The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12/12/20000 PLANNINI FILE COPY COMMISSION AGENDA - D. mb r 12 2001Er e , 9 South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Steve Nelson Bob Zirbes George Kuo Joe Ruzicka Steve Tye Copies of staff reports or other written' documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Planning Division of the Dept of Community & Development Services, located at 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190, and are available for public inspection. if you have, questions regarding an agenda item, please call (909) 396-5676 during regular business hours. In I an effort to comply with the requirements of Title I/ of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting must inform the Dept. of Community & Development Services at (909) 396-5676 a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. The City of Diamond Bar uses recycluu PaPul Please refra I from smoking, eating or and encourages you to do the same drinking in the Auditorium City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission PUBLIC INPUT The meetings of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Commission on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission. A request to address the Commission should be submitted in writing at the public hearing, to the Secretary of the Commission. As a general rule, the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit individual public input to five minutes on any item; or the Chair may limit the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Commission. Individuals are requested to conduct themselves in a professional and businesslike manner. Comments and questions are welcome so that all points of view are considered prior to the Commission making recommendations to the staff and City Council. In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the Commission must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Commission meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matterarisessubsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Commission may act on item that is not on the posted agenda. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COMMISSION Agendas for Diamond Bar Planning Commission meetings are prepared by the Planning Division of the Community and Development Services Department. Agendas are available 72 hours prior to the meeting at City Hall and the public library, and may be accessed by personal computer at the number below. Every meeting of the Planning Commission is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the public speaking area. The service of the cordless microphone and sign language interpreter services are available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 396-5676 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Commission, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 396-5676 Computer Access to Agendas (909) 860 -LINE General Agendas (909) 396-5676 email: info @ci.diamond-bar.ca.us PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Tuesday, December 12, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 p.m. Next Resolution No. 2000-26 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 1. ROLL CALL: COMNIISSIONERS: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, George Kuo, Joe Ruzicka, and Steve Tye. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is the time and place for the general public to address the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is within their jurisdiction, allowing the public an opportunity to speak on non-public hearing and non -agenda items. Please complete a Speaker's Card for the recordine Secretary (Completion of this form is voluntary.) There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the Planning` Commission. , 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chairman 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: The following items listed on the consent calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. Consent calendar items may be removed from the agenda by request of the Commission only: 4.1 Minutes: November 14, 2000, and November 28, 2000. 5. OLD BUSINESS: 5.1 Final Entry Gate Details for Tract No. 52267 On May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Development Review no. 2000-02 subject to their review of the final entry gate details. The applicant requests approval of the final entry gate details as shown on Exhibit "A" dated December 12, 2000. gAzste11a\agenda\dec12 2000.doc December 12, 2000 Page 2 Planning Commission Project Address: 700 Block of Diamond Bar Boulevard East side of Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner/ Pulte Home Corporation Applicant: 18401 Von Karman Avenue Irvine, CA 92612 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed final entry gate details as shown on Exhibit "A" dated December 12, 2000. 5.2 Conditional Use Permit No. 99-4. Minor ConditionalUse Permit No. 99-9 Originally approved on August 10, 1999, to allow for the operation of a restaurant with outdoor dining, the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages and entertainment (i.e., dancing with a DJ, Karaoke, guitarist, folk singer, and comedy nights) at the location referenced below. In accordance with Condition No. 50) of Resolution No. 99-19, .a periodic review of the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Conditional Use Permit is required to assure compliance with conditions of approval and to consider whether to modify, add conditions as necessary, or revoke the permit. Municipal Code Section 22.76.020 authorizes the City to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider modification or revocation of a Conditional Use Permit. (Continued from November 28, 2000.) Project Under Review: Platinum Restaurant 245 Gentle Springs Lane (Parcel 1, Parcel Map No. 15547) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner: SX Diamond Bar 259 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Applicant: Chris Pierce 245 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15321(a)(2), the City has determined that this project is categorically exempt. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the adoption of draft Resolution No. 2000 -XX and direct staff as appropriate. December 12, 2000 Page 3 Planning Commission 6. NEW BUSINESS: None. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: None. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 Development Review No. 2000-15 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48) is a request to construct a two-story, single-family residence, of approximately 9,471 square feet, with a basement, balconies, porch, and a three -car, 1,546 square foot garage. Additionally, the request includes an accessory gazebo structure containing approximately 400 square feet under roof. Project Address: 1819 Derringer Lane (Tract No. 24046, Lot 2) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner: Hardip Gill 100 Stagecoach Circle West Covina, CA 91791 Applicant: Chary Dagam 100 Regal Canyon Dr., Walnut, CA 91789 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(a) the City has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission allow further time for the applicant to revise their grading plan and continue the public hearing for Development Review No. 2000-15 to January 23, 2000. 8.2 Development Review No. 2000-21 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000- 21 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020 and 22.68.030(B)) is a request to construct an addition of approximately 7,174 square feet to an existing two-story public utility telephone switching facility of approximately 9,223 square feet. The Minor Conditional Use Permit is required for expansion to a legal non -conforming structure. Project Address: 1041 South Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 December 12, 2000 Page 4 Planning Commission Property Owner: Verizon One Verizon Way Thousand Oaks, CA 91362 Applicant: TDM Architects, Inc., 930 Colorado Boulevard Los Angeles CA 90041 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15070, the City has determined that a Negative Declaration is required for this project. Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 has been prepared. The Negative Declaration review period begins November 22, 2000 and ends December 11, 2000. No further review is required. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the project be re -advertised for the January 9, 2001, Planning Commission meeting and Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 be amended to reflect the appropriate square footage. 8.3 Development Review No 2000-08 /Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-14 (pursuant to Code Sections 22:48 and 22.56) is a request to construct a two-story, single-family residence, of approximately 16,192 'square feet, with a basement, balconies, porch, and a five -car garage. Additionally, the request includes a tennis court and an enclosed swimming pool. The Minor Conditional Use Permit is a request to construct a detached, 1,009 square feet, two-bedroom guest house. Project Address: 1626 Derringer Lane (Tract No. 24046, Lot 20) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Property Owner: Razgo Lee and Pao Chin Tu Lee 22125 Birdseye Drive --- -- - —--- Diamond_Bar,_CA-91-7.65— ----- _._ -- --- Applicant: Leslie Lippich Architects 4768 Park Granada, Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 Environmental Determination: Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(a) the City has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-08, Minor Conditional Use Pen -nit No. 2000-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the Resolution. December 12, 2000 Page 5 Planning Commission 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.2 Public Hearing dates for future proiects. 