HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/10/1998-- — -- I— —14d 1i,4141.,--." ..._ - , , I-- ...i -- —..
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
I� I
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the 'meetingto order at 7:13 .m. in the
P
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Goldenberg.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman McManus, and
Commissioners, Fong, Goldenberg, and Tye.
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Senior
Planner Catherine Johnson, Associate Planner
Ann Lungu and Director of Public Works George
Wentz.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of January 27, 1998.
VC/McManus moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to approve the
minutes of January 27, 1998 as submitted. The motion was
carried 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS -'None
NEW BUSINESS - None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Variance No. 97-2 is a request (pursuant to Code Chapter
22.56 -Part 2 and Sign Ordinance No. 5A-1991) to install a
monument sign approximately seven feet six inches tall.
Currently, the City's Sign Ordinance permits one monument
sign, with a maximum height of six feet for the project site.
i' Property Address: 800-880 North Diamond Bar Boulevard,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
Property Owner: Trammel Crow So. Cal. Retail II, Inc.,
5801 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90040
d" Applicant: Citrus Valley Medical Offices
210 W. San Bernardino Road
Covina, CA 91723-1901
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION {
AstP/Lunge presented staff's report. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approve variance No. 97-2, Findings of
Fact and conditions as listed within the resolution.
t
VC/McManus asked the proposed sign's proximity to the Acapulco
Restaurant sign.
AstP/Lungu responded that lot frontage is -360 feet. he
proposed sign is at the halfway point and the -Acapulco sign�is
at the northern property line.
C/Goldenberg asked if the Acapulco sign is slated to be
removed if the proposed sign is approved.
AstP/Lungu indicated that the Acapulco sign was legally
installed prior to approval of the City's Sign Ordinance. The
sign will remain.
C/Tye asked if. the Acapulco sign could be retrofitted to
include the applicant's sign.
AstP/Lungu stated the Acapulco sign is permitted exclusively
for the restaurant.
Responding to C/Tye, AstP/Lungu indicated the proposed sign
will include signage for other tenants.
Janell Prazak, ASI Sign Systems, representing Citrus Valley
Medical Offices, explained that the proposed monument sign is
-8 inches over the six foot limit specified in the Sign
Ordinance. It has six_ interchangeable panels on either slide
in addition to the 32 inch panel for the Citrus Valley logo
and location address. She asked that the variance be.approwed
at 6 feet eight inches. to maintain the three inch sign
visibility. The proposed sign will accommodate two eight inch
by five foot panels for other tenants.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Goldenberg-that the 1991 Diamond
Bar Sign Ordinance was adopted after eighteen months of
Planning Commission and City Council review. The height
maximum was specified in order to provide the City with low -
scale signage that was thought to be most harmonious with the
community setting.
C/Goldenberg asked the applicant to state the hardship that
would justify the request for variance.
Ms. Prazak responded that through calculations, the engineers
arrived at the proposed height'
C/Goldenberg stated he believes the City should follow I,
the
established guidelines.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
Ih
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
-i
Ross Pfautz, Trammel Crow So. Cal Retail II, Inc., said the
shopping center's layout poses a visibility problem for the
tenants. He pointed out that the quality of the proposed sign
-n is architecturally pleasing and offers exposure for other
tenants.
Clyde Hennessee spoke in favor of the proposed signage.
Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/Fong seconded, to accept Variance No.
97-2 with staff's recommendations. The motion failed 2-3 with
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg, Fong
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, VC/McManus, Chair/Ruzicka
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
j VC/McManus moved, Chair/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Variance
No. 97-2 to install a second sign at a height of 98'irches (80
inches for the sign and 18 inches for the base.
DCM/DeStefano asked that the following changes to the
Resolution be accepted by the maker and seconder of the
motion: Section D, Page 2, "the proposed variances request to
install a free standing monument sign with a sign face area of
I 31 feet and a height of 7.5 feet. "A revised sign plan
received February 3, 1998 proposes a sign at eight fpot 4
="" Condition D Page 4 is changedo
inches tall. g t read "The
free standing sign shall not exceed eight feet, 4 inches."
VC/McManus and Chair/Ruzicka accepted the changes.
The motion failed 2-3 with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/McManus, Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, -Goldenberg, Tye
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
C/Goldenberg pointed out that in order to grant a variance,
special circumstances must exist and asked for explanation of
how the City can justify a variance for the causes presented.
Mr. Pfautz responded to C/Tye that it is not reasonable to
expect that the Acapulco Restaurant would agree to retrofit
their sign to accommodate other tenants. He pointed out that
Health Valley is comprised of several groups and not just one
tenant.
Ms. Prazak responded to Chair/Ruzicka that the applicant is
willing to decrease the sign base by eight inches to a total
of 10 inches for a total sign height of 90 inches.
