Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/10/1995MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR _ REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 10, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:10 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 Commissioner Meyer. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Chairman Flamenbaum, Vice Chairman Huff, Meyer, Schad, Fong. Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Interim City Attorney Michael Montgomery; Bob , Rose - Community Services Director; Larry Ryan RJM Design Group, Laura Stetson Cotton\Beland\ Associates; and Recording Secretary Carol Dennis. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dr. Donna Earnheart, Veterinarian, Village Animal Hospital, Golden Springs Drive, addressed the Commission regarding the change in signage at the Diamond Bar Village Shopping Center. She asked what would be needed to request a variance for the three 3 -foot signs to be enlarged to 15 foot signs which would allow for a tenant listing. Chair/ Flamenbaum responded that this item was reviewed by the Planning Commission several months ago and it was approved and passed on to the City Council. The current Diamond Bar Sign ordinance limits signs to a height of six feet. In this instance, a variance was granted for the 10 foot signs. He suggested that if Dr. Earnheart wishes to seek another variance she would need to direct her request to the landlord/ landowner who would make the application to the City. Responding to Chair/ Flamenbaum, AstP/Lungu stated the three 10 foot signs are for tenant identification. Use of the space is determined by the landlord. - _ - April 10, 1995 Page 2 Planning Commission '''''kV Dr. Dan Buffington, a Diamond Bar resident representing Diamond Bar Associates (DBA) regarding Tract 47850 asked the Planning Commission how the DBA can assist the Commission in reaching a favorable conclusion during their review of tine project. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Comments portion of the meeting closed. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that the City Council is sending Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 back to the Planning Commission for its comments. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, CDD/DeStefano stated that on 'determined Thursday, April 6, the City Council that the project should be returned to the Planning Commission for review of all of the items that the Commission raised as questions or comments requiring additional study. The Planning Commission's meeting is not a public hearing. The project has been referred to the Commission pursuant to a r section of the government code that does not require a public hearing. However, it has been the history of this Planning Commission to encourage public input which would be at the. Commission's discretion. City Council continued their public hearing to May 16. VC/Huff indicated his belief that the Commission could review the entire project and stated he would like to see the project, put through the usual Planning Commission process. C/Schad concurred that the project should be reviewed in its entirety as quickly as possible. C/Fong stated that the project should be review through the normal process of the Planning Commission including a public hearing. C/Meyer stated that at the direction of City Council, he will seriously review the entire project. Chair/Flamenbaum indicated that it is his understanding the City Council has directed the Planning Commission to review the entire project and return their comments to the Council. April 10, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission ICA/Montgomery told the Commission he was involved in the original agreement and he believes the City Council wants a complete review of the project by the Planning Commission. In response to the Planning Commission, Dr. Buffington stated he would make an informed presentation on the 24 questions for the Commission at the April 24 meeting. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of March 27, 1995. A motion was made by approve the minutes approved unanimously. OLD BIISINESS - None C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to as submitted. The motion was NEW BIISINESS: 1. Precise Alignment Feasibility Study for Citrus Valley Medical Center. AP/Searcy reported that the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review applications for the Citrus Valley Medical Center on October 24, 1994. As a condition of approval, the Commission required the applicant to prepare a precise alignment feasibility study and to transmit the study to the Traffic and Transportation Commission for their review and comments. The study has been completed and transmitted to the Traffic and Transportation Commission for review. An ad hoc committee was created to analyze the study and to provide comments to the Planning Commission. The conclusion of the report recommends that the Planning Commission discontinue further consideration of a third or alternative access point. The costs would be prohibitive and the benefits are project to be minimal. Mr. Searcy referred the Commission to the written report prepared by Traffic and Transportation Commissioner Todd Chavers who headed the ad hoc committee. AP/Searcy continued that following preparation of the report, staff met with members of Citrus Valley Medical