ` favid rN Chairma