Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/27/1995MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR j REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION (1 FEBRUARY 27, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioners Schad. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Chairman Meyer, Vice Chairman Flamenbaum, Schad, Fong, Huff Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Consultant Engineer Mike Myers'; Community Services Director Bob Rose; Patrick Mann, Cotton \Beland\Associates, Inc.; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery, Recording Secretary Carol Dennis' MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE%PUBLIC COMMENTS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Minutes of February 13, 1995. A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by VC/Flamenbaum to adopt the minutes. Chair/Meyer offered the following corrections: 1) On Page 2 just prior to opening the public hearing indicate that VC/Flamenbaum recused himself. 2) Under public hearing, indicate "no one came forward" and then the public hearing was closed. The motion was approved as amended with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Schad, VC/Flamenbaum, Fong, Chair/Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Huff ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 11'[11' { February 27, 1995 Page 2 Planning commission: ir11; PUBLIC HEARING: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 94-4. Request to approve and develop a master planfor Pantera Park located on an undeveloped site at 700-500 Pantera Drive. Applicant/Property Owner: City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. AP/Searcy stated that staff has compiled the additional information requested by the Planning Commission at the January '9, 1995 Commission meeting on the following items: traffic and circulation, park hours of operation; vehicular and pedestrian access; parking demand on and off-site,; grading; the water element; and ballfield lighting. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony and consider the mitigated Negative Declaration and direct staff to prepare the final Resolution of Approval with the Findings of Fact and conditions of approval._! CSD/Rose stated that Pantera Park represents an opportunity for the City of Diamond Bar to enhance the existing inventory of park facilities to meet the ever expanding needs of the community. - The design before the Commission provides facilities for active ballfields, tennis, basketball and roller blade courts, formal picnic structures, and a jogging path. The process used to design the park took into consideration the need to balance the desires of the local neighborhood with the needs of the entire community. In order to achieve this balance, the Parks and Recreation Commission conducted an extensive series of public workshops in order to reach consensus on the elements to be incorporated into the park design. Larry Ryan, RJM Associates Landscape Architects, the elements contained in the plan are a product of the community workshops. The site is approximately 23 acres, 15 of which are suitable for development. Major access to the site is via Pantera Drive with a secondary access from Bowcreek Drive. The surrounding land uses include residential, school and natural hillsides. With respect to parking analysis, the project was reviewed in -its total development stage. The proposed facilities include a community center of approximately 7500 square feet, a restroom/concession facility ' of approximately 100-0 square feet, two ballfields with �m'nlI .. Ir .,•r�'i`" , µ,, ^i, iP;a;.�kuRe r',I""ti. r, Ji :, 'it"i1!4-t,-.i+a x�^1n: ,E�.n7 �'''."a��l ".'rP s."iP 9'1 's+A1%wwu?!91A-0. rtiti February 27, 1995 Page 3 Planning commission provisions for two overlay soccer fields, water feature, tot lot, picnic areas, two tennis courts, and multi -use hard court (three basketball courts or one roller hockey court). In addition, there is a vehicular drive that can be used by emergency vehicles or Los Angeles County Flood Control. There is a series of trail opportunities throughout the park which provide access to hillside nature walks. Responding to C/Schad, Mr. Ryan stated that trails will be part of the initial development. The trails within the active portion of the park are included in the design and the intent is to utilize the trails as they currently exist.- VC/Flamenbaum stated that it his understanding that if the City designs the trails they must comply with the ADA. CSD/Rose responded that the trails Mr. Ryan refers to are concrete paths through the park, all of which will meet the ADA requirements. These constructed trails will lead to the existing trails. There will be no improvement made to the current trails. Chair/Meyer asked if the City must meet both ADA and Title XXIV requirements. Mr. Ryan responded that as designers, the more restrictive regulation is chosen as a standard for design. Chair/Meyer stated that his understanding is that ADA was discretionary until January, 1995 at which time it became mandatory to comply with certain provisions of ADA. In particular, facilities built with Federal funds must comply. He indicated it is also his understanding that Title XXIV includes the ADA mandatory standards plus additional standards created by the State of California. Responding to Chair/Meyer, CE/Myers stated that his recommendation is that the project should include two driveways. In response to Chair/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated that the County Master Plan designated this site as a park in 1987 and approved a park plan for this site. That plan terminated