L2
VC/McManus moved, Chair/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Variance
No. 97-2 Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the
.,-_..-
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
resolution with Condition (d) on Page 4 amended to read as
follows: "The' freestanding monument sign height shall not
exceed 7.5 feet or 90 inches. The proposed 18 inch concrete
base may be reduced by 8 inches in order to permit a sixths 8
inch, changeable panel. A revised elevation reflecting the
referenced standards shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and' approval." The motion was approved
3-2 with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/McManus, Chair/Ruzicka, Fong
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg, Tye
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Vesting Tentative Tract asap No. 52267, Conditional Use Permit
NO. 98-03, Oak Tree Permit_ No. 98-01 and Environmental Impact
Report No. 97-2, Volume I and II for VTTM No. 52267. VTTM No.
52267 is proposed for 130 single-family detached residential
dwelling units clustered on approximately 65 acres of a 339.3
acre site. The development is proposed as a private, gated
community. Lots will range in size from 6,000 square feet to
26,000 square feet with an average lot size of 10,900 square
feet. The gross proposed density is 0.4 dwelling units per
acre with a net density of approximately 2.06 dwelling units
per acre.
Property Address: Generally located east of Diamond Bar µ,rc
Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue.
Property Owner: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership
550 W. Orangethorpe Avenue
Placentia, CA 92870
Applicant: Todd Kurtin, SunCal Companies
550 W. Orangethorpe Avenue
Placentia, CA 92806
AstP/Lunge presented staff's report. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive a
presentation from the applicant, receive public comments, and
continue the public hearing.
DCM/DeStefano stated the City received letters of opposition
to the proposed project from Marlene and Gil Yanow, 23356
Wagon Trail Road and Kahle and Linda Meyers, 23363 Wagon Trail
Road.
Tom Smith, BonTerra Consulting, presented a brief summary of
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Todd Kurtin presented an overview of the proposed project. He
pointed out the proposal for 130 single family residential
units and dedication of 75 percent of the SunCal property to
open space is consistent with the City's General Plan.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
Darlene Epperly 23508 Twin Spring Lane, said she understands
that .the property in question is deed restricted. The EIR is
lacking. She said she believes there is a significant
environmental impact presented by the underground spring that
flows through the bottom of Steep Canyon. The proposed
residences will create runoff that will cause mass destruction
to -flora and fauna in the canyon bottom. She stated.that
because the City leaders have never listened to the people's
voices, she feels the only way to stop the project is by
filing a lawsuit.
Stan Granger, 23800 Gold Nugget Avenue, said he moved here
eighteen years ago and was told by the developer that the site
would remain open space because the property was deed
restricted.
Steve Lasser, 23403 Stirrup Drive, asked the developer why
anyone would approve a project like this. What's in it for
Diamond Bar. He alluded to financial arrangements which would
benefit the City in exchange for increased traffic congestion,
loss of lifestyle, and increased costs to citizens for
infrastructure maintenance. He said he believes the Planning
Commission and City Council need to look out for all citizens
and not just special interest groups such as SunCal.
I¢
Don Schad said the proposed project is the most idiotic thing
that has happened to this City. Families and students will
lose the joy of exploring the unique open spaces that have
been given up to developers. He took exception to numerous
EIR findings. He stated this project is not in keeping with
the citizen's version of the General Plan. The EIR is totally
unacceptable. This project should not occur.
Sam Saffari, 24075 Highcrest Drive, pointed out that the area
maps shows that the developer is entitled to build on Lot 6
only. Lot 6 will accommodate only 80 houses. The remaining
lots are deed restricted.
Doug Heideman, 656 Blenfield Place, said he believes this
project is a ploy. He stated he believes there is collusion
and game playing. He asked for guarantees that deed
restrictions will not be removed. He spoke about a pattern of
deception. He said a lot of citizens thought this project had
been withdrawn. He has not heard one citizen speak in favor
of this project and he is confused.
Glen Maughan, 23353 Wagon Trail Road, spoke in opposition to
the project. He said his mortgage increased because of road
reconstruction and his mortgage will increase again to repair
° what has just been fixed. He wants the City to remain as it
was when he moved here three years ago.
Albert Perez, 703 Pantera Drive, said he believes that some of
the Planning Commissioners have reached a conclusion with
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
respect to this project and that they are just going through
the motions.
Chair/Ruzicka assured Mr. Perez that the Commission's decision
will be based upon the proposed project, and public testimony.
The public hearing will be continued.
Mr. Perez continued stating he believes more people shoul� be
noticed about this project. Notice is very restricted bylthe
City of Diamond Bar. He said the notice was publicized on
January 1, 1998 and he thinks very few people read the paper
on that date. He also said he is concerned about the
conflicting statements in the EIR and will not stand in a
court battle. The developer has a right to develop Lot', 6.
The General Plan presented by the citizens was rewritten by
the City Council and he does not agree with the approved
General Plan. He said the Planning Commission should tell the
City Council that the citizens are against this project.
