Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/12/2002MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION I MARCH 12, 2002 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Tye led the pledge of allegiance. 1. ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS OF OFFICE FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Administered by Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Nelson, Vice Chairman Joe Ruzicka and Commissioners Dan Nolan, Jack Tanaka and Steve Tye. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Ann Lun u, Associate Planner, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary, Lt. Mike Walker, Walnut/Diamond Bar Sheriff Department. 3. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION: DCM/DeStefano opened the nominations for Chairman of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tye nominated Commissioner Ruzicka to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nelson seconded t -i ie nomination. There being no other nominations, DCM/DeStefano closed the nominations. Upon Roll Call vote, Commissioner Ruzicka was unanimously elocted to serve as Chairman of the Planning Commission. Chair/Ruzicka assumed the gavel and opened nominations for Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nelson nominated Commissioner Tye to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Nolan seconded the nomination. There being no other nominations, Chair/Ruzicka closed the nominations. Upon Roll Call vote, Commissioner Tye was unanimously elected to serve as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission. MARCH 12, 2002 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Ruzicka thanked Commissioner Nelson for the way in which he conducted meetings — calmly, expertly and inclusively, and presented him a plaque commemorating his service to the Planning Commission. 4. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 26, 2002. C/Tye moved, Chair/Nelson seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 26, 2002, as presented. Without objections, the motion was so ordered, with Commissioners Nolan and Tanaka abstaining. 7. OLD BUSINESS: None. 8. NEW BUSINESS: None. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 9.1 Development Review No. 2001-18, Minor Variance No. 2002-01, Tree Permit No. 2002-02 and Neqative Declaration of Environmental Impact (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48, 22.52 and 22.38). The applicant has requested approval of plans to construct a three (3) story single-family residence of approximately 7,740 square feet with two attached two -car garages totaling 977 square feet on an approximately 57,934.8 (1.33 acres) square foot R-1 (40,000) zoned lot. Additionally, the applicant requests approval of a Minor Variance to deviate from the minimum required front yard setback distance, and a Tree Permit for the removal and replacement of a protected tree species. PROJECT ADDRESS: 22509 Ridgeline Road (APN 8713-006-019) Diamond bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Jay Arora 1149 Grubstake Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 12, 2002 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: S & W Development 20272 Carney Road Walnut, CA 91789 DCM/DeStefano reported that the applicant requested that this matter be continued to April 9, 2002, in order to give the property and owner an opportunity to meet and further discuss some of the issues raised by The Country Estates Homeowners Association and adjacent property owner. Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. There was no one who wished to speak on this matter. C/Nelson moved, C/Nolan seconded, to continue Development Review No. 2001- 18, Minor Variance No. 2002-02, Tree Permit No. 2002-02 and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, to April 9, 2002. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Nolan, Tanaka, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 9.2 Development Code Amendment No. 2002-01 (pursuant to Code Section 22.44). This is a request to amend the following Articles of the Development- Code: Article 11 Section 22.10.030, Table 2 -5 -allowed uses and permit requirements for Office Zoning Districts: Amendment relates to adding computer services/network gaming centers as a specified use with a Conditional Use Permit approval. Section 22.10.030, Table 2 -6 -allowed uses and permit requirements for Commercial/Industrial Zoning Districts: Amendment relates to adding computer services/network gaming centers as a specified use with a Conditional Use Permit approval. Article III Section 22.42.035, Computer Services/Network Gaming Center: Amendment relates to adding standards applying to this specified use. MARCH 12, 2002 Article IV PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Section 22.80.020, Definitions of Specialized Terms and Phrases, Definitions, "C": Amendment relates to adding a definition of a computer services/network gaming center. PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar 21825 E. Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and pointed out the proposed changes. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of Development Code Amendment No. 2002-01. C/Nelson asked why staff chose to go with one parking space per 35 square feet as opposed to one parking space per computer workstation. AssocP/Lungu responded that her research concluded that one parking space per 35 square feet was most prevalent. DCM/DeStefano pointed out that the square footage computation is consistent with other types of land use in the city. C/Nelson was surprised at the amount of business that takes place between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. He asked Lt. Walker if there are significant benefits to cutting back the hours of operation. Lt. Walker explained that the Sheriff Department has limited experience with this type of business. Problems with similar businesses in adjacent jurisdictions were generated as a result of complaints from adjacent business owners and their customers. The results were loitering, increased trash and debris, possible drinking, smoking, etc. that annoyed other business or their customers. Staying open later at night does not appear to be an issue. The primary concern is for juveniles (under age 18) in relationship to the 10:00 p.m. curfew and the businesses monitoring their customer base. Most of these types of businesses have unrestricted access to Internet sites and the Sheriff's Department is concerned with juveniles viewing pornography. The Department has not encountered anything troublesome after midnight other than previously mentioned issues. - C/Nelson said that the city is concerned about taking officers away from their normal patrol duties to respond to disturbances. it L MARCH 12, 2002 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION Lt. Walker said that most shift changes take place at 10:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. From midnight on, the Sheriff Department has a full compliment of early -morning officers on duty. VC/Tye reiterated his question about how much business is generated between midnight and 2:00 a.m. Chair/Ruzicka said that on February 26 one of the business owners made the assertion