Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/27/20011 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 27, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Zirbes called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Ruzicka led in the pledge of allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Bob Zirbes, Vice Chairman Joe Ruzicka, and Commissioners George Kuo, Steve Nelson, and Steve Tye. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, Associate Planner, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. ' 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 13, 2001. VC/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 13, 2001, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, VC/Ruzicka, Chair/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Tye ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: 6.1 Development Code Amendment No. 2001-02 to amend Articles III, Sections 22.36.080 and 22.36.120.0 of the City's Development Code regarding signage ' within C-3 zone. (Referral from City Council to Planning Commission pursuant to Development Code Section 2230.040 and Government Code Section 65857) NOVEMBER 27, 2001 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT ADDRESS: Commercial Development Complexes of 4.5 acres or more adjacent to the freeway in the C-3 zone, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receives a presentation from staff and provide a report to the City Council. Chair/Zirbes proposed discussion of Amendment Item 7, 8 and 9 in that order. Item 7 Discussion: VC/Ruzicka asked if the contemplated signs conform to state law and CalTrans regulations. DCM/DeStefano stated that in terms of the freeway -oriented signs and in particular, those with an electronic reader board, yes. There are CalTrans standards for such signs and they include items such as the minimum length of time the message may be displayed. CalTrans will be a reviewing agency with respect to the specific sign. Chair/Zirbes asked how many other sites in Diamond Bar would qualify for an electronic reader sign. DCM/DeStefano explained that staff is not aware of any other C-3 zone Diamond Bar location that would be 4 1/z acres or greater and would be more than 1,000 feet from residential property. Chair/Zirbes moved, VC/Ruzicka seconded, to accept Item 7 with the following changes: First paragraph: change the parcel size from 3 acres to 4.5 acres; insert located immediately adjacent to the freeway; amend 7 c. add "reader board shall not be more than 33 percent of the total sign face area;" and change 7.e. to indicate a minimum of 1300 feet from any residential property (instead of 1250 feet). C/Tye pointed out that with the amendment changes, current maximum sign area is 200 square feet and proposed is 1,000 square feet. As a result, the proposed amendment changes would allow the opportunity for other businesses to request 1,000 square feet of static sign board. C/Tye said he has 13 year old information from the Department of Transportation on safety of reader boards. He spoke at length about the City's General Plan, its vision for Diamond Bar, the original Development Code and subsequent changes and how this proposed Development Code Amendment is structured to accommodate one business. Item K under 22.36.080 under prohibited signs is "outside signs not specifically allowed by NOVEMBER 27, 2001 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION the provisions of this chapter including billboards and outdoor advertising." Why isn't that changed at the same time? Because that's not what this community wants. It is not what, in November 1998 after great deliberation, was decided as the way Diamond Bar should be developed and the way Diamond Bar should look. Diamond Bar is stuck with what the County passed down. And that is why Diamond Bar became a city — to have decisions over matters such as this. Now we cannot blame the County'if this happens. If that business goes, how will Diamond Bar replace that sales tax revenue? DCM/DeStefano explained that car dealerships produce tax revenue from sales ranging from 15 million to 100 million. This particular dealership is in the low 1/3 range and Diamond Bar receives one percent of the sales tax dollars from the business. This dealership consistently is the #1 or #2 sales tax producer of all businesses in the city and it is a concern that they may leave. C/Tye pointed out that if Diamond Bar lost that revenue it would amount to a $5 or $10 increase in his property taxes and if he had to pay that extra amount not to have an electronic billboard in Diamond Bar he would gladly pay it. He's also sure that there are people who would not want to pay the extra property tax because they were not willing to pay $5 or $10 extra per year for a community swimming pool. He asked the Commission to seriously think about what the community will look like if this amendment is approved. Even though Diamond Bar Honda is on the City of Industry side of the freeway it is still in Diamond Bar. He hopes the business will remain here for another 20 years and be successful without an electronic billboard. There will be enough commercial businesses/billboards when the City of Industry builds out. He does not believe Diamond Bar Honda needs an electronic billboard to be successful. C/Nelson said that when this matter first came before the Planning Commission he felt as C/Tye has eloquently stated. During the meeting he learned of increased sales statistics as a result of electronic reader boards. On Sunday evening he was driving home on the SR 60 from LAX with long-time friends and residents of Diamond Bar. He pointed out the stark contrast between the electronic signs along the City of Industry freeway area and the darkness of the adjacent freeway in Diamond Bar with its subtle business lighting. This contrast gave him a real sense of appreciation for where he lives. He tried to picture a blinking electronic reader board at Diamond Bar Honda and that vision helped him make his decision. When he asked one of his friends what he thought it would look like and the friend told him it would look like a turd in a punchbowl. He will not be able to support the proposed amendment due to the electronic nature of the proposed reader board. Chair/Zirbes said he has struggled with this