Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/22/20021 1 1 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 22, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air C Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, Cali 41765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Tanaka led the pledge of allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Joe Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Steve Tye, Commissioners Steve Nelson, Dan Nolan, and Jack Tanaka. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lungu, A: Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, Marquez, Administrative Assistant, David Meyer and Milan G LDM Associates. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of Study Session of October 8, 2002. C/Tanaka moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve the Study Session October 8, 2002. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. 4.2 Minutes of Regular Meeting of October 8, 2002. C/Tanaka moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve the Regular Meeting minutes October 8, 2002 as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None, 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. ty is and of of OCTOBER 22, 2002 7. Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING (S): 7.1 Development Review No. 2002-27 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020.A.1 and 22.54) is a request to construct a two story, single-family residence with porch, balconies/covered patio, and dual two car garages totaling approximately 11,983 gross square feet. The request also includes a site retaining wall in areas of varying topography that varies in exposed height from 42 inches to a maximum of ten (10) feet. The ten -foot section of retaining wall requires Variance approval. (Continued from September 24, 2002) PROJECT ADDRESS: 24037 Goldrush Drive (Lot 3, Tract No. 31977) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Goldrush Investment Group 1595 S. McPherrin Avenue Monterey Park, CA 91754 APPLICANT: Andrew King 1595 S. McPherrin Avenue Monterey Park, CA 91754 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2002-27 and Variance No. 2002-04, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Andrew King, applicant, said he concurs with staff's conditions for the revised plans. Mr. King indicated to C/Tye that he was familiar with Item 5(c) on page 7, specifying the condition in which the property and all other lots in the development must be maintained. Mr. King stated he has been cleaning up the property as needed and as soon as litter is apparent. He anticipated the problem would lessen because he planned to fence the property. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. At the request of C/Tye, DSA/Smith explained how this 11,000 plus square foot home fits into the character of the surrounding neighborhood. OCTOBER 22, 2002 1-1 7.2 1 Page 3 PLANNING DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Nolan that staff viewed the property this and the majority of the site is clean of the type of debris with which the Commission was previously concerned. C/Nolan moved, Chair/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2002-27 and Variance No. 2002-04, the Findings of Facts, and conditio is of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Nolan, Tanaka, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COIvIlMIISSIONER& None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Review No. 2002-18 - Pursuant to Code Sections 22.42.130.G.4, 22.58, 22.54, and 22.45 this application is a request to install a wireless telecommunications facility with Antennas (mounted on a mono -cypress) camouflaged as a cypress tree and equipment cabinet. The Variance relates to the height of the mono -cypress that exceeds the maximum allowable 35 -foot height. The Development Review relat s to architectural/design review. (Continued from October 8, 2002) PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: 2151 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Roman Catholic Abp 3424 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90010 Cingular 2521 Michelle Drive Tustin, CA 92780 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commi approval of Conditional Use Permit 2002-07, Variance No. 2002-02 Development review No. 2002-18, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of app as listed within the resolution. OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page 4 PLANNING COMNUSSTON John Halminsky, The Consulting Group, presented live and faux material samples to the Commissioners for their perusal. He pointed out proposed location and size of the representation materials. Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. Mr. Halminsky responded to VC/Tye that he had exhausted all remedies for possible location of the equipment. The church would not allow him to place the equipment in the tower. Additionally, there are a number of stained glass windows that would be obscured by the equipment if it were placed in the pedestrian walkway area. If the equipment were placed in the courtyard the only potential location would be in a landscaped area. The proposed location is screened from public view, the train reason for requesting the location. In addition, the proposed location offers an option for a mono -cypress. Chair/Ruzicka asked for assurance that the mono -cypress would not fall during a strong wind. Mr. Halminsky explained that the mono -cypress is a substantial structure built from steel, calculated out for wind loads and bolted to a foundation. C/Nelson thanked Mr. Halminsky for providing the visual simulation. He asked who would be responsible and how quickly the faux tree could be repaired in the event of damage. Mr. Halminsky responded that Cingular Wireless would be responsible for maintenance. Their turnaround time is within 24 hours of notification. VC/Tye felt he did not receive an adequate response to his question about why the equipment could not be located in the bell tower and courtyard areas. AssocP/Lungu said that the church did not want the equipment located in the tower because it would require 24-hour access. C/Nelson moved, C/Nolan seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2002-07, Variance No. 2002-02 and Development Review No. 2002-18, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval. as listed within the resolution. VC/Tye asked that the motion be amended to limit this location to one (1) cell site. C/Nelson and C/Nolan accepted the amendment. Motion carried by the following Roil Call vote: 1-1 1 1 OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page 5 AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS 8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): PLANNING Nelson, Nolan, Tanaka, Chair/Ruzicka None None 8.1 Development Review No. 2002-24 - Pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020(A)(1) application is to request to remodel and add approximately 1,487 square feet existing two-story, single -fare ly residence of 2,512 square feet including porcl two car garage. PROJECT ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: 21925 Tolani Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 David and Susan Victoria 21925 Tolani Court Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning C, approval of Development Review No. 2002-24, the Findings of Fact, and of approval as listed within the resolution. David Victoria said he read staff's report and concurs with staff's for approval. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Ruzicka the public hearing. VC/Tye moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2002 - the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resoluti, Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMIVIISSIONERS: Nelson, Nolan, Tanaka, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka None None , this o an and OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION 8.2 Development Review No. 2002-23 and Tree Permit No. 2002-09 - Pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020.A. and 22.38, this application is a request to construct a two-story office building of approximately 35,000 square feet on a vacant lot. A Tree Permit is required for the removal/replacement of approximately eight California Pepper trees and one Walnut tree. PROJECT ADDRESS: 20625 Lycoming Street Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Dante Senese Southcoast Cabinet 755 Pinefalls Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91789 APPLICANT: Design Arc 27231 Burbank, Suite 201 Foothill Ranch, CA 92610 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2002-23 and Tree Permit No. 2002-09, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. DCM/DeStefano stated that staff received a letter from a resident residing on Lycoming Avenue within a 500 -foot radius of the site. The Commissioners were provided a copy of the letter. The letter states the writers concern about additional traffic that might be generated as a result of this project. VC/Tye asked for an explanation of required parking. He felt that instead of the 56 parking spaces, 61 should be required which would render the project nine parking spaces deficient. AssocP/Lungu concurred with VC/Tye's calculations. Staff estimated that five (5) carpool spaces mitigated the lack of parking space deficiency. Each use would be required to comply with the City's transportation demand programs. AssocP/Lungu responded to VC/Tye that applicant is required to widen Lycoming Avenue along the project frontage area only. Responding to Chair/Ruzicka, AssocPlLungu explained that the rear portion of the property abuts the railroad track and not a residential area. Therefore, the three-foot setback is adequate. 1 OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page 7 PLANNING Steve Kemp, Design Arc, stated he read staff's report and concurs with the coni ions of approval. Although the building was planned for use by a single tenan , the building owner, the building is designed to be sub -divided for multiple tenants' the event that becomes a requirement. Some of the employees who currently w kat other locations owned by Southcoast Cabinet will be moving to this site so there will be no additional traffic parking on Lycoming as a result of this project. He believed that staff's original calculations for parking was adequate based 11pon warehouse/office use space. Mr. Kemp further explained the tree replacement proposal. Mr. Kemp indicated to C/Nolan that the greatest number of employees expected�o be at the site at any one time would be 30. C/Nelson asked if the applicant is proposing to use the proposed landscape plan as a completely adequate plan. Mr. Kemp said his proposal as outlined is proposed to be adequate for replacement. C/Nelson said he was concerned about future parking considerations. He does not see a fit between the building and the proposed 56 parking spaces. Mr. Kemp explained to C/Nelson that the second floor glass front was created to enhance the facade. The area is not intended for tenant occupancy. C/Nelson explained why he is concerned about future under parking. Mr. Kemp reiterated that any future tenant would be required to submit to the per. nit process and comply with parking requirements. Mr. Kemp responded to VC/Tye that only a portion of this applicant's would be relocated to this site. They plan to maintain other portions of the in current locations. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak on this matter. Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. C/Tanaka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2002-, and Tree Permit No. 2002-9, the Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval listed within the resolution. OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page S PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nelson explained why he would not be able to support the project. He was somewhat concerned that the project would not address future concerns about parking and tenants. C/Nolan echoed C/Nelson's comments. He felt it was a beautiful building and thought the project should have further discussions between the applicant and staff about mitigating for additional parking spaces. He also believed that there should be further consideration regarding tree replacement. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tanaka, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Nolan ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.3 Development Review No. 2002-03 - Pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020.A., this application is a request to construct a two-story office building of approximately 25,000 square feet on a vacant lot within Gateway Corporate Center. PROJECT ADDRESS: 21671 E. Gateway Center Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Acbar Omar 222 N. Sunset Avenue West Covina, CA 91790 APPLICANT: Southwest Design 7201 Haven Avenue, Suite E-309 Alta Loma, CA 91701 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for this project to a future date in order to give the applicant time to submit the traffic impact analysis report and geotechnical report for the City's review and approval. VC/Tye asked why this project came before the Planning Commission this evening absent two essential reports. OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSI( 8.4 DCM/DeStefano explained that staff would prefer not to provide the Plat: Commission with incomplete applications. However, the developer has a rig bring this matter before the Planning Commission. Staff discussed this matter the applicant over the past several weeks. Lack of documentation came t( attention of staff in the past few days and staff asked the applicant whether he wi to proceed or continue the project. The property owner and applicant requested to proceed with the project. VC/Tye questioned the lack of mitigation for traffic in connection with this DCM/DeStefano explained that staff just received the traffic report and has an opportunity to review the document. Alan Smith, Southwest Designs, said that the soils report has to be updat( building and structural in conjunction with 1998 UBC and CCB. With resp traffic, the applicant anticipated that there would be no required mitigation. applicant has gone through this process before and understands what is expect the Commission would feel more comfortable giving the City's traffic engin( opportunity to review the report, it would be best to continue the item. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. VC/Tye moved, C/Nolan seconded, to reopen the Public Hearing and continue matter to November 26, 2002. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS NOES: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS o. Nelson, Nolan, Tanaka, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka None None Negative Declaration of Environmental impact No. 2002-07 -The propos project is a request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Zone Chan Specific Plan, Development Review, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Parcel M and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. This would allow it to with the ;hed staff ect. had for t to rhe If an OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION the construction of a retail/commercial shopping center consisting of a three-story hotel, two freestanding restaurants, and two office/retail building pads totaling approximately 70,370 square feet of gross building area. The proposed development will be located on an approximate 6.50 gross acre site. PROJECT ADDRESS: 850 Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Louis Marcellin 20326 Fuerte Drive Walnut, CA 91789 APPLICANT: Phil Williams (Extended Stay America) 2525 Cherry Avenue #310 Signal Hill, CA 90806 Milan Garrison and David Meyer, LDM Associates, presented staff's report. Staff -_ recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval, with conditions, as appropriate for consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting. DCM/DeStefano stated that staff received a letter from Mr. Ortiz, a resident living adjacent to the project, opposing the project based upon concerns about additional traffic, privacy issues, and excessive noise and light issues. In addition, the letter refers to concerns about illegally parked trucks on Brea Canyon Road. Al Anz, representing the development group, Alan Taylor, Extended Stay