0. SCHEDULE • FUTURE EVENTS: HOLIDAY • It TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING: November 24 — January 2, 2001 Free door to door taxicab service to and from any commercial/retail center in the City to all residents (must be at least 18 years old, or accompanied by an adult.) Thursday, December 14, 2000 — 6:00 p.m. AQMD Board Hearing Room 21865 E. Copley Drive JOINT PARKS & RECREATION Thursday, December 14, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. COMMISSION AND TRAFFIC & AQMD Board Hearing Room TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 21865 E. Copley Drive MEETING: CITY COUNCIL MEETING: PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING: DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION: HOLIDAY TREE RECYCLING: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 — 6:30 p.m. AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, December 21, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD Room CC -8 21865 E. Copley Drive Thursday, December 21, 2000 — 7:00 AQMD Room CC -8 21865 E. Copley Drive December 26, 2000 through January 13, 2001 Curbside Pickup-- December 12, 2000 CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY: •r 11 1 11 A1 1 N pal I 104 1 •�TITI I - MEETING: NEW YEAR'S HOLIDAY: 11. ADJOURNMENT: Page 6 Planning Commission City offices will be closed Monday, December 25, and Tuesday, December 26, 2000, in observance of the Christmas Holiday - City offices will re -open on December 27, 2000, at 8:00 a.m. Tuesday, January 9, 2000 — 6:00 p.m. AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive Tuesday, January 9, 2000 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive City offices will be closed Monday, January 1, 2001, in observance of the New Year's Holiday - City offices will re -open on January 2, 2001, at 8:00 a.m. MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 14, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Headquarters Building Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kuo. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners George Kuo, Steve Tye, and Joe Ruzicka. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, 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 October 24, 2000, meeting. C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve the minutes of October 24, 2000, as submitted. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONER& Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None NOVEMBER 14, 2000 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09(1), Development Review No. 1998-11(1), and Minor Variance No. 2000-19 (Pursuant to Code Sections 22.58.010, 22.48.020(A)(2), and 22.52.020(D)) is a request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1998-09, Development Review No. 1998-11, and to approve a Minor Variance for a decrease of 20% in the number of required off-street parking spaces to accommodate on-site seating for twelve persons at Togo's. (Continued from October 10, 2000.) PROJECT ADDRESS: 1193 Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: J. Coleman Travis Trust C/O: Glacier Peak Management Services, Inc. 7955 Dunbrook Road, Suite A San Diego, CA 92126 APPLICANT: Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC 1193 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff as appropriate. Lyda Holt, applicant, said the traffic analysis completed by the applicant's traffic engineer, Mr. Greenspan, provides the information to show that there is adequate parking to accommodate a certain amount of seating. It has been a determent to the business not to have the seating and she hopes that the Commission will be fair to the applicants. There -- --- are-no-problems--with-the-adjacent business-owners=Specifically,—the-par-king-area-adjacent-- to the Drive-Thru appears to belong to Togo's. However, the owner of Jack in the Box said he has had no complaints and would not be present to oppose the project. The parking spaces are small and the property manager plans to re -stripe the area to code. She would like to provide six tables. However, she would appreciate an approval with some customer seating. Kevin Parker responded to C/Tye that each franchiser to specify lunch and dinner traffic. day (60 to 70%) for his other two franchises. of the business is take-out. store is different and it is difficult for the On average, lunch is the busiest part of the He estimated that approximately 65 percent Lyda Holt responded to VC/Zirbes that the new property manager has cleaned up the site and plans to re -stripe and slurry seal when the parking issue is resolved. She will include NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMIVIISSION the spaces for handicap compliance and delete the currently designated spaces for Cathay Bank in accordance with the shared parking lease. C/Tye is concerned about Ms. Holt's statement that the property manager would unilaterally re -stripe the development and whether the City has any input into this process. DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Tye that the property owners have a responsibility to not only maintain their property but when they slurry seal a parking lot such as this one they have a responsibility to bring the matter to the City for review and approval so that the spaces are re -formatted in the manner that they were previous in order not to create non - conformities with the code that may not have previously existed in order to maintain any specific conditions that the Planning Commission may have placed on the subject site. In reality, staff often finds out about these types of matters after the fact because they often occur during the weekends or on non -peak days. C/Ruzicka asked if the Planning Commission can legally do what the applicant is asking us to do based upon Mr. Siecke's recommendation. DCM/DeStefano stated that what is before the Planning Commission is a request to modify the previous Conditional Use Permit which begins with the requirement that the property owner seek written permission from adjacent property owners to share in the parking spaces that would otherwise be available. The request rolls over to the Development Review for which modification is being sought. The applicant is interested in re -striping the parking lot and reconfigure the project to allow the seating which is also a change from the previous Planning Commission approval. The applicant is seeking Minor Variance in order to reduce to the maximum possible required number of parking spaces. All of these considerations are within the Commission's purview of authority. Approval would result in a project of approximately 37 parking spaces all larger than what presently exists on the site which would accommodate a modest number of seats requested by the applicant. The Planning Commission also has the authority to maintain the belief that more parking spaces are required and either not grant the requested seating or mandate that sufficient parking be provided, either on or off site. Mr. Greenspan explained to Chair/Nelson that in January his firm conducted a shared parking analysis which was based on industry standards and the City's current parking code of essentially one space per 100 square foot of restaurant which includes seating. In addition, his firm surveyed an existing Togo's in East Pasadena, which is approximately 1800 square feet. That facility has 38 indoor seats and 36 outdoor seats. His firm re -visited the site in October and found 27 cars parked on the site and four cars parked off site during peak hours for a total of 31 real spaces. In January, his firm projected 32 sites. With six two -seat tables and one car per table, the result would be an additional six spaces for a total NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION of 37 parking spaces. In his opinion, re -striping will result in 35-37 parking spaces. Therefore, 37 parking spaces would be appropriate for the six tables. In response to C/Kuo, Mr. Greenspan explained the formula used for calculation of parking spaces. He believes that total average for any business is preferable to picking a certain hour. Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing. Michael Drucker, 1155 South Diamond Bar Boulevard property owner, introduced his property manager, Roxanne Taylor and Ken Patel, owner of Subway. Mrs. Holt signed a lease that did not allow her to have parking for tables. As a responsible property owner, he takes pride in maintaining the center and its parking lot. He also looks out for his tenants and the parking issue has been an ongoing matter and the tenants are aware of his objections from the onset. This site was originally a bank building. When it was advertised for sale the permissible square footage was 8,000. When he found out that the building was proposed to be expanded to 10,000 square feet he objected to the Planning Commission which "got around" the matter by making compact parking spaces to increase the parking numbers. Togo's franchise previously attempted to persuade the Planning Commission to grant them seating which was denied. Mrs. Holt decided to lease the space knowing full well that the parking was insufficient to allow seating. Off-site parking effects his property and interferes with his tenants and their businesses. There is no off-site parking. Togo's is required to park on their own area and if they are parking off-site they are parking in unauthorized space. Upon review of Mr. Greenspan's January survey he finds it somewhat flawed because the survey is based on a non -comparable site. He asked where the employees of the bank, Starbucks and Togo's park because it is not addressed in the survey. He does not believe any seating should be allowed for the applicant. -- -------- -Roxanne-T-aylor-stated-that-prior--to-the-building-construction-she-stated-her-objection-to_the—_. oversized building to the City Council because of the impact it would have on the Town Center's parking lot. She objects to shared parking between the two parcels because it impacts her future tenants and their parking requirements. Her tenants complain about the current parking situation. Ken Patel said that he was offered the Togo's site for his Subway business. Although the offer was attractive, he refused because of the parking issue. He does not believe the permit for tables should be approved. Mr. Drucker responded to VC/Zirbes that he does not own the Jack in the Box property. NOVEMBER 14, 2000 8. PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Kuo that the City Code sets forth a requirement for parking spaces per square foot of a particular use. This standard presumes and incorporates employees as customers. Following discussion, C/Tye moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to continue Conditional Use permit No. 1998-09(1), Development Review No. 1998-11(1), and Minor Variance No. 2000-19 to January 9, 2001, to allow staff to prepare a report based upon the City's and applicant's consultants recommendation for shared parking analysis for the applicant's proposed palate of use with tables. Further, the Planning Commission requests that both consultants be present at the January 9, 2001, meeting. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chair/Nelson continued the public hearing to January 9, 2001. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.1 Development Review No. 2000-18 Minor Variance No. 2000-13 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-12 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020(A)(1), 22.52.020, 22.30.080(E) and 22.56.020) is a request to construct a two-story, single-family residence of approximately 10,498 square feet, with a basement, balconies, porch and five - car garage. Additionally, the request includes a swimming pool and retaining walls in the rear and side yards with a maximum six feet exposed height. The Minor Variance request is to construct chimneys that extend 2.5 feet above the maximum 35 -foot height permitted for a residence and a minor variance of two feet for the front setback. A Minor Conditional Use permit is required for the proposed driveway width greater than permitted by code. APPLICANT: 2250 Indian Creek Road (Lot 66 of Tract No. 23483) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Basant Sachdeva & Rajinder Joneja 1738 E. Meats Avenue Orange, CA 92865 Basant Sachdeva 1738 Meats Avenue Orange, CA 92865 NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-18, Minor Variance No. 2000-13 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Basant Sachdeva, applicant, responded to VC/Zirbes that he read staff's report and concurs with the conditions of approval. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Zirbes moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-18, Minor Variance No. 2000-13 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.2 Development Review No. 99-5(1), Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-16 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48 and 22.42.060 and 22.56.020) is a request to modify the tennis court location and grading of the previously approved Development Review No. 99-5, and to construct a second story guest house with decks and portico of approximately 1,055 gross square feet. ----------------PROJEC-T-ADDRESS: __ - .---------- 2856- -Wagon-T-r-ain-L- ane-- -- - - -- --- - -- (Tract No. 30578, Lot 71) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Peichin Cheng 17800 Castleton Street #106 City of Industry, CA 91748 APPLICANT: Anchi Lee 3740 Campus Drive #B Newport Beach, CA 92660 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 99-5(1), Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-16, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMIVIISSION Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Anchi Lee, Architect, stated that the square footage of the cabana is a one-story structure that is less than 500 square feet. The porticos increase the square footage to a little more than 1000 square feet. The cabana has outside stairs to the roof, which allows a view of the tennis court activities. The tennis court has been rotated to face true north and south, which resulted in a reduction of exported dirt. Anchi Lee confirmed to C/Tye that there is no problem with the fact that the cabana is not allowed to have kitchen facilities. The cabana is not intended to be used as a guest house. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Marie Melby, a resident on Oak Knoll Drive, said she was shocked by the appearance of the structure, which crosses the entire ridge and the removal of all of the oak trees. Her property faces the tennis court area. She asked if the applicant proposes to install a wall or chain link fence, will the area be re -vegetated, and will there be mesh on the tennis court fence to screen her view of the tennis players. Anchi Lee stated that the tennis court would be enclosed with a chain link fence and landscaping outside of the fence. He explained the layout to Marie Melby and indicated that the house and landscaping should be completed within six to eight months. The house is in the framing stage and all of the grading has been completed. Michael Mao, a resident on Oak Knoll Drive, asked if the tennis court will be moved farther out and where will the guest house be located. DSA/Smith explained the layout using graphics. Although the original setback was proposed to be 32 feet, the rotation meets the Development Code requirement setback of 25 feet. Michael Mao stated that this project pushes the envelope to the maximum regarding setbacks and building to lot ratio. He believes this project, if allowed, will be unreasonable and destroy the preservation of this City. DSA/Smith stated that if staff had noticed that the proposal significantly changed the landscaping it would have requested that the applicant submit the landscape plan for this public hearing. The applicant provided the landscape plan, which has been conditioned for review and approval by staff since the previous landscape plan was approved. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Zirbes seconded, to approve Development Review No. 99-5(1), Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-16, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION as listed within the resolution, with the provision that staff approve the landscape plan based upon the provision that the project setbacks are within code and that there is sufficient landscaping of a type and nature that it will provide a buffer and that no invasive plants be included in the plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.3 DRAFT 2000-2005 Housing Element (under the authority of Government Code Sections 65091(a)(3) and 65588(b)(5)) for the periodic review and revision to the City of Diamond Bar General Plan. PROJECT: Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element (GPA No. 2000-01) ADDRESS: Citywide APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive Diamond bar, CA 91765 Karen Warner, Cotton/Baland/Associates, the City's consultant, provided a review of the Draft Housing Element Amendment. C/Ruzicka asked what kind of discrimination complaints were lodged against the City and how have they been handled. Karen Warner responded that as a result of their interview with the Long Beach Fair Housing Foundation they commented that they receive a lot of inquiries (over 140 in a five year period) from Diamond Bar which is not unusual. What is more unusual is to see that there were actually eight (8) discrimination cases filed. She is not aware of the specifics of these cases. Her experience is that the cities are not involved with these types of cases. The report indicates that seven 7 dealt with low-income households and 6 of the 8 involved female heads of households. NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano stated that the City received information from the Long Beach Fair Housing Foundation which is a statistical summary and was not aware that staff should be concerned about the information. Karen Warner has suggested programs to assist in this matter which will satisfy the State's concern. VC/Zirbes asked if the State takes into consideration the fact that Diamond Bar is a fledgling City that was conceived and approved by the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. It was not until recently that this community was able to gain local, control. He is concerned that the State is attempting to dictate what Diamond Bar should be as opposed to what the City became under the jurisdiction of Los Angeles. People have relocated to Diamond Bar based upon their perceptions of what the community is and he is concerned that the incorporation of new policies and programs will effect the makeup of the community which is very demographically diverse. He pointed out that there is a relatively small area of Diamond Bar that remains to be developed. In addition, there are no members of the community present for this very important public hearing. Having a certain type of an approach that might satisfy a State requirement does not necessarily mean that it is a good idea for the community of Diamond Bar, its citizens and homeowners. He asked for an explanation of a state certification versus a city certification and what types of assistance might the City be placing itself in jeopardy of not receiving. Karen Warner explained that Diamond Bar has a locally certified Housing Element - not a state certified Housing Element. Current funds would not be at risk (CDBG, industry set - asides). State housing monies ($500 million for affordable housing programs) would be at risk. A developer that might construct an affordable housing project would likely leverage local and industry set-aside monies with the state monies which would put this City at a competitive disadvantage and likely disqualify Diamond Bar from state funds. The benefits of a state approved element from a legal side is that there is a presumption of legal validity if someone challenges