r Center and Calvary Chapel and both parties concur with April 10, 1995 Page 4 Planning commission Y the findings of the Traffic and Transportation Committee. staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and file the report. C/Meyer stated he had originally requested the precise alignment which was intended to result in a realistic mitigation measure for the long term traffic impacts resulting from the Citrus Valley Medical Center facility and the Calvary Chapel, Church affecting the intersection of Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue. He indicated that if this report had been presented during the public hearings for,the church ',and the hospital, he would have argued against approving either project., He further stated that he is disappointment and dissatisfied with the report and, in his judgment, there had not been any realistic solutions from the professional staff associated with either project. In addition, he cited the commercial potential at the corner of Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue which will further impact the intersection. From a planning standpoint, a, financing program for improvements should be initiated by the City's Engineering Department. Craig Beam, development consultant for Citrus Valley Health Partners, 2745 West Chapman, Suite 203, Orange stated his firm concurs with staff's conclusion. Responding to C/Meyer, he indicated they have been reluctant to move forward with development until they ire- certain recertain all of the conditions have been met.and if the question of a precise alignment is going to be an open condition, it places an undo burden on the project. Jeff Subcheck, Dasco Development, stated his firm is concerned that a access road would place an additional burden on the intersection of Golden Springs Drive and Grand Avenue. He indicated he concurs with staff's conclusion. Responding to C/Flamenbaum, AP/Searcy stated the Citrus Valley Medical Center has complied with the conditions'of Phase I Conditional Use Permit. CE/Myers stated that the study points out the cost of such a roadway would far outweigh the benefits. The impact of traffic to the intersection of Golden Springs OJIt a { -`,obi r xu7v.4 April 10, 1995 Page 5 Planning Commission Drive and Grand Avenue is a regional problem that extends to the freeways and inter -city travel. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by C/Schad to reject the Precise Alignment Feasibility Study for Citrus Valley Medical Center as inadequate and to refer it back to the City's Engineering Department. The motion was approved 4-1 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Schad, Fong, VC/Huff NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by VC/Huff to concur that Citrus Valley Medical Center has complied with the Conditional Use Permit for Phase I of the project. The motion was approved unanimously 5-0. 2. 1995 General Plan - City Council referral of specific proposed modifications pursuant to Government Code Section 65356 for review and recommendation. CDD/Destefano reported that the City's Planning Commission, on October 17, 1994, recommended a Draft General Plan to the City Council for consideration and adoption. The -City Council has considered the Planning Commission's recommendation, received -public testimony and initiated additional changes through the course of their review. In accordance with Government Code Section 65356, and at -the direction of the City Council, the matter has been returned to the Planning Commission in order to review four areas of modification that the Planning Commission had not previously discussed or contemplated. These four areas are: 1. The establishment of a RH, High Density Residential (20 du/acre) Land Use classification; 2. The addition of Residential uses at a density of 1 unit to 2 acres within the Agriculture (AG) designation; -- --- - - --- -- , . - a .w..,____ u E _-- _ __­_­___- - April 10, 1995 Page 6 Planning Commissi%n 3. Revisions to the Land Use Element- text regarding the Planned Development classification and areas so designated; and' 4. Modifications to the Land Use Map reflecting the above. With respect to the High 'Density Residential (20 du/acre), establishment of this new class effects both the Land Use Element and the Housing Element. The City Council considered 54 sites for this new designation. The majority ,were deemed 'not to be appropriate or sufficient for housing purposes. The City Council felt that by establishing the 20 unit per acre density, the City would come much closer to meeting the housing goals established by the State of California. A new designation of Medium High Density Residential (116 du/acre),was created for the former maximum level of density in the General Plan. The second area of Residential uses at a density of 1 n unit to 2 acres with the Agricultural (AG designation applies only to the Sphere of Influence.. The City Council concluded that a Specific Plan overlay wouldlbe most appropriate for future land use planning of this property. The General Plan consultant pointed out the need to establish a density or intensity maximum for this Land Use classification. The City Council concurred with the property owners to establish a Land Use classi- fication consistent with: the County zoning of A2/2 (residential uses, at a maximum density of 1 unit to 2 acres). With respect to revisions to the Land Use Element text regarding the -Planned Development classification and areas so designated, the City Council, incorporating the Memorandum of Understanding between Bramalea and the City, specifically designated that 75% of the 400 acre Bramalea property would be set aside as Open Space dedicated to the public, that a maximum of 130 dwelling units be permitted on the site and that a two acre site be created at Gold Rush Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard for Commercial purposes. Planned Development Area #3 was established,for the corner of Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive. Planned Development Area #4 has been established for the Sandstone Canyon area. Site Dlat _ i - __ _ _�_ _._ _ Ix,�rN ,..II, r-..d�Nd�{WLLWIIWrJ. r�n�J�N. r. ���.. -. i - .