America, and Mario Tutino, CASCO (project architect) summarized the proposed project. Mr. Anz responded to VC/Tye that he would not be interested in purchasing this property except for the proposed zone change. C/Nelson asked what theme the architect was attempting. Mr. Tutino explained that the architectural theme was Extended Stay America's standard prototype with minor enhancements. D 1 OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page It PLANNING COMMISS Responding to C/Nolan, Mr. Tutino stated that rooms open only to the inside an not to the outside. Mr. Taylor stated an average across -the -country night's fee fo the past quarter was $320 per week. This property will generate closer to a $400 per week fee ($80 per night). Mr. Marcellin said that about 100 of the vehicles cu ntly stored on his property are owned by D.B. residents. C/Tanaka asked if all of the Extended Stay America's are three (3) stories towhich Mr. Taylor responded that all are three stories at a minimum and go up to seve n or eight stories. To Chair/Ruzicka's question, Mr. Taylor stated that the proposed project consists of 116 studios. VC/Tye asked if Extended Stay America has a restaurant in the facility and Mr. Taylor responded "no." Mr. Meyer explained the discretionary permits that were requested for this pr ject and their relationship to the City's General Plan. The applicant has determined that there is no demand for office use and industrial use. As a result, they are requesting the City of Diamond Bar to modify its General Plan to a land use designatioi of General Commercial. Staff reviewed the request and given current development trends in and around the area, agree that the request is an appropriate modification to the General PIan. The General Plan Amendment needs to be accomplished if this plan is to move forward. Secondly, staff is suggesting that if the General Plan is amended to General Commercial that pursuant to the State mandate, the zone sh uld be changed to a zone that implements that land use designation, zone district -2. Further, staff suggests a Specific Plan overlay for this project and staff is recommending that a Specific Plan be prepared for the six and one-half acre site. The Specific Plan overlay would create zoning standards applicable to this unique six and one-half acre parcel. Nowhere else in the City of Diamond Bar would t ese standards be applied unless a similar Specific Plan was created for a different ea. Staff is concerned that this ambitious project may not go forward for a variety of reasons such as financing, tenant agreements and finalization of the property Salk, from the current owner. If something should occur that this project were not completed, the Specific Plan would be in place and regulate whatever future or alternative types of development that could occur on this site. VC/Tye asked what could be built at the site under the current General Plan land designation. OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Meyer explained that if the Commission declined to recommend the General Plan amendment, staff would recommend an appropriate land use zone appropriate for the current land use category, C-1 for office buildings. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. Lowanna Owens, 826 Dryander Drive, said her property faces this project. She was concerned that the development of the property and the noise and lights would adversely affect the quality of their lives. She was also concerned about the safety of children crossing Brea Canyon Road and Lycoming to get to Walnut Elementary School. With all of the City of Industry development along with this development, there would be a proliferation of fast food restaurants. She wanted to know how traffic could enter and Ieave the project with only one ingress/egress. She opposed the project and felt it would interfere with her quality of life and privacy. Nina Munoz, 810 Silver Fir Road, felt she had moved to a safe and quiet area. If she had known about this proposed project she would not have purchased her condo. She currently enjoys a southerly view of the mountains from her second story living room. If this project is built she will be looking at the hotel's third floor and she will have the odor of fast food cooking. She has had near mishaps with motorists leaving Farmer Boys Restaurant and now the traffic will be much worse. The fast food operations will generate continuous in and out traffic. Directly south of the freeway there are at least six eating establishments at this time. Four more is overkill in a small area. She opposed the project. Janet Fissado, 21040 Lycoming Street, immediately next door to Farmer Boys Restaurant, said they moved to this bedroom community for its quaint and quiet qualities and they are very concerned about the proposed changes. When Farmer Boys opened 18 -wheelers started parking on their street. She was very concerned about traffic and when truck deliveries would be made to the site. She asked if the City would require the applicant to erect barriers between the houses and the businesses on Lycoming. She was also concerned about privacy and felt that with a three-story hotel, residents would be able to readily look into their back yard and that the lights would be shining into their back yard. They get the light and smell from the Farmer Boys Restaurant at this time. The cement in their driveway is cracking and shifting from all of the 18 -wheelers driving up and down their street. She was also concerned about deteriorating home values and the type of signage that the hotel and business would use. She is opposed to this project. 