from lack of activity. The lack of activity was a result of the County striping away the allocated funds for this project just prior to City incorporation in 1989. Throughout the course of the City of Diamond Bar's General Plan efforts, this site has been designated a park. The County code for planning, zoning, and subdivision purposes establishes a process for the review of a public park and that process is a Conditional Use Permit. The staff is requesting that the Planning Commission approve bi. R q ..1. I -r,; ' February 27, 1995 Page 4 Planning Commission an umbrella Conditional Use Permit. This will then allow the Community Services Director to implement the park through funding that the City Council will provide. The intent is for the. Planning Commission to grant approval for this umbrella Conditional Use Permit and the details of the park would be implemented by the staff through direction from the City Council. If the program elements were to change substantially, it may come back to the Planning Commission for a subsequent Conditional Use Permit amendment. The City currently has approximately $1,500,000 grant money toward the development of the park. Responding to VC/Flamenbaum, CDD/DeStefano stated the County code for this development sets a two year time frame for implementation initiation of an approved Conditional Use Permit. Some grading or building is necessary to receive a vesting for the CUP. Once that occurs, this item will not need to come back to the Planning Commission for further review. If the City did not take action on the project, the matter would come back to the Planning Commission for an extension of time. In response to VC/Flamenbaum, ICA/Montgomery stated that there has to be a substantial expenditure in relation to the entire project. Chair/Meyer stated that the Planning Commission is concerned that there is a real commitment on the part of the City to build this park. CSD/Rose responded that if the Conditional Use Permit is approved during this meeting, the City expects to break ground in September, 1995. There is currently 1.47 million dollars committed to the project with an additional $550,000 discretionary money in Proposition A funds that could be allocated to this project should it be_ directed by City Council. The estimate for the improvements before the Planning Commission totals approximately $2,300,000. The City is presently committed to completion of the restroom facility, the tot lot, the turfed areas, some of the hard court_ area, and the parking. Chair/Meyer again expressed his concerns regarding the parking for the project. He also asked for clarification on the lighting. AP/Searcy indicated the final lighting analysis shows a minimum of .09 candle foot and a maximum 1/2 candle foot at the perimeter. This is a component of the design process and should be incorporated as a mitigation measure. - � VII�iIIIIVIII I IJ I'iIII Il; 1fT 11 February 27, 1995 Page 5 Planning commission �1gPr Responding to Chair/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated that staff recommends that the water element be eliminated from the project because of the design cost, maintenance and liability. Chair/Meyer indicated that the Planning Commission should include provisions for the multi -use building, however, it might not be built unless there is a demand. AP/Searcy stated it could be included with a caveat that there be sufficient parking provided to absorb the overflow that may be generated by'that use. Chair/Meyer suggested that a mitigation measure for the City could be to hire the Sheriff's Department to direct traffic. CSD/Rose stated that the anticipated programs at Pantera Park would include youth programs for AYSO soccer, Pop Warner football, little league, girls softball, etc. Normally the practices are on weekdays with games on Saturdays. Scheduling determines the amount of parking required and that is controlled by the Community Services Department and coordinated with 'other available facilities in the City. Typically the City would not use the services of the Sheriffs f Department unless it is a large City sponsored event, such as concerts in the park. Because of the location, it is not anticipated that this park will serve to accommodate such functions. Pat Mann stated that with regard to parking and traffic, the Mitigated Negative Declaration and initial study concludes that there will not be significant impacts and no specific mitigation measures are identified. Responding to- C/Schad, AP/Searcy stated that the school district has not given staff a final answer about overflow parking at their site. Brent Marchetti, Marchetti & Associates, representing MUSCO Lighting, stated that the company specializes in and does only sports facilities, and in particular, outdoor facilities. Sn response to the City's request, MUSCO has prepared 'a preliminary site analysis study of lighting for the project with an objective to light the fields properly and minimize any impact it might have to the surrounding area. The criteria utilized for the lighting system was an average of 50 foot candles in the infields and 40 foot candles in the outfield and the soccer overlays which is the standard }e currently used for recreation facilities. The light source is metal Halide (white light) which is used in most major R I � { February 27, 1995 Page 6 Planning Commission stadiums and is the easiest to control. The glare light (impact to the neighborhood) is a maximum reading of .061 foot candles and a minimum reading of .08 foot candles. In response to C/Huff, AP/Searcy stated that perimeter planting of trees and bushes would assist in mitigating light spillage off-site. RECESS: Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:20 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Meyer ',reconvened the meeting at 8:38 p.m.- Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing open. . Brian Petrie, 1118 Bain Avenue, on behalf of the American Youth Soccer Association (AYSO) Region 31, Diamond Bar, stated that Pantera will bel,a substantial benefit to the community. The City of Diamond Bar is lacking in recreational facilities per population in various categories. He indicated that _ lighting of the multi-purpose field is very important to his group and to the youth of the community. He asked that the pond be deleted fromithe project. Donovan Martinez, -635 Pantera Drive, stated he favors no lighting in the park'. Candy Holden, 608 Sky Court, indicated she feels the wishes of the neighborhood residents are not being considered. She stated that she also',favors no lighting in the park. VC/Flamenbaum asked if the citizen's g oup was opposed to the formal baseball fields. Ms. Hold n responded that the citizens were in favor of one formal baseball, football, soccer combination field and one informal field with no lights. VC/Flamenbaum asked if the group was opposed to the second ballfield. Ms. Holden responded yes. VC/Flamenbaum asked if the group opposed the parking. Ms. Holden responded no. She indicated 11 that the group opposed the noise and lighting. I William Gray, 23837Minnique Drive, slated he is in favor of the park and the lighting. Bill Delaro, corner Iof Bowcreek and Pantera Drive, stated he is favor of phasing in the elements of the facility so that the impact of traffic flow can be monitored. The lighting should be considered much later. February 27, 1995 Page 7 Planning commission Debbie O'Conner, 23725 Cascade Place, stated she is in favor of lighted fields for the youth. Albert Perez, 703 Pantera Drive, indicated the understanding of the citizen's group was that there would be no lighting because it was a bad element to the park. He stated he feel's the lights could be added to another park which is more accessible to the residents of Diamond Bar. Responding to VC/Flamenbaum, Mr. Perez indicated that he is in favor of the current design of one formal ballfield and one informal ballfield and the current parking. He is very concerned with and opposed to the lighting. i Rick Ramier, 1506 Straw Flower Lane, stated he wants lights in the park. As a representative of AYSO, he indicated that his organization has offered to defray some of the costs with their own funds. He further stated that the events could be scheduled so that lighting could be terminated in the park at about 8:00 p.m.;�, y : Responding to VC/Flamenbaum, Mr. Ramier stated that, in his opinion, an acceptable time for lighting would be between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. but 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. would be agreeable. Candy Holden returned to indicate that the citizen's group is in favor of lights for walking and safety purposes. They are opposed to the spotlight type lighting for the park. Chair/Meyer asked if the group would find it -acceptable if the lights were turned off at 8:00 p.m. Ms. Holden responded that, in her opinion, that would not be a problem. However, the late hours and additional people at the site would not be acceptable. Brian Petrie stated that he feels the citizen's group seems to be looking for a passive neighborhood park rather than the proposed park. A park of this size has to be, planned to meet the needs of the community and not just the neighborhood. He would prefer the lighting be available from dusk to dark. Responding to Chair/Meyer, Mr. Petrie stated the AYSO season is September through the third week in December and from February to end of May. The season overlaps with Pop Warner football and Little League and working with the City, these entities have cooperated to make the best use of available facilities. February 27, 1995 Page 8 Planning Commission In response to C/Fong, Mr. Petrie indicated that he would like to see the fields lighted until 8:00 p.m. for the present. Donovan Martinez indicated he feels it is a waste of time to light the park until 8:00 p.m. The current plan was finally agreed upon in the workshops and there was never any provision for lighting. Rick Ramier stated he takes offense that the neighborhood residents want this facility limited to a neighborhood park. It is a City facility and should serve the needs of all taxpayers. Chair/Meyer declared the public hearing closed. VC/Flamenbaum stated it seems apparent that most people are in favor of the current design and two accesses to the park and no one is opposed to regular lights around the parking lot and pathways. The main concern seems to be the balancing of the needs of the community between formal sports and informal - sports. He indicated he is not in favor of the water element or the multi-purpose building. He stated he would also advocate there not be any fixed trails through the ,hills. With respect to lighting in the park, he feels a fair compromise would be to plumb for lighting of hardscape area and since the area is furthest from any residents, the lighting could be extended to a_ later time, such as 10:00 p.m. He feels it would be appropriate to have lighting for both fields and under no condition should the lights be left on later than 8:00 p.m. C/Huff stated he can feel the neighborhood frustration. However, this is a community park and the City needs more lighted ballparks. He indicated that no planners were present during the citizen's workshops. This park was planned as a lighted park prior to the building of any