� I. na�_r�. _.._ _ �-« ..I- - „ei.lr Nf ramtl.udnl hG�•br.«.e _—_ ___ __— __ _`__ _. _— _ _._ _ _ _ _ __ - April 10, 1995 Page 7 Planning Commission Brea Canyon road and Diamond Bar Boulevard has been designated Planned Development Area #5. The Land Use Map identifies the Planned Development areas, properties identified as High Density Residential, properties re -designated Medium High Density Residential, the change to the Sphere of Influence to Agricultural (AG) with a Specific Plan overlay and other changes associated with the Land Use and Housing Element modifications outlined. Pursuant to Government Code 65356, City Council has established a report due date of April 27, 1995 for the Planning Commission's review and recommendation. The City Council will conduct a public hearing on May 9, 1995 for adoption of the General Plan. Although this is not a public hearing item, the Planning Commission is not precluded from receiving testimony regarding the changes being reviewed. He referred the Commission to a letter dated April 10, 1995 received from the Boy Scouts of America wherein they request consideration of a text _ change regarding Specific Plan and for map changes that were overlooked in the modifications of the General Plan. CDD/DeStefano recommended that the Planning Commission review the proposed changes and provide recommendations to the City staff for assistance in evaluating the proposed City Council changes. Chair/Flamenbaum stated the Planning Commission would received public testimony regarding the proposed General Plan changes. Tom Kolin, Chief Financial Officer, Boy Scouts of America, Los Angeles area Council, referred to the April 10 letter stating a particular area of concern is Page I- 13 of the Housing Element and requested that the following language under a. Specific Plan Area 1 be excluded: "create fiscal benefits for the City and enhance its infrastructure," so that it now reads: "SP -1 incorporates, the Sphere of Influence area. This 3600 acre multiple ownership area contains unique biological and open space resources. The formulation of a future Specific Plan should incorporate provisions to protect existing resources while minimizing future adverse impacts to both the human and natural environment of the April 10, 1995 Page 8 Planning Commission City, as well as the region (see Strategy 1.1.4 of the Circulation Element)." Seeing no one else who wished to speak, Chair/Flamenbaim returned the item to the Planning Commission for deliberation." The Planning Commission reviewed the four items proposed for modification 'by' the City Council and made the following recommendations: With respect to Item 11, "The establishment of RH, High Density Residential (20 du/acre) Land Use classification;", a motion was made by VC/Huff and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to accept staff's recommendation. The motion was approved unanimously. i Regarding Item #2, "The addition of Residential uses at a density 'of 1 unit to 2 acres within the Agriculture (AG) designation;" A motion was made by 'C/Meyer and seconded by " Chair/Flamenbaum to 'approve staff's recommendation. The motion was approved 4-1 with the following roll call:' AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Chair/Flamenbaum, Schad, Fong NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Huff ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None The following revisions were proposed for Item #3 "Revisions to the Land Use Element text regarding the Planned ' Development classification and areas so designated; and" as follows: A motion was made by VC/Huff and seconded by C/Fong to approve the recommendation to accept Planned Development Areas 1, 2 and 3 on Pages I-19 and I-20. The motion was approved unanimously. Following discussion regarding Planned Development Area 4, Chair/Flamenbaum moved that the following recommended wording for Page I-20 be approved: "PD -4 consists of 178 vacant acres and is located west of Brea Canyon Road, north of Peaceful Hills Road and south of South Pointe Middle School. Land uses appropriate for this planned development area include single family detached . ,....,, ,... - 11,. -...._ _ , . _M1 11.1. ,, w i ti � � April 10, 1995 Page 9 _,J Planning commission residential, public facilities and open space. A maximum of 165 dwelling units may be permitted incorporating a minimum of 30 percent of the 78 acre site (which shall be located on the eastern portion of the site) set aside as open space. The most sensitive portion of the site (located on the eastern portion) shall be retained in permanent open space. The site plan