the City's legal plan which means that the burden of proof is on the litigants. If the state does not approve the element the burden of proof is on the City to show through its own self -certification's series of findings which identify why the City feels it complies with the statutes. Currently, Diamond Bar has three privately held sites available for multi -family housing for which no development is scheduled. Chair/Nelson stated that Diamond Bar is dealing with such issues as mansionization. The average household size is 3.2 people, the second highest in the Walnut Valley. Diamond Bar is currently being asked to address senior housing. In spite of the makeup of the City, it is likely time for Diamond Bar to come into the mainstream. Karen Warner responded to C/Tye that following tonight's public hearing she would like to submit her revisions to the state and let them provide feedback. NOVEMBER 149 2000 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION In response to VC/Zirbes, Karen Warner explained that what is being considered is a program that facilities senior development as well as, family development. In reality, if there is no market for a family project that is acceptable, but the state does not want the City's Housing Element to be entirely limited to senior. The State currently requires annual progress updates and the report needs to demonstrate a concerted effort on the part of the city to fulfill its element. Karen Warner responded to C/Ruzicka that it is her goal to get the Diamond Bar Housing Element approved by the State of California. She outlined what she believes must be done to obtain approval. Chair/Nelson opened the public,hearing. There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Zirbes moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to direct staff to prepare a revised document in red-line/strike-out format showing the changes to the Housing Element with changes as presented with the exception of the second units to be presented to the Commission at its November 28, 2000, meeting for its consideration. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None offered. 10. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects - as noted. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: DCM/DeStefano pointed out that tomorrow evening the City will hold a town meeting regarding the Community/Senior Center project during which the public will review the site plan and provide input and pose questions that will lead to the development of an environmental document for the project. He encouraged Commissioners to attend this important meeting. DCM/DeStefano'stated that the City has employed David Meyer, LDM Associates, a professional planning consultant, to assist staff in the absence of certain staff members. NOVEMBER 14, 2000 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMIVIISSION There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Interim City Manager Attest: Chairman Steve Nelson MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMNIISSION NOVEMBER 28, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Nelson called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management Headquarters Building Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Tye. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Nelson, Vice Chairman Bob Zirbes, and Commissioners George Kuo, Steve Tye, and Joe Ruzicka. Also Present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager, Robert Pittman, Assistant City Attorney, Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, David Meyer, Planning Consultant, Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary, Sheriff's Department representatives Sgt. Flannery, and Deputy Terry McLaughlin, and Fire Department representative Inspector Joe Alvarado. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Agenda items were scheduled in the following order: Public Hearing Items 8.2, 8. 1, and Continued Public Hearing Items 7.1 and 7.2. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 8. PUBLIC HEARING: 8.2 Development Review No. 2000-17, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-20 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020.A(1), 22.42.060 and 22.58) is a request to construct a two-story, single family residence of approximately 17,532 square feet, with balconies, porch, patio and detached five -car garage and limousine garage with a guest house. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2899 Vista Court (Tract No. 47850, Lots 17 and 18) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 NOVEMBER 28, 2000 IT �I PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Diamond Bar West, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300. Torrance, CA 90503 Richard Gould 3480 Torrance Boulevard, Suite 300 Torrance, CA 90503 DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-17, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-20, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. C/Tye asked that Condition (e) on page 8 of the draft resolution be amended to indicate that the access easement be obtained prior to permit issuance. Kurt Nelson, Diamond Bar West, LLC, stated that in accordance with C/Tye's concern, his firm has reserved the easement in question, evidence of which can be provided to staff prior to construction. Landscape plans will be provided in accordance with staff's time line. There is no problem with staff's condition regarding the Cabana. VC/Zirbes asked if the applicant would agree to the addition of the following language for Condition (e) in accordance with C/Tye's concern: "...guest house, prior to construction of the structure," to which Mr. Nelson responded "absolutely." Richard Gould asked if Condition (e) could read: "...easements as necessary..." because he does not believe an easement is necessary to access the applicant's own property. The applicant grants an easement to another party to access the property. VC/Zirbes suggested the following verbiage for Condition (e) "The applicant shall obtain ____.__and_ record the necessary Grant of Easement for the Right to Access of the Easement for Emergency Vehicles for access to the limousine garage and guesthouse prior to the construction." DCM/DeStefano stated that staff recommends the following language in the event of Commission approval: "If required by the City Attorney, the Applicant shall obtain and record a Grant of Easement for the Right to Access of the Easement for Emergency Vehicles for access to the limousine garage and guesthouse. Said Easement shall be recorded with evidence provided to the City prior to occupancy." Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. NOVEMBER 289 2000 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMNIISSION C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tye seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2000-17, and . Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-20, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution including the following amendment to Condition (e), page 8: "If required by the City Attorney, the Applicant shall obtain and record a Grant of Easement for the Right to Access of the Easement for Emergency Vehicles for access to the limousine garage and guesthouse. Said Easement shall be recorded with evidence provided to the City prior to occupancy." Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMIVIISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-02, and Development Review No. 2000-20 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.58.020, 22.42.130 G and 22.48.020) are requests to co -locate a telecommunications facility on an existing monopole approved on January 25, 1993, by Conditional Use Permit No. 92-11. The request also includes an equipment cabinet, utility pedestal and concrete pad for both. David Meyer, Planning Consultant, presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-02, and Development Review No. 2000-20, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval, as listed within the resolution. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Craig Clute, 21217 Fountain Springs Road, asked if alternative sites were considered, and how much co -location is acceptable in the City. He asked that the Commission to condition the project to require fence and landscape screening for all equipment. DCM/DeStefano indicated that it is within the Commission's purview to require screening to mitigate the visual impact of this project. He recommended that the applicant respond to questions posed by the speaker. Keyur Mistry, Metricom, Inc., stated that the reason his firm concluded that this site was most appropriate is that this is the best site in Diamond Bar from a height standpoint which connects to their other service sites. Metricom prefers locating on existing monopoles whenever possible to avoid building new sites. Because the antenna will be located barely above the tree tops it is anticipated that it will be well camouflaged. Metricom has no problem providing landscaping and screening as set forth by the Commission. To eliminate this site would create a hole in Metricom's network. This is a wireless internet site rather than a cellular site. A monopole is essentially built to allow for two or three co -locations. Currently, there is one existing carrier at the top of the monopole. Because Metricom NOVEMBER 2S, 2000 intends to locate at the 50 foot level, a third carrier would be required to go below tree level which would make no sense and would indicate that Metricom would be the last co - location on that monopole. Metricom paints the antennas to match the monopole or whatever color the city prefers. Experience indicates that attempts to shield antennas on a monopole draws more attention to the monopole than by simply locating the antennas on the monopole and painting them a matching color. He asked the Commission to provide him with information regarding the type of desired screening so that he can take the information back to his engineer. PC/Meyer asked the Commission to provide direction to staff in order to allow staff the opportunity to work with the applicant toward providing the desired information. C/Ruzicka asked that staff update the Commission about the proposed technology and how it compares to cell site technology and the number of sites that may be required in the future. Mr. Mistry explained to C/Ruzicka that the power and frequency of Internet technology are much lower than of cellular technology. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Zirbes moved, C/Tye seconded, to re -open the public hearing and continue this matter to January 9, 2001, to provide applicant the time to interface with staff and for staff to provide an updated report to the Commission with respect to design and screening/shielding of the site. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:12 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the Planning Commission Meeting at 8:30 p.m. 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:' 7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 99-4, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 99-9, originally approved on August 10, 1999, to allow for the operation of a restaurant with outdoor dining, the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages and entertainment (i.e., dancing with a DJ, karaoke, guitarist, folk singer, and comedy nights) at the location referenced below. In accordance with Condition No. 50) of Resolution No. 99-19, a periodic review of the Conditional Use Permit and Minor Conditional Use Permit is required to assure compliance with conditions of approval and to consider whether to NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION modify, add conditions as necessary, or revoke the permit. Municipal Code Section 22.76.020 authorizes the City to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission to consider modification or revocation of Conditional Use Permit. (Continued from October 10, 2000.) PROJECT OWNER: Platinum Restaurant 245 Gentle Springs Lane (Parcel 1, Parcel Map No. 15547) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 SX Diamond Bar 259 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chris Pierce 245 Gentle Springs Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DCM/DeStefano and PC/Meyer and Sgt. Flannery presented their reports. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission direct staff as appropriate. DCM/DeStefano reported that today staff received a fax copy of a letter dated November 27, 2000, from Jeffrey Meltzer, an attorney representing the property owner, SX Diamond Bar. The letter generally addresses the parking issues between SX Diamond Bar and Platinum Restaurant. Also, today staff received a letter from Dale Hoy who resides in a condominium adjacent to the site. The letter refers to problems related to noise issues. Also received this evening is communication from Rutan and Tucker, attorneys for Platinum Restaurant, which responds to issues that are outstanding as a result of the October 10, 2000, Planning Commission comments. ACA/Pittman indicated to C/Ruzicka that he is not privy to what occurred in the lawsuit. He said he would assume that the temporary injunction was to prevent the hotel owner from blocking off the parking spaces as they were doing at the time of the previous Commission hearing. C/Ruzicka asked if ABC has taken any action with respect to the liquor license. Sgt. Flannery explained that the recission is riot a denial. It is a withholding of approval until the licensing detail can be assured that the public safety concerns have been addressed satisfactorily with respect to the number of calls for service and strain on the field staff. This is not an unusual action. NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMIVIISSION VC/Zirbes referred to the October 10, 2000, packet attachment 27. Assuming that the usable square footage of the facility is 6,724 square feet and the use is for a nightclub, what would be the required number of parking spaces? DCM/DeStefano stated that as PC/Meyer indicated, regardless of the square footage for dining or dancing, the ultimate determination on the appropriate number of parking spaces lies with the Planning Commission. This is a discretionary permit. VC/Zirbes asked if the City regulates on -street parking on Gentle Springs Lane. DCM/DeStefano responded that the street is a private street. It is his understanding that each of the property owners own a portion of the street frontage. He is not aware of any on - street parking restrictions on that street. However, parking is prohibited on the vast majority of the street. Enforcement lies with the property owners. C/Kuo indicated to the City Attorney that his understanding is that the Planning Commission has a right to review the CUP and modify or add new conditions to the CUP. However, correspondence from the restaurant operator's attorney (page 5) states that if the Commission does so it would be abuse of discretion and an unconstitutional taking of their property rights. Please comment. ACA/Pittman stated that the Commission has the ability to review a discretionary permit that it has issued. It must be done with notice and give the owner and applicant an opportunity to be heard during the process before the Commission can impose any conditions or revoke the permit. With respect to modifying the approval and imposing additional conditions, that is something that is within the rights, provided circumstances and evidence warrant it. The Commission must establish on the record that there are factors or conditions that were not considered previously or that have changed since the approval, that warrant the imposition of additional conditions, or that are a violation of the _ Conditional Use Permit and either need to be mitigated through additional conditions or warrant revocation. The City's Code sets forth specific grounds on which the Commission can look at or modify the existing approvals. PC/Meyer responded to Chair/Nelson that when he conducted his observation of the site on the evening referenced in his report to the Commission, he concluded that there seemed to be adequate parking, good circulation, no vehicles were stopped on the street, and traffic moved in a reasonable and rational manner until about 11:30 p.m. at which time two of the security guards moved to the parking lot east of the establishment and began directing traffic. From an overall perspective, there was good parking management. With respect to noise, he could hear music playing from the Kmart parking lot. He did not have a noise meter, but from experience the noise was somewhat obtrusive and of heavy bass. He was approximately 150 feet away from and in front of the establishment at about 30 feet above the facility. There was no milling around in the parking area on the part of patrons. NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Patrick Munoz, attorney of Rutan & Tucker, wants the Commission to understand and appreciate that his client has done everything that has ever been asked of them and continues to be willing to do everything that is being asked of them within reason - to operate a good business that is good for not only them and their pocketbook, but for the City. Bear in mind one thing, that the alternative to having this business there is to have a shuttered up empty building. The building was there for a long time, not doing well. The original staff report points out that there was a lot of need for work in the parking lot. It was a blight. As Planning Commissioners, your role is to make certain you don't have blight in the City. Good planning is kind of your role. Well, doing something that will negatively impact this business to a point where it has to shut down will cause the exact opposite of what your duty is as Planning Commissioners, you will cause the result of blight. If you impose additional conditions of parking on this property they (Platinum) cannot meet it. It is beyond their control to guarantee additional parking spaces. They will be out of compliance and you will be perfectly entitled to revoke their CUP for being out of compliance presuming you are entitled to impose the conditions and put them out of business. In this case, the Platinum Restaurant and Nightclub asked for a temporary restraining order, which the judge granted. The judge clarified his order that 290 spaces that exist on the property must be made available at all times for both parties, the hotel and the restaurant. Neither party has the right to restrict any of the parking spaces. The case is over, Platinum has won. So, Platinum cannot abide by an order from the Commission that says that Platinum has to have 290 spaces available or 150 spaces available, or anything more than 96 spaces available because Platinum cannot guarantee the Commission that the judge might not make a final determination in which he determines that the spaces will be split down the middle. In his opinion, Platinum has a 75, 85, 95 percent of getting the original order as its permanent injunction. This case is over - Platinum has won. The barrier is down and there are 290 spaces available on-site. In addition, there are 50 parking spaces on the private street. The parking problem is solved. The better news is that my client (Platinum) has voluntarily gone out and tried to make certain that there is additional parking. They have secured informal parking agreements. There is better news. Although we do not have to, we have offered to the hotel to pay for half of the cost of turning the last corner of that property into a parking lot. Platinum wants to help solve this issue. We cannot understand why the hotel isn't being looked at. The hotel is causing the problem. If this does not occur, Platinum has more parking, based upon the City's Code, right now. Platinum envisioned a business where 60 percent of the