houses in the area. By lighting the park the use of the park is extended and being able to extend the lighting to 8:00 p.m. is very important to the youth involved in sports. He stated he is in favor of two driveways. He further stated the multi-purpose facility could be eliminated. He indicated he likes the lighting depicted by the consultant and is in favor of lighting until 8:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 p.m. weekends. He stated he is in favor of everything else as presented. February 27, 1995 Page 9 Planning Commission X11^ C/Schad stated he attended all of the citizen's groin meetings. Although the engineering for the lighting is excellent, there are ways to plant vegetation which should totally diffuse the lighting from the neighborhood residences. However, the lighting can be -stubbed out at the start of construction, but until the park is complete, the lighting should be left out. He further stated he is grateful that the open space element will be preserved. He indicated that the City should support hiking trails. He stated that he believes the pond presents possible liability to the City. The senior citizens have expressed an interestin the multi-purpose building. The parking is good. For now, he suggests that the street be painted red so that the users of the park must use the designated parking. C/Fong stated the area of difficulty seems to be the lighting and what time of the day it will be illuminated. He feels that there should be two entrance/exit points and that the pond could be designed to be safe. He indicated he supports the trails and the multi -use courts with night lighting up to 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. He further stated that the best use is to develop the park to its potential because it is a community park, not a neighborhood park, and the City must represent the entire community while minimizing the impact on the surrounding neighborhood. For this reason, he recommend's extending the hours of the park through lighting to 8:00 p.m. on the weekdays and 9:00 p.m. on Friday and Saturday evenings. Chair/Meyer stated that the Planning Commission will address each issue and give staff direction to return to the Planning Commission with a Resolution. He further stated that the consensus is that the Planning Commission is in favor of the park. without objection, the Commission concurred that the water element should be eliminated. The Commission concurred that the multi-purpose building should be eliminated at this time from the master plan. i Without objection, the Commission concurred that there should be two points of access to the park. Without objection, the Commission concurred that the trails should be included in their natural state. The Commission asked staff for its recommendation. NV .-. �1F, February 27, 1995 Page 10 Planning commission Without objection, the Commission concurred that accent and security lighting should be included. The Commission concurred that lighting and landscaping should be included for the formal baseball field and one formal soccer field should be included with a time restriction of 8:00 p.m. weekdays and 9:00 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. The same requirements are applicable to the informal ball field as well. Without objection, the Commission concurred that the lighting should be included for the hard court areas with the time extended to 10:00 p.m. Responding to Chair/Meyer, CSD/Rose stated that the consensus plan from the Parks and Recreation Department for the first phase of construction contained provisions for security, parking and hardcourt area lighting. The only area not anticipated for lighting was the balifields. All lighting would be coordinated with the actual construction of each 1 element. E Chair/Meyer asked staff to work on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Resolution and bring it back to the Commission as an agenda item March 13, 1995. Without objection, the Commission concurred. He advised the audience that the document will be prepared and reviewed by the Community services Director and the item will be returned as an agenda item to the Planning Commission on March 13, 1995 and will not be a public hearing item. Recommendation of the Planning Commission is to conditionally approve the item with some provisions on the lighting. The document will be available on March 8 or 9, 1995 for public consumption. If there is objection to the document, there is a provision on the agenda that public comment will be accepted at the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting on March 13, 1995. OLD BUSINESS - None NEW BUSINESS: Discussion of the Development Code CDD/DeStef'ano reported that the Development Code is a major implementation measure to the City's General Plan. The staff -�1-11,.1�11111IlGI I il! 1 'I IIFIfI' February 27, 1995 Page 11 Planning commission has compiled a list of objectives which should be incorporated into the overall project, principally dealing with implementing the General Plan, identifying rezoning issuesi, creation of contemporary guidelines with respect to Diamond Bar, consolidation of the approximately 38 zones the City currently has, the establishment of design guidelines for the City and to devise,a code that is user friendly, concise, internally consistent and easily maintained. Staff has compiled a Table of Contents for the document. There is no particular order intended, however, they are areas of concern to Diamond Bar. He announced that representatives of Urban Design Studio were present to give a presentation on th'e Development Code. Ron Pflugrath, Urban Design Studio, stated that they are present