Todd Kurtin showed a 1978 aerial photo of the City. He
pointed out that homes owned by many of the speakers did not
exist at that time. He reiterated that SunCal is givingl75
percent of its land to the City of Diamond Bar to be preserved
as open space. Mr. Lasser mentioned 25-30 acres. In fact,
Suncal is giving in excess of 300 acres of open space to the
City.. He is not aware of any developer donating that amount
of land to the City. He,said he believes the proposed homes
will increase the value of the adjacent neighborhoods. :He
stated the ongoing maintenance of the proposed development
will be paid by the homeowners who benefit by a gated
community.
Art O'Daly, 24075 Falcons View Drive, spoke about people
seeking to deprive others of their property rights. He agrees
that every citizen who lives in Diamond Bar has depleted the
supply of open space. He said he is disappointed about untrue
statements that have been made during this public hearing. He
pointed out ways that the City could benefit through further
negotiations with this developer.
Jan Martinez, 772 Farben Drive, spoke against the project.
She suggested the citizens should buy back the property.
Henry Pourzand, 1008 Quiet Creek Lane, commented on statements
contained in the EIR.
Dave Kersey, 23403 E. Wagon Trail Road, questioned statistics
regarding trees and traffic contained in the reports. He said
that he paid a premium for his property because he was told
that the hill would remain as open space. He indicated he 'is
opposed to removing deed restrictions. The developer should 't
build within Lot 6 as intended.
Glenn Vickers, 52 Briole Drive, said he moved here several
years ago for country living and he is concerned about the
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
City's ever increasing congestion. He said that there is no
jway this project can be approved if the Commission and City
Council listen to the citizens of Diamond Bar.
Ron Tehrany, 745 View Lane, asked the City to notify more
people of the public hearing. The environmental document
should be open to comment. He said was denied access to
review the project proposal at City Hall.
Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing.
VC/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded, to continue the public
hearing to February 24, 1998. The motion was approved 5-0
with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, Tye, VC/McManus,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
3. Development Review No. 97-8 (pursuant to Code Section
22.72.020) is a request for design review in order to
construct 107 single family homes within approved subdivisions
identified as Tract No.'s 32400, 52203, 52204 and 52228. The
_proposed request consists of four, two-story plans with two
and three car garages ranging from approximately 3,472 square
feet to 4,244 square feet. Each plan will .have three
architectural styles. Additionally, the request includes
entry designs and landscaping and walls.
Property Address: 1400 block of Brea Canyon Road (west side
of Brea Canyon Road, south of Golden
Springs Drive and north of Pathfinder
Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91789.
Property Owner: Standard Pacific Corporation
1565 W. MacArthur Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Applicant: Dana Bieber, Standard Pacific Corporation
1565 W. MacArthur Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report.- Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 97-8,
Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the
resolution.
Dana Bieber, Applicant, presented an overview of the proposed
project.
{ I
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
VC/McManus moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to approve
Development Review No. 97-8, Findings of Fact and conditions
i�.. `°STI+1191°9i�!w�*9�t R'�.` _ •-_-_._.._. _.,�R.- ..�._—..�—.T�_.,.wn �.i Rr
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
I
as listed within the resolution. The motion was carried 5-0
l with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, Tye, VC/McManus,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Diamond Bar Subdivision Ordinance: Review of Article �I,
Purpose and Applicability; Article II, Subdivision Review
Procedures; Article III, Subdivision Design and Development,
and Article IV, Subdivision Ordinance Definitions.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public
hearing, receive testimony, review and discuss the Articles of
the Subdivision Ordinance, and recommend City Council
approval.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this item.
' I
Following discussion, VC/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded,) to
recommend that the City Council approve the Articles of the
Subdivision Ordinance as recommended by staff. The motion was
carried 5-0 with the following Roll Cali vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, Tye, VC/McManus,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
C/Tye said that tonight's meeting was particularly interesting for
him. He stated that .he is concerned about people "getting
personal" in their comments. With respect to the SunCal project;
Mr. Perez's comments regarding the public hearing notification
being January 1, 1998 was incorrect. In fact, staff's report
indicates that the hearing.notice was posted January 21, 1998'.
VC/McManus concurred with C/Tye that he does not approve of
personal attacks against Commissioners and staff members.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano stated that at its February 3, 1998 meeting, the City
Council approved the JCC Development Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 50314 -project and the three lot parcel map at the Best Western
Hotel. AstP/Lungu recently attended the Planning Commissioners
Forum in Rancho Cucamonga. Seminar information is included in the
Commission packets.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS as listed in the agenda.
'lpr4�,
L:
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Tye moved, C/Fong seconded, to adjourn the meeting to February
24, 1998. There being no further business to come before the
Planning commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 11:07
p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
JlDeSs
tefano�
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
Ruz'
0 r�r r
'C*h
airma