revenue was generated by restaurant service and 40 percent of the revenue would be generated by nightclub activities (dancing and entertainment). That is a vision. There is no requirement in the CUP that they do that. In fact, there is no requirement in the CUP application or in the CUP itself that they even provide you with their business plan. But in an effort to be up front, they gave it to the Commission. Everyone is trying to make it sound like the City got tricked - that this is more of a nightclub than a restaurant and nobody ever told you that. And, if you had known that you would not have approved the CUP like this and you would have required more parking. The City Code currently requires 96 spots. Fifty percent of all of NOVEMBER i 8, 2000 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMSS.10n the cities that were surveyed do not have the one spot per 35 square feet number. If the hotel requires 88 spots, that leaves more than 200 parking spots. Mr. Munoz continued stated his client was surprised by the Sheriff's statement. Notwithstanding the fact that the Sheriff would have a difficult time explaining how they approved the facility when the conditions were worse, because they just testified tonight that the conditions have gotten better, and now when conditions are better they're not going to approve the facility. Nevertheless, Platinum will provide what the Sheriff wants. He read from page 1 of staff's report regarding the 1999 public hearing process which described Platinum as a "fine dining establish." He stated his concern that tonight's staff reported that there appeared to be no diners on November 23 and 24, 2000, which was the night before and Thanksgiving Day. He pointed out that the name of the establishment does not matter. What matters is, the use of the establishment. The parking problems being discussed'occur after 10:00 p.m. There is nothing in the CUP or in the law that says Platinum has to be successful as a restaurant or as a nightclub or that prohibit Platinum from being successful as a restaurant or as a nightclub. The Commission will have violated the law if it imposes new conditions on Platinum. Not only is Platinum required to have 96 parking spots, Platinum spent a "fortune" to make certain that it had 290 parking spots and, Platinum offered up an addition "fortune" to create a whole new parking area (Exhibit A of the consultant's report). If the hotel does not accept this offer, maybe the City should be looking at their CUP. Conclude your review and let Platinum move forward. The City's Building Official told the Commission that he cannot believe the fire department thinks they get to decide occupancy. It's his (the building official's) job. Platinum never represented that 60 percent of its facility would be used for restaurant and 40 percent would be used for other. Platinum said in its business plan that 60 percent of the revenue was projected to be from the restaurant portion and 40 percent from other business. ABC does not look at whether 51 percent is used for food or not. ABC looks at whether you are a bona fide eating establishment which Platinum is. Platinum did not request a continuance. Platinum wants its business license completed. Platinum submitted a_business_plan_in_April- 000.__ They_were not to scale because no one told Platinum they__ had to be to scale. They (the plans) were for use by the fire department and the fire department does not calculate occupancy. They want to see that the establishment has a seating plan that is safe for egress purposes. After the fire department found the plans after they had lost them the second time around they said for the first time that they had to be to scale. So Platinum went back and resubmitted them to scale by using a CAD program and detailing every nook and cranny. These "to scale" plans did not get turned in until just prior to Thanksgiving. Mr. DeStefano sent a referral to the Business License Commission a couple of days after the October 10, 2000, hearing telling them that the City wanted Platinum's Business License denied which lead to a hearing appearance. A couple of days later Platinum was told it was a mistake and that they in fact did not have to appear for a hearing. Platinum did not know about the yellow page issue until it was brought up this evening. Platinum pays for the yellow page ads and they advertise their establishment as both a restaurant and a night club. Literature was provided to the Commission this evening NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION that shows Platinum advertises itself as a restaurant only. Platinum has two business uses - two uses that the Planning Commission approved that says Platinum was approved to be a restaurant before 10:00 p.m. and a nightclub after 10:00 p.m. Platinum will try to live up to the Commission's vision of their establishment. Tell them what you would like and ask them to do it voluntarily - it will be done. C/Ruzicka asked the City Attorney to comment on the preliminary injunction. ACA/Pittman responded that there are three levels. However, because of the type of underlying litigation, all three levels would end up in front of the same judge. He (Mr. Munoz) is correct that the middle level injunction is decided upon its merits. Absent additional information or the judge having a change of heart it, is unlikely that if the hotel continues to push the issue that they will get a different result. They (the hotel) may end up with a permanent injunction that bars them from doing it. C/Ruzicka asked Mr. Munoz about a possible reciprocal parking agreement with the Kmart through their management company. Mr. Munoz responded that through the assistance of the Chamber of Commerce, Platinum has had some negotiations with Kmart. It is his understanding that at this point in history Kmart is waiting to hear back from their corporate offices. The local management was not able to make the decision. He stated that Platinum does not want to come before the Commission this evening and reference "pie in the sky" possibilities. Mr. Munoz responded to C/Tye that the City requires 88 parking spots for the hotel - one spot per room. The City also requires one spot for each two employees at the busiest shift. Assuming a maximum of 10 employees at one time, that means 5 additional spots for a total of 93 parking spots which leaves nearly 200 parking spots for Platinum. Doubling the 96 parking spots (one spot for every 35 square feet plus) indicates 192 parking spaces which leaves 5 or 6 on-site extra parking spots not taking into account the number of (50) off-site parking spots. C/Tye said he believes that the name on a business application is relevant, because it was not represented as Platinum Restaurant and Nightclub. When he came on the Planning Commission he was given three criteria to consider: 1) is it good for Diamond Bar, 2) is it good for the neighborhood, and 3) does the use fit the location. He believes that to a person, the Planning Commission would agree that a restaurant fits the location. He was present when the original CUP was reviewed. He was never. under the impression that this was going to be a nightclub, successful or otherwise. He agrees that there may not be a requirement that revenue be generated on such a basis, but there was a representation made in a business plan that may not have been legally required but was represented. There are continuing representations that something was represented but that's not what we meant. This is a Conditional Use Permit, not an unconditional use permit. Certainly, it is within the NOVEMIBER 000 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSIOt purview of the Planning Commission to see what actions are appropriate. Sgt. Flannery specified that 30 calls were significant. You (Mr. Munoz) began your testimony by stating that there were only 30 calls and not all of them were significant. What he (Sgt. Flannery) was clarifying was that of the 100 represented at the October 10, 2000, meeting, 30 were significant. Mr. Munoz stated that that is what Sgt. Flannery said the first time. The second time he got up he clarified again and he said that 30 of the total calls apply to the restaurant and he also said that the last six calls that have occurred were not significant. That means that all 30 were not significant. Taking the facts in the worst possible light for my client - I wasn't here - you were - I just look at the objective documents. What you approved on paper is what a judge is going to look at. What you approved on paper is a nightclub after 10:00 p.m. And it is a Conditional Use Permit. But that means that at the time you issue it you can impose conditions. It does not mean that afterward you can change those conditions. Once you've issued it (Conditional Use Permit) the vested right exists. They have a right to use it as approved, period. You can't change it unless they violate the conditions. Chair/Nelson opened the public hearing. Vince Galloway, 300 Prospectors Road (Fall Creek condominiums) (provided map of condo layout) stated that he has lived at his location for approximately 20 years. Prior to a hotel or restaurant he carne before the City to discuss whether residents would approve or disapprove of the creation of hotel and restaurants. The residents were happy to have such quality establishments available. However, in no way did the representation include a "nightclub" activity which would have been a concern to the residents if so noted. Homeowners have written letters to the City regarding the public nuisance aspect of this facility (noise, ingress/egress, trash, problems with patrons getting in and out of the complex). His biggest concern is that they feel the City has been tricked. The residents would love to have a good food establishment in that location. However, he really thinks this is_a ploy to represent what they do in their advertisement. He provided cards that speak about the nightclub aspect of the