shall incorporate the planning and site preparation to accommodate the development of Larkstone Park of a suitable size and location to serve the neighborhood as approved by the City. The development of Larkstone Park shall be in addition to the 30 percent set aside as open space." The motion was seconded by C/Schad. The recommendation was approved unanimously. A motion was made by C/Fong and seconded by C/Schad that the Commission recommended that PD -5 retain the previous designation of Public Facilities (PF). The motion was approved 3-2 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad, VC/Huff NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Meyer, Chair/Flamenbaum ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to approve Item #4 "Modifications to the Land Use Map reflecting the above." The motion was approved unanimously. Chair/Flamenbaum 'requested Commissioner's comments regarding the entire General Plan. C/Meyer indicated he preferred the original recommendation by the Planning Commission regarding the SASAK property that the conditional approval of the Tentative Map was conditioned to be part of the entire Master Plan. The original project that 20 units standing on its own was contrary to the surrounding neighborhood and made no sense on its own merits and only marginal sense as part of the overall project. C/Fong stated the park area designated as Private �r Recreation within "The Country Estates" is now designated as Open Space. He indicated he feels it is more appropriately designated as Private Recreation. rn uhn , Ill April 10, 1995 Page Io Planning Commission C/Fong further stated he is concerned about the strip along Brea Canyon Road adjacent to PD -4 designated Commercial. He indicated he believes the hill should be retained as a sound barrier for the homes to the west of the SR 57 and should be part of PD -4. C/Fong continued that he objects to changing the RNP property designation to RR from OS. C/S'chad stated he agrees with C/Fong's'comments and in particular, those regarding the Commercial strip along Brea Canyon Road. He indicated he 'likes the first General Plan that was put together by the citizens. C/Huff concurred with the statements regarding the SASAK property indicating the citizens would like more open space and fewer houses. He stated the new designation seems a clear opportunity to allow development. For the City Council to change the number of houses on the unit without any significant trade-off to the City makes no sense. He asked that the. City Council reconsider this item. Chair/Flamenbaum stated he concurs with -,the SASAK property position voiced by other Commissioners and wishes the City Council would reconsider their decision. Secondly, he indicated the RNP property should be left as open Space. He noted that 'the YMCA is indicated "Private Park" and "The Country Estates" park is noted as open Space and should be listed as Private Recreation. He commented that he is not .in favor of the Housing Element as rewritten. C/Meyer asked about the Multi -Family designation indicated on the map for the park on the north side of the Pomona Freeway at Golden Springs Drive. CDD/DeStefano stated that this is a graphic error which will be correct to indicate "Park". 3. Replacement Identification Signs for City Parks. CSD/Rose stated that the agenda item is in reference'to park monument signs proposed for the City parks in Diamond Bar. Over the past year and at the directionlof the City Council, the City's Community Services Department staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission have worked to develop an appropriate replacement for the April.10, 1995 Page 11 Planning Commission existing park identification signs that currently list Los Angeles County as the operator of the parks. The parks are actually owned and operated by the City of Diamond Bar and the City Council has directed that the Los Angeles County statement be replaced with the City of Diamond Bar. Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission have reviewed a variety of options for accomplishing the task and those considered include retrofitting the existing signs with acrylic or wood overlays, replacing the existing signs with new wood signs, and replacement of the existing signs with new concrete monument signs. Staff and the Parks and Recreation Commission have recommended replacement of the existing signs with new concrete monument signs as being in the best interest of the community. The proposed signs provide a common theme in architecture that includes a distinctive design, river rock footing and a bronze replica of the City's logo. The park name is featured prominently on the sign along with the verbiage, "City of Diamond Bar". The signs provide clear i; identification of the City's parks, provides a visible element that is consistent in each of the park sites and projects an image of a high quality that is inherent in the City's parks. CSD/Rose continued that the process used in developing the designs include review of the existing park identification signs, review of Sign Ordinance 5A which was adopted by the City in 1994 and the need to properly identify the parks in a consistent manner with a high level of quality. There is a proposed design for a 12 foot long sign and for an -eight foot long sign. The i2 foot sign is proposed to be located on the major boulevards adjacent to the 'parks which would include Golden Springs Drive for Sycamore Canyon Park, and Peterson Park, Grand Avenue for the southern entrance of Summit Ridge Park and Brea Canyon Road for Heritage Park. The eight foot signs are proposed for the more residential streets which include Forest Canyon Drive for Paul C. Grove Park, Maple Hill Road adjacent to Maple Hill Park, Starshine Road for Starshine Park and Summit Ridge Road for the east entrance of Summit Ridge Park. F,- Potential future signage is proposed for lighting and landscape district #39 pocket parks. April 10, 1995 Page 12 Planning commission b`I;i4 Pursuant to Section 112 of the City's Sign Ordinance, the design of the monument signs for the City's parks have been submitted to the Planning Commission for advisory architectural review.Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the proposed monument signs for all City Parks and prepare comments which will be forwarded to City Council for consideration: Larry Ryan,RJM Design Group, stated that the sign is proposed;to'.be a pre -cast concrete panel which would allow for fabrication and mass creation thus reducing the overall cost. The signs would be brought to the field and erected on a concrete footing with a rock cobble base. The process envisioned a rural character with integral, color concrete, sandblast finish, rock cobble base or veneered base and the bronze plaque. The lettering' would be conveyed through the use of recessed formed letters to minimize vandalism. The bronze plaque is set into a' recessed area in order to discourage vandalism. The overriding consideration in determining the: size of the sign lettering .is readability from a;,''� traveling vehicle. To that end, the module relates to a 10 to 12 foot sign increment. Responding to C/Schad, Mr. Ryan stated that lighting for the signs has not been considered. However, this aspect could certainly be added to the program. C/Schad stated he is concerned that lighting should be considered prior to setting in the concrete base or foundation for the sign. Responding to C/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated that the private sector would be required to provide an address on their signs. Mr. Ryan indicated that although the inclusion of an address is not part of the sign proposal, staff has discussed adding the address, of the park at the base;of the sign. In response to VC/Huff, AP/Searcy indicated that the proposed signs exceed the maximum sign height allowed for free standing signs. However, the City would consider six inches diminimous. VC/Huff stated that if therelis a specific height requirement' for the commercial sector, the City should abide by the'same ,rules. AP/Searcy responded to Chair/Flamenbaum that the Planning`;`_ Commission is acting as an advisory body for City signs. —. . _ a �F � i I��'�,is�l iJ°l' �a�,.t April 10, 1995 Page 13 Planning Commission Although the project is funded from Quimby, consideration of the costs is not excluded from the Commission's consideration. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to recommend that the replacement identifications signs for Diamond Bar City parks will substantially comply with the height requirement, that the address will be added to the sign, that bougainvillea will be planted on the back side of the sign and that lighting will be added where appropriate. The motion was approved unanimously. 4. Amendment to Planned sign Program No. 92-1. AstP/Lunge reported that in October, 1992, the Planning Commission approved a Planned Sign Program for Sunset Village Shopping Center located at 1241 S. Grand Avenue. The property owner has had requests from tenants for a larger color palate and larger selection in lettering style. The existing program has white lettering only and the applicant is requesting the addition of red, green and yellow. The existing lettering styles are Helvetica Medium and Helvetica Bold. The applicant is requesting the addition of Clarendon Bold. AstP/Lungu stated this application does not require a public hearing. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the amendment to Planned Sign Program No. 92-1(1), Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the resolution. A motion was made by C/Schad and seconded by C/Meyer to approve the amendment to Planned Sign Program No. 92-1. The motion was approved unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING - None INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: Chair/Flamenbaum thanked staff for the schedule of future events for the Planning Commission. F s _ C/Schad asked when the Planning Commission would begin authoring a Development Code. CDD/DeStefano responded that an 4_rr estimate of $100,000 for budgeting of the Development Code is being forwarded for incorporation into the City Budget for 1995/1996. April 10, 1995 Page 14 Planning Commission DUE CDD/DeStefano reminded the Planning Commission will review the Capital Improvement program on May 8. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that consideration be given to standards for building development signs. ANNOUNCEMENTS - None ADJOURNMENT: Chair/Flamenbaum declared the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully Su itted, J es DeStefaVp Community DevDirector Attest: Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman 2 1 ....- 111. I., ,. ..m n- -1-00 IIA. ' .1,.. 1,4- r 1-l77*h � r„"fl,7-` ,'.VA Y�, ii, ask' ,,