before the Planning Commission to share some of their knowledge and experience in the preparation of Development Codes, Zoning Ordinances and instruments and documents that implement the General Plan. The options available for completing a Development Code are: 1) Revise the existing Los Angeles County Development code; 2) Develop a complete`new Zoning Ordinance; and 3) Development of a Development Code. The third option is recommended. Bruce Jacobson, Urban Design Studio, stated that a Development Code can contain many optional elements, but there are some basics. Certainly it would include what the City views as typical Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Regulations. These are descriptions and chapters that outline allowable uses, purpose statements, standards and procedures for land use regulation and implementation. Another optional element and one of the most prominent next to the Zoning Ordinance is the Subdivision Ordinance. Not all Development Codes have Subdivision Ordinances and not all Development Codes have Subdivision Ordinances which are integrated. The most, important components of a Development Code are its construction and level of integration. A true unified Development Code would have the provisions and regulations for each of the unique contents, but there would be provisions more universal in nature. Mr. Jacabson cited the San Bernardino Development Code for which his firm had won a national award for being very user friendly by the APA jury. It has in fact, proven to be user friendly through its implementation. These are goals that a unified Development Code would' meet, can meet and should meet. .�,f ^�f y, alr r �47,��. �i�"a. � �'` '�ioJW..rr._ !.IRR".4.' February 27, 1995 Page 12 Planning commission Responding to C/Schad, no two Development Codes would ever look alike. It is recognized as an implementation tool for the City's General Plan. If a Development Code is properly written, there is a nexus between the General Plan'and the Development Code to the extent that purpose statements for individual zoning districts,. and purpose statements for individual standard sections are lifted from the General Plan and if not quoted verbatim, certainly are summarized so that the reader would not find inconsistencies. Typically, the General Plan is the predecessor to the Development Code. VC/Flamenbaum asked what the consultants would recommend as a procedure for authoring a Development Code and how long it took to complete the San Bernardino Development Code. Mr. Jacobson responded that the firm has written several Development Codes. Every contract tends to have a one year completion provision. It can be written in one year, however, there has not been one adopted within a year. A reasonable time is two to two and one-half years. Working with staff and any community, groups that might be involved in the process, the procedure for developing a code would be a "get smart" period parallel to the formatting and constructing of a Table of Contents. The process is to prepare the document in segments following a series of public workshops. Several articles are then prepared over a period of time which are submitted to staff and the review team. Once all of the articles are reviewed and edited a draft document is prepared for public viewing. At that time, joint workshops are held with the Planning Commission and City Council. The public is noticed and invited to -,attend these workshops and present their input. The document is then either modified or errata sheets are prepared. C/Huff asked if the Hillside Management Ordinance and Sign Ordinance had 'to be revisited for integration into the Development Code. Mr. Flugrath responded that they would be reformatted to fit within the Development Code but they would not have -to be revisited. Mr. Jacobson emphasized that any new development code would need to be revisited from time to time because communities change, decision makers change, procedures change and state law changes. For instance, when a General Plan changes, some of the solutions to the changes may be a modification to the Development Code. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff would like for the K Commissioners tol create their own "top ten" wish list. He indicated he needs to formulate the 1995/1996 budget for February 27, 1995 Page 13 Planning Commission presentation to the City Council and the sooner the Planning Commission can make the necessary recommendations, the more quickly the presentation can be made to the City Council in order to aware the funds for this project. Since staff does not have the time or resources to deal with a project of this magnitude, it will, by necessity, be a joint effort with a consultant. Responding to CDD/DeStefano, Mr. Flugrath stated that the City needs to set a budget for the Development Code. Mr. Jacobsontindicated that.the Planning Commission and staff needs to create a vision and determine a process for creating a Development Code. The Commission should use its influence with the City Council to assist the Community Development, Director in arriving at a budget that the Council is willing to allocate and with that budget, determine what can be done in house and what needs to be done outside. VC/Flamenbaum recommended that the Commission lobby to get the funds for CDD/DeStefano, give him their list of five to ten items and continue on a path to complete a Development Code. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS - None ANNOUNCEMENTS - None Chair/Meyer declared the meeting adjourned at 11:05 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, ames DeStefa o secretary Attest: L D d Mey Chairman 10