facility. He hoped to find out the actual capacity numbers. He read from an advertisement brochure that states "every Saturday night a party at the only club that caters to California college students. All Greeks that wear their letters in free all tonight. Three dance floors, six fully stocked bars, three rooms, 1000 capacity. Doors open at 9:00 p.m. 18 and over. Bring a friend and receive two for one Platinum etc. Greek Night - beginning Thursday, November 30 and every Thursday thereafter - UCR, CSUF, CalPoly-Pomona, UCLA, USC, UC Cal -State, LACSULS, CSU and UCSD, SDSU and many other campuses." And with respect to Ms. Pierce's dialogue talking about Diamond Bar and its great demographics of 30-40 year olds, the reality is that Diamond Bar is not really being targeted. It's really more of the college campuses and the younger crowd which is okay. The biggest concern with the Fall Creek residents has to do with the massive numbers of people who frequent this establishment and related traffic management. The residents are also concerned about the value of adjacent properties. The NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMIVIISSION sign on the restaurant indicates the hours of the restaurant to be Wednesday to Saturday 5:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. which is four nights and does not measure up to what a bona fide eating establishment is supposed to be. As a resident of Diamond Bar he is concerned about the amount of police and fire support that would be required for service calls made to this location. On a really busy night, not like the evening witnessed by the City's consultant, when they (Platinum) have a big event the traffic can be much more horrendous all night long. Residents want restaurants and other businesses in the area. They want something that is not quite so disruptive of the residents' day to day life. Ashlyn Nicholson, 364 S. Prospectors Road #140 (Fall Creek), stated that in addition to the items covered by Mr. Galloway, her window faces the Platinum. She can see the facility from her bedroom window. At night, four nights a week and sometimes five nights a week, her walls vibrate. The problem was even greater during the summer. She could not keep her windows open at night because of the extreme noise. Even with the windows shut she has to wear ear plugs. As a result, her ears are starting to bleed and she has to sleep in her living room. often because it is less noisy. There is excessive noise emanating from the facility. She realizes that she should have been calling the sheriff's department earlier. She has only recently begun calling them because she did not realize that it was an option because it is a business. She has not seen any difference since she began calling. Even if the sound is lowered it carries outside because the doors are open to the outside patios. She is frustrated that Platinum is being portrayed as a victim. She does not see Platinum as the victim, she sees Fall Creek homeowners as victims because they have to put up with this nuisance. She also has problems with access to her back gate in the late evening hours. Late at night security guards don't even ask her where she's going, they tell her she's not allowed on that street. She does not feel safe having a nightclub within 500 feet of her residence. She has had people park in her parking space who have told her they are going to Platinum. She is also worried that these people are drinking and they are so close to residences she feels uncomfortable. At least one day a week on the weekend the association's gate is broken open which would allow people to enter the community. She went to Platinum Nightclub on November 18 with a friend. She was very surprised. What was portrayed at the October 10, 2000, hearing was nothing like what they witnessed. It was not people in their 30's and 40's. In fact, at 28 and her friend at 29 were about the oldest in attendance. There were many young people. The music included a lot of sexual profanity. She witnessed one couple simulating sex in front of her. There was no place to sit except for reserved seating. It was very crowded and was probably a fire hazard that night. It was very hard to move. People were pushing other people. A waitress pushed her very hard so that she could move. And there were not many people on the dance floor. Platinum was open as a nightclub on November 22 and 23rd. She presented a flyer confirming this fact. To her knowledge, there was no food served on the night she attended the facility. She was never offered food service nor did she see a menu. Several months ago when she began to be frustrated by the noise she went to City Hall and looked up the Noise Ordinance. She referred to Chapter 22.28. She called Platinum today to find out their restaurant hours. She got a voice recorded message that referred only to the nightclub NOVEMBER 28,2000 PAGE 12 PLANNING CONWISSION and she could not get any information about the restaurant - only that they are open this Sunday night for some kind of ladies free night. Section 4. 0) of the Planning Commission's resolution states that "granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, injurious to persons, properties or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located." She believes that the granting of the Conditional Use Permit is detrimental to the public interests, to safety, to health, etc. She has epilepsy and if she does not get enough sleep she has seizures. As a result of this establishment, she is at risk four nights a week because she does not get sufficient sleep until after 2:30 to 3:00 a.m. after the Platinum closes and car alarms and traffic ceases. She wondered how many of the Planning Commissioners would like a neighbor like this. Mr. Galloway pointed out that Ashlyn Nicholson and David Hoy's units are indicated on the map he provided. Their bedroom windows face out toward the back into the parking lot, toward the gate, toward the club. At the October 10, meeting Mr. Haber spoke about how he does not hear the noise and he (Mr. Galloway) does not hear it either because their units do not face the club. Tim Schlose, 380 S. Prospectors Road #87, presented flyers that he pulled down from nearby offices in Brea between State College and Cramer between Lambert Road and the Imperial Freeway from which he read. He stated that nowhere in this advertisement does it refer to Platinum serving food. In addition, Platinum frequently advertises on KISS FM as a nightclub and not as a restaurant. He also presented photographs of the Platinum parking lot he took on November 7, 2000, at 11:00 a.m. which show bottles thrown in the ivy. This is minor compared to what he has seen and picked up at other times. He went around to the back of the facility and found bottles sitting on the inside of the wall well on the Continental Burger side. He regularly picks up bottles from in front of the hotel and Platinum parking lot and puts them in the trash. _ _Trudy__Coleman, Vice President,_ NAACP, Pomona Valley, turned over her time to John Thompson. John Thompson, President, Pomona Valley NAACP, said he has listened to the comments and concerns of the residents and the Planning Commission. He is not in the habit of championing establishments of lewd conduct, gambling, etc. He believes morals are very important. Safety of the patrons as well as, the safety of the community is very important to him. He spoke about matters of culture. He does not normally patronize clubs. However, in today's culture, they need a place to go and something to do. Access in 2000 is a problem in terms of the African-American community. Generally, establishments such as this have a two to three year life span. The Platinum Club is an exceptional club in that thousands of people attend and the community has two or three complaints from the police department. Diamond Bar is not known for its diversity. It is an expensive community and certainly property value is an issue for its residents. More than likely, the people who live NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMIVIISSION here make great sacrifices. Notwithstanding, the issue of the licensing is relevant to the City's attitude toward diversity. Platinum is not primarily a white establishment. The complaints are directed toward black people and what black people do. This is not a workplace. He salutes the City's thoroughness and scrutiny. He does not visualize an attitude of working with this situation, he visualizes an attitude of how fast can we get rid of this situation. As the young lady stated "these" people and they have to be African American and Latino people. This community has the proud privilege of enjoying an establishment that handles large numbers of people without problems. For all intent and purpose, he sees the City trying to make problems where problems do not exist. This club has not been issued a license and there is no reasonable excuse why this process hasn't gone forward. His concern is one of fairness, concern for the neighbors and the patrons as well as, other stated concerns. He asked the Commission not to turn away the opportunity to entertain the diverse community in terms of this establishment. He encouraged the people who are against this establishment to try to come together to work out the communities in order for this business to continue until it lives out its life. The parties involved are willing to work through the process. His concern is for the community and what Diamond Bar's attitude will be with the diverse community. He urged the parties to work together to resolve this issue. Angela Pierce diDonato, reminded the Commission that her mother is Jill Pierce and her brother is Chris Pierce. She was at Platinum on November 18, when Ms. Nicholson states she was there. She is proud to say she is going to be 30 next month and she was one of the younger people at the establishment that evening. Friday night and Saturday night are both 21 and