1 OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page 13 PLANNING Ted Owens, 826 Dryander, has been living in his residence for more than 20 ye and the house faces this project. There has already been a tremendous impact to Brea Canyon Road traffic and this project would create more gridlock and sal problems. Children walk the area and are at risk when they cross the street on tl way to school. Where is the ingress/egress proposed for this project? He sugge,, that the General Plan not be modified to accommodate this project. He did believe the project would benefit Diamond Bar or the residents in its immed vicinity and did not support the project. Maria Diaz, 820 Dryander Drive, supported the statements of the prior speakers. was very familiar with Extended Stay America type facilities and believed that c though some people would stay for a couple of weeks, tenants would stay for aln a year. She and her family of five lived in such a facility for eight months when t suffered a kitchen fire in their home. People are free to come and go 24 hours a There are families with children and teenagers who make noise. The facility she 1 did not have a restaurant but served a continental breakfast every morning Mori through Thursday. She felt there would be a lot of traffic and noise. She did not this facility would be safe for the community and would create traffic problem, Rachel Posey, 20968 Northampton, concurred with other speakers. She presentee Commission with copies of photographs enclosed in a letter from Mr. Ortiz resit at that address. The photos show the difference between the streetlight and the 1 from Farmer Boys that flow into their back yard and the neighbors front yard as as the large trucks parked on the opposite side of their backyard fence. She felt development would bring more traffic. The streetlight is 35 -foot lumens and Farmers Boy light is 100 -foot lumens, a large difference. Chair/Ruzicka asked staff to summarize the advantages and disadvantages to the of Diamond Bar for this project to be developed in the manner presented. DCM/DeStefano acknowledged that there would be two perspectives to ad and disadvantages — one the applicant's and the other, staff's. Mr. Turin pointed out that on page 2 of the Executive Summary, staff has number of benefits to the community. Mr. Meyer elicited that the environmental document also addresses some concerns propounded by residents. Staff did not observe 18 -wheelers parked Brea Canyon Road for long periods of time. Staff has not conducted a traffic and would explore the issue and options with the City's Engineer and Public I Director. Staff felt that there were sufficient horizontal separations betwe the the the the OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page 14 PLANNING COMMISSION existing residential dwelling units and the proposed structure to mitigate invasion of privacy. Perhaps the applicant could provide the Commission with additional photo simulations to promote better understanding of the relationship of the buildings to the residential area. Staff's observation was that the project would not have a major impact on the ambient noise level in the area. Lighting was considered an issue and staff requested a lighting study based on parking lot lighting to insure that none of the lights would create an impact on the surrounding neighborhood. If the Farmer Boys Restaurant lighting is spilling over into the surrounding residential areas, shielding needs to be provided. The overriding issue appears to be that of invasion of privacy resulting from a three-story hotel. Mitigation measures could be incorporated to eliminate that concern. VC/Tye questioned how 292 automobile visits to this site would not increase the ambient noise level. Is it because of the proximity to the freeway? Mr. Meyer responded affirmatively and pointed out that not all of the 292 vehicles would move at the same time and there would be no "peak hour" traffic concerns. The primary ambient noise is generated from the freeway and railroad tracks to the north. Mr. Tutino said the initial study indicated this project would be within the threshold of ambient the noise levels indicated within the City's General Plan Noise Element for commercial development. C/Nelson said he believes there is a need to make the City's zoning consistent with a General Plan amendment regardless of the proposed uses. The City can act on this matter in parts. The idea of this type of project is appealing to him. It is an upgrade to the site and benefits the City. He feels compelled to separate the merit of this project from the "sizzle" it offers to make certain it is right for the community. He also feels a need to separate the merit of the concerns and wants to base his decision on facts. In his view, the Commission should start thinking about what additional facts would be essential to making an informed decision with regard to the entire issue. VC/Tye was troubled by Mr. Meyer's prior statement that there was not an interest in developing the property in professional offices, etc. Other developments are proposed for sites less than a mile from this proposed site. To him it seems self- serving that this property owner wants a commercial development. He is troubled that the recommendation does not include professional office use for the property that 1 1 L' OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page 15 PLANNING would make it a quieter use. The area should be developed and how can that bedone to incorporate the objectives of the City and allow the residents to maintain as much of their neighborhood as possible. DCM/DeStefano explained that the City has several objectives, one of which i to attempt to provide the appropriate mix of land uses to provide services to the residents and business community and provide revenue from those land uses that can be used to provide City services. This particular location with its freeway orientation/on/off ramp/adjacency to Brea Canyon Road (a major arterial) provides an opportunity to capture some of those land uses that could provide businesses hat residents, industrial patrons and freeway customers passing the area would use. This project is attempting to capture a customer base from all of those segments. In st ort, the consideration may be how to insure that the proposed palate of uses (this pro ject or any proposed project) best integrates with the existing character of the neighborhood. C/Nelson felt the City should meet with the residents in order to understand their specific concerns and address the issues raised. C/Nolan echoed prior statements about effecting residents' quality of life. He waiited to know the financial implications of this project to the City. VC/Tye asked Mr. Taylor if the project would work as a two-story pro ect. Mr. Taylor said no from an aesthetic standpoint. Given the nature and economics of the project it would enlarge the site to where this proposal would not work. Extended Stay America has never built a two-story prototype because it does not Nvork aesthetically. C/Nolan asked what would happen to the vehicles currently housed at the site C/Nelson moved to continue the public hearing to December 10, 2002, and to c staff to conduct one or two public outreach meetings to address residents cont Further, staff is directed to provide specific information regarding "quality of issues and their potential effect to the surrounding neighborhood. These is include light and glare, odors, privacy issues, traffic and safety issues specii congestion, truck parking on Brea Canyon Road, Lycoming and other reside streets adjacent to the project, pedestrian and child safety, and ambient noise lc Chair/Ruzicka asked that line drawings of traffic patterns, proposed island,, barriers also be provided. VC/Tye asked that the motion include inform regarding the possible different uses for the site. C/Nolan asked that inform regarding financial ramifications (jobs, tax revenue, etc.) of this project be inch to and OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page 16 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Ariz said he understood the Commission and public's concerns and would address those concerns in a public outreach meeting. He pointed out that there are other issues associated with this area. This is not a simple project. The project is situated at the intersection of two major freeways that are already significantly impacted with major congestion problems that are in the process of being solved by CalTrans. Those mitigation measures will impact this project, the surrounding neighborhood and the City of Diamond Bar. He believed these issues should be discussed as well. In addition, the flood control channel on the north side of the property and traffic concerns on Brea Canyon Road must be taken into consideration. Those issues will not go away regardless of whether or not this project or any other project is developed at this site. The traffic problems on the SR57 and SR60 will continue to exist regardless of this or any other proposed project. He understands the concerns propounded by the residents and will address those issues. He stated his team would respond to the issues raised by the Planning Commissioners and the residents on December 10, 2002 following a meeting with the adjacent homeowners. He believed that with the current property barriers his proposed project was the highest and best use of the site. C/Nelson encouraged the applicant to work with LDM Associates and City staff on all of these issues. DCM/DeStefano said that either a developer -initiated or City -initiated community meeting would need to be scheduled. VC/Tye seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Nolan, Tanana, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None Offered 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano reported that today staff received a letter from a restaurant operator on Brea Canyon Road who received a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission and City about a year ago. He expressed concern with his ability to operate without some sort of modification to his operating conditions. The letter does not specifically apply for a modification. Staff will contact the operator to determine whether he wishes to initiate a formal process for modification. DCM/DeStefano OCTOBER 22, 2002 Page 17 PLANNING COMMISSION advised Chair/Ruzicka that the matter could be brought to the Planning Commission for approximately $1,000 to $1,500. Chair/Ruzicka said he has spoken to this person a number of times and he is prim -ly concerned about the amount of money it would take to initiate the process. 10• SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As presented in the agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Jarne's DeSt( Deputy City Attest: h. irman Jo Ruzi ka