that requiring a security guard is too expensive and that security cameras serve as a deterrent. Lt. Walker said that in his experience, there are some areas that absolutely require a security guard. Businesses that generate customer demands that exceed the actual business capacity require some type of security enforcement. Chair/Ruzicka felt that the Planning Commission needed to address these issues up -front because of the bad reputation perpetrated on these businesses by a few - individuals. DCM/DeStefano responded that the resolution captures the existing businesses by stating that they must comply with this ordinance within six months of its adoption date. VC/Tye asked Lt. Walker what the Sheriff Department would do if a minor used a computer after 10:00 p.m. while still using the system within their block of time? Lt. Walker said that minors could be out after 10:00 p.m. under certain conditions. He doubts that any law enforcement officer would find a note from the parent sufficient cause to be out after 10:00 p.m. If a supervising parent or adult is present and assumes responsibility for the minor, there is no violation of the curfew law. In his opinion, it would be incumbent upon the business owner not to sell blocks of time to underage individuals that extend past the curfew hour. If.a minor remains after 10:00 p.m. an officer would be obliged to escort him from the business and call the parents to retrieve him. C/Nolan said he observed Gamers-X to be very busy. He believes it is naive to believe this type of business will not generate extra patrol requirements. Is staff's proposal for hours. of operation consistent with adjacent communities? AssocP/Lungu replied that,the hours of operation vary from city to city. Staff's proposal is consistent with the majority of communities. MARCH 12, 2002 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing. Paul Esteves, Owner, Gamers-X, stated that the reason for the percentage of business between 8:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. is because those are the hours during which blocks of time are sold which makes it difficult to determine the percentage of business that occurs between midnight and 2:00 a.m. The number of people who remain after midnight varies. Gamers-X provided a lounge/waiting area at the current location. If the Commission determines a definite need for security personnel, he believes it should be during the evening hours when there is greater potential for problems. The requirement for business owners to monitor curfew hours is legitimate. Under certain circumstances, under aged youth stay at the facility past 10:00 p.m. waiting for their parents to leave work and pick them up. He asked that under such circumstances the young person be allowed to remain under supervision until they are picked up. VC/Tye thought 12:00 midnight should be the hour of closing. One item that is no longer contained in the proposed amendment is the requirement that these types of businesses not be allowed within a certain distance of a school. DCM/DeStefano stated that staff determined that while other types of entertainment are permitted adjacent to schools, other than alcohol and adult uses, this type of business would not logically be restricted. However, the Commission may make any requirement it deems appropriate for this land use. Chair/Ruzicka believed the hours of operation could be changed at a future date. He prefers allowing entrepreneurs every opportunity for success in the community. However, language should be included that would allow for the revocation amendment of a permit in the event that the business did not comply. Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing. C/Nolan suggested the following language for item a. on page 7 to wit: "Shall provide at least one (1) full-time adult attend or supervisor, 21 years of age or older for each 20 machines." And add language for weekend hours. C/Nelson said he heard nothing from Lt. Walker that indicated the alleviation of problems by closing the business at 12:00 midnight instead of 2:00 a.m. Is there any difference in the need for requiring security during weekdays or weekends. Lt. Walker said that the Sheriff Department has not encountered problems with businesses that stay open later than midnight other than businesses that serve alcoholic beverages or engage in live entertainment. Lt. Walker said that during the school day there would be very little requirement for security. In his opinion, it would MARCH 12, 2002 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION be more prudent to require security from 6:00 p.m. until closing for all days of operation. C/Nelson moved, C/Nolan seconded, to recommend approval of Development Code Amendment No. 2002-01 with the following change to item a. on Page 7 - "shall provide at least one (1) full time attendant or supervisor, 21 years of age or older for each 20 machines. In addition, one, (1) security guard for each 20 machines shall be provided between the hours of 61:00 p.m. and closing for all days of operation. Motion carried by the following Roll (Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Nolan, Tanaka, VC/Tye, Chair/Ruzicka NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chair/Ruzicka thanked Lt. Walker for his participation. 10. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: VC/Tye asked what the City is doing relative to requiring businesses complying with the City's sign ordinance. DCM/DeStefano responded that special promotion signs are considered to be advertising and need to be reviewed. He is not aware of an active case with respect to Carl's Jr. signs along the drive-through. However, he will direct staff to review the matter. VC/Tye welcomed Commissioner Jack Tanaka. C/Tanaka said he is honored and excited to join the Planning Commission. He looks forward to working with his fellow commissioners, staff and residents. Chair/Ruzicka welcomed Commissioners Tanaka and Nolan, two of the finest citizens in Diamond Bar. He thanked the Commission for their trust in selecting him as Chairman of the Planning Commission. 11. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano stated that Commissioners should provide requested information for the city's telephone book directly to AS/Marquez. CC/Burgess has ordered two advisory guides that deal with conflict of interest laws for local government officials as well as, the latest version of the Ralph M. Brown Act with respect to open and public meetings. Two projects of note — The Country Estates project previously mentioned and the vacant lot adjacent to the Holiday Inn Select in the Gateway Corporate commonly referred to as "the Dr. Omar parcel." Staff just received a MARCH 12, 2002 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION proposal to construct a two-story 25,000 square foot office building that will likely be considered by the Planning Commission in about two months. He and Chairman Ruzicka will attend the Planners Seminar in Monterey late next week. 12. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As scheduled. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 8:14 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefan Deputy City Manager Attest: h4rman Joe uzic