over. College night is Thursday night. The dance floor was packed. There are appetizer menus all over the establishment on every level. Any appetizer can be ordered from any of the cocktail waitresses. All of the bartenders direct patrons to order things from the cocktail waitresses. In response to a former speaker who is supportive of a restaurant being in that location but not necessarily a nightclub, we have not seen any of the people who spoke patronize and support the restaurant portion of the business. Both portions of the business are advertised. Shortly after Platinum opened the establishment, they were asked not to put posters up in Diamond Bar and posters were not placed in the City of Diamond Bar after that. Our competitors posters are placed all around our establishment on the neighboring off -ramps but you will not see our posters in the City of Diamond Bar. The restaurant is advertised in the newspaper, in the entertainment booklet, in the Pennysaver. She is an attorney in Los Angeles and brings her attorney friends to the night club on the weekends. It is not a teeny -hopper establishment. It is a place where professional people go to have a drink, to listen to music and to enjoy themselves which is what it has always been. It is a very respectable place. No adjacent business has spoken against Platinum. The only business that has opposed the establishment is the landlord and three residents. There are no dates on the photographs, there is no time -line for the 30 telephone calls to the Sheriff's Department. Within the past two months there were six calls. Over a 16 month period there have been 30 calls of somewhat significance. She is concerned that Ms. Nicholson stated she made three of the six calls within the last two NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION months. It is disturbing to think that every night their business runs she may call to make a complaint. There will always be people who do not support a business. Platinum is not trying to portray itself as the victim. This is a family business. Sixteen months ago this family relied upon the fact that it could open this business. All of its resources, financial, emotional and physical support went into opening this business. Platinum has brought business to surrounding businesses. She has been a resident of Diamond Bar for the past four years. She asked the Commission to support the business. Joel Haber, 356 S. Prospectors Road, stated that on October 10, 2000, he mentioned that there was trash in the area outside the Fall Creek gate which is supported by photographs. This fact was brought to the attention of the Platinum owners and that has been cleaned up. He walks down Gentle Springs Lane every morning to get a newspaper. The trash is not there anymore. With respect to the traffic, it moves and it moves very smoothly. He has gone by the establishment many times in the evening and he goes through without any problem. No one stops him. If he is stopped they do so in a very friendly manner. With respect to noise, if it is a big concern, why didn't anyone go to the owners and say they had a problem and ask them to do something about it. They have not. In fact, when the owners received a letter from the Fall Creek Homeowners Association, they sent a letter out indicating that if anyone had a problem to come to them and let them see if they can work something out. He has eaten at Platinum, it is a restaurant and they do advertise it as such. He does not see people supporting the restaurant. He sees people criticizing the nightclub but nobody comes to the restaurant and he does not believe it is because Platinum has a nightclub. He has had food at the Platinum. He has seen people have fun. They dance, they have fun and they leave. The security guards are there and makes certain everyone gets to their car and people leave. They do not cause any problems in the community. He has seen what goes on in the evening. The people who frequent the nightclub come there, they leave and they do not cause any trouble. In fact, the adjacent businesses welcome patrons because they frequent their businesses. He does not have a problem with the nightclub. If other people have problems they should go to the owners and tell them. He _is_certain _the owners would _work with neighbors just.as well as_they _are working with the City and that a compromise can be worked out. Scott Duffner,1342 Bell Avenue, Suite 3-K, Tustin, CA 92780, representing Kmart Corporation, stated the following: As of 3:00 p.m. today, neither the Director of Real Estate nor the Vice President and General Counsel of Kmart were aware of any additional negotiations with the Platinum Club, the Platinum Restaurant or anyone associated therewith for the use of Kmart's parking lot. We have, and continue to make it clear, that Kmart is not inclined to provide any shared parking on any basis whatsoever for that operation. Secondly, Kmart has enjoyed a significant long-term relationship with this City and has found this City to be very much business -friendly. He and his client wish to go on record as supporting the City's Staff and the Planning Commission in their determinations this evening. NOVEMBER 289 2000 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION Jill Pierce, owner of the Platinum Restaurant and Nightclub, stated that with respect to noise, Platinum had 5 noise calls in 16 months, three of which were from one person. In every instance, Platinum has looked into the matter. Platinum is zoned C-1 commercial. Under the Code, there are requirements relative to noise levels. She believes it is 55 decibels prior to 10:00 p.m. and 50 decibels after 10:00 p.m. On a regular basis, Platinum conducts sound level meter readings. Platinum has never had one single reading that has been in excess of the City's Code. The landlord hired a professional to take readings on Friday and Saturday night. The professional told her that "there is no sound issue here" and even if there were, the freeway noise completely obliterates it. We believe that on Sunday night when the freeway noise is less that there may be more sound carried and Platinum will investigate that issue. Not believing the results of the survey, the landlord asked the professional to return the next weekend for a reading which he did with the same results. With respect to trash, the street has always presented a problem and Platinum cleans it up. Relative to the Kmart issue, she has exhausted all of her options with Kmart Corporation. There is some reason that Kmart Corporation will not tell us why they will not entertain any options offered by Platinum. Recently, the Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce stepped in and directly negotiated with the local manager of Kmart who said that if it was asked of her she would have no problem with it but she does not have the authority to make that decision on her own. As early as this afternoon - 5:30 p.m. - she received another follow up telephone call from a Chamber member who was working on this negotiation to say that there most recent update is that the manager of the Kmart has not yet heard back from Corporate. The County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department Code Enforcement that today rescinded the approval that they made a year ago is under the very direct and immediate direction by City management as is the County Los Angeles Fire Department and each and every effort that Platinum sees from them that becomes detrimental to Platinum, the name Jim DeStefano comes back. She believes that it is the City management of the City of Diamond Bar that is making direct detrimental efforts and using the County and City agencies against Platinum to facilitate the actions they would like to see happen. The owner of Continental Burger stated that the photograph (of the bottles lined up on his wall) was correct. He picks up the trash himself almost everyday. He spoke to his landlord about this matter about a month ago. No matter how they try, most problems involving trash and people who urinate on the premises will continue to exist. He asked his landlord to build a large wall between his establishment and Platinum but he has not had a response. He does not believe these problems will go away. Craig Clute agrees that diversity is needed in Diamond -Bar. He believes it is great to have an entertainment club in Diamond Bar. He attempted to get food at the restaurant one evening but it was too crowded and he left. With respect to noise, the restaurant is in a freeway corridor and the sound decibel is allowed to be well above 60-65. Unfortunately, today's technology produces low-end frequency a lot more accurately. Perhaps Platinum's security people could monitor the condominium area. His neighborhood suffers from NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION alcohol containers and other trash from the high school and the school does not pick up the trash. He is a neutral observer of this situation. Regarding parking code violations, this City has wide spread parking problems. It is not exclusive to, this establishment. He supports the sheriff's department in their efforts. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. C/Ruzicka asked Mr. Duffner to amplify his statement regarding a possible parking agreement between Platinum and Kmart. Mr. Duffner stated that Kmart is a large corporation. He has been with the corporation for a long period of time. The direction he has and has had consistently from the people he answers to, the Director of Real Estate for the Western Region and Kmart's General Counsel, is that they have no interest in providing a parking agreement, not just to this club, but to any such club. It is a policy and it is not necessarily an opinion based on this particular operation. Kmart had problems with this group early on which has since stopped. While the trash problem still occurs, the incidents of problems have abated. He cannot say that this