matter. Diamond Bar Honda is a unique piece ' of property and he is concerned about losing the business. He believes Diamond Bar can accomplish what it wants to accomplish even with the electronic reader board. The businesses that Diamond Bar residents like to frequent are not available here and NOVEMBER 27, 2001 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Diamond Bar does not make the community accessible to attract those types of business. And Diamond Bar makes its own traffic by having to drive out of the community to shop for materials and services the residents' desire. This is a unique piece of property that can benefit the entire community. He visited Birdseye Drive and Highcrest Drive and he could see Diamond Bar Honda. Currently, it is well lighted and the reader board will not be any more visible than it is at this time. Motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, VC/Ruzicka, Chair/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Tye ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Item 8 Discussion: C/Tye moved, Chair/Zirbes seconded to deny Item 8 amendment. C/Tye reiterated that he has a problem amending the Development Code to be a blanket statement to allow business to install 12 foot monument signs. Chair/Zirbes said the same types of parcels are being considered for Item 8 as Item 7. In 1998 he spoke to the Planning Commission about looking at the types and sizes of the monument signs. If a freeway project that has a 60 foot high freeway sign is being considered, he would look at just that particular property for consideration because the only parcel of property that fits this criteria happens to be located on Grand Avenue just to the west of the SR 57. He believes that either a six foot or a 12 foot sign would call his attention to the fact that that particular business is a Honda Dealership. He believes that there is a need to temper what is being done with these sign programs. The question is, how much more sign face does the community want to see and does the dealership benefit from any additional traffic by having a 12 foot monument sign. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Tye, VC/Ruzicka, Chair/Zirbes NOES: COMNIISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Item 9 Discussion: VC/Ruzicka asked if Item 9 meets state law and CalTrans regulations or does it need to meet those standards? C 1 1 NOVEMBER 27, 2001 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano responded that staff is not aware of any regulatory authority over wall signs. DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Tye that properties that might choose to avail themselves of this type of wall sign would be Diamond Bar Honda/Burger King, L.A. Fitness, Via Sorella/Brea Canyon Road property. In the future, staff believes the Kmart-Von's-Savon property will convert to a C-3 zone. In the future, the Walnut Valley Trailer parcel could convert to a C-3 zone. C/Tye moved, Chair/Zirbes seconded, to approve Item 9 with the change to line 2 indicating "consisting of 4.5 acres or more, etc." Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Tye, VC/Ruzicka, Chair/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None C/Tye asked that the November 19 Los Angeles Times article be forwarded to the City Council. VC/Ruzicka said he admires the eloquence with which Commissioner Tye made his case. However, VC/Ruzicka believes that the Commission has control as to how it takes place, which is important to him. DCM/DeStefano explained the process of formulating and approving the Commission's Report to the Council. C/Tye said he wants his feelings to be reflected in the Report to Council. While this was a three-part undertaking, he does not want this to go to the Council 5-0 and have them believe that there was a unanimous decision to approve the amendments to the Development Code. DCM/DeStefano explained that this resolution is simply meant to describe the Commission's activities. The three individual actions can be included within the report and the minutes of this meeting will also be included in the Report to Council. Upon motion by Chair/Zirbes, seconded by VC/Ruzicka to approve Resolution No. 2001 -XX, that based upon the findings and conclusions set forth, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Council consider the Planning Commission's Report to Council and recommendations on Development Code Amendment No. 2001-02. The Report to Council will include the following: Changes as approved, incorporation of individual item 7, 8 and 9 votes, minutes from tonight's meeting including discussion on individual items. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: NOVEMBER 27, 2001 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: Kuo, Nelson, Tye, VC/Ruzicka, Chair/Zirbes None None 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-06 and Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2000-01 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.58 and 22.36.060) is a request to install signs for the Diamond Bar Honda dealership and recently approved dealer expansion/car wash/lube facility. Proposed signs are as follows: a 65 foot tall electronic reader board; three monument signs; two canopy signs; and one dealership identification sign. The Conditional Use Permit will be utilized to review the proposed electronic reader board sign with regard to location, design and potential impacts. The Comprehensive Sign Program provides a process for sign integration with the design of structures on site in order to achieve a unified architectural statement. (Continued from October 9, 2001) PROJECT ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: 515-525 S. Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Matthew Tachdjian Col -Am Properties, LLC P.O. Box 4655 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 George Selzer Electra -Vision Advertising 731 W. 11th Street Claremont, CA 91711 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-06, Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2000-01, and Negative Declaration No. 2001-03, Finding of Fact and conditions as listed within the resolution. AssocP/Lungu indicated to C/Tye that the proposed electronic message center of the reader board sign is close to 33 percent in face area of Electra -Vision Advertising (EVA). George Saelzler, applicant, responded to VC/Ruzicka that there is an average of 15 to 30 percent increase in business due to use of reader board signs under conditions similar to the 57/60 interchange issues. Upon installation of reader boards beginning 1 1 1 NOVEMBER 27, 2001 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION about 12 years go, the accident ratio decreased. In fact, CalTrans uses electronic reader boards for highway information signs. The idea that electronic reader boards cause a safety issue is mute. Chair/Zirbes opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Zirbes closed the public hearing. Chair/Zirbes asked if Condition (n), page 7, means that if the dealership does not complete their expansion as conditioned, there will be no installation of signage to which AssocP/Lungu responded "yes." AssocP/Lungu explained to Chair/Zirbes that the intent of Condition (h), page 7, is that the existing 40 foot high sign and all other signs will be removed prior to installation of the reader board. In this case, the Burger King sign would be removed and replaced because the proposed sign program has changed since this resolution was written. C/Tye suggested that Condition (f), page 7, limit the amount of time the reader board can be used, such as 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. George Saelzler said that although he has not discussed use of inflatables in addition to the reader board sign with the owner, he believes the owner would agree to limiting or eliminating their use. He suggested that it might be prudent to offer the owner the ability to apply for use of inflatables on a case-by-case basis. As a guess, there may be a special weekend event that might incorporate a character. Forty-five days a year would most likely be a maximum number of days per year to consider for such special events. Balloons may be an appropriate form of special advertising whereas, other types of large inflatables should not be necessary once a reader board is placed at the site. In his opinion, use of inflatables would be a poor use of money. VC/Ruzicka moved to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2001-06 and Comprehensive Sign Program No. 2000-01, findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the resolution with the following amendments: The first monument sign will be at a 6 foot height; the second sentence of Condition (h) read: "all flags and inflatable devices, etc., except small balloons shall be removed prior to issuance of any sign permits. Chair/Zirbes suggested that Condition (h) remain as proposed and that Condition (I) be added to read as follows: "Temporary banners, etc., shall require NOVEMBER 27, 2001 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION a temporary sign permit; shall not be placed on roof areas; and shall be limited to a maximum of 45 days per year. No inflatable advertising devices except small balloons will be allowed on site." VC/Ruzicka accepted the amendment. Chair/Zirbes seconded the motion. Chair/Zirbes asked that Condition (f) be changed to read: "The 10 percent time frame shall be evenly distributed between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. each day."; that Condition (h) eliminate "Including the freestanding freeway - oriented electronic reader board sign" from the first sentence; change maximum height from 12 feet to 6 feet in Condition (1); Add Condition to read: "Hours of operation for the reader board sign shall be 5:00 a.m. to midnight each day." VC/Ruzicka accepted Chair/Zirbes modifications. C/Tye again asked that the hours of operation for the reader board be specified as 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. C/Nelson said he didn't like the reader board in the first place but it got approved. Since it has been approved he would like for it to work for the owner. George Saelzler indicated to C/Nelson that the standard hours for reader board signs are 5:00 a.m. to midnight each day because they are significant commute traffic hours. 11:00 p.m. would be an acceptable shut off time. VC/Ruzicka and Chair/Zirbes agreed to amend the motion to add Condition 0) to indicate that the "Hours of operation for the reader board shall be 5:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. each day." Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, VC/Ruzicka, Chair/Zirbes NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. RECOGNITION TO OUTGOING COMMISSIONER ZIRBES. Chair/Zirbes said that if the election results hold, he is to be sworn in as a City Council Member on December 4, 2001. He tendered his resignation as Chairman of the Planning Commission effective the date he is sworn in as a City Council Member. Serving on the Planning Commission has been an event and an experience that he has enjoyed immensely. He appreciates the education he has received from staff and his fellow Commissioners. He has learned a great deal from his fellow Commissioners who think 1 NOVEMBER 27, 2001 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION with their minds and feel with their hearts which is evident in the decisions made and the language crafted. He is sorry to be leaving the Planning Commission. Thank you for the experience. VC/Ruzicka, on behalf of the Planning Commission and staff, presented a plaque to Chairman Zirbes in appreciation of his service to the Planning Commission and the City of Diamond Bar. 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None Offered. 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. DCM/DeStefano reported that at its November 20 meeting the City Council approved Development Code Amendment 2001-03, the Planning Commission's Development Code Amendment recommending approval of new property maintenance standards to deal with landscaping in yard areas and to increase the lot coverage permitted on certain single family residential properties from 30 percent to 40 percent. In the event that Mr. Zirbes is sworn in as a Council Member on December 4, staff recommends that the Planning Commission schedule a reorganization of the Planning Commission for its December 11, 2001, meeting. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Zirbes adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m. tfully Su Jark6s DeStefano Deputy City Man Attest: 1 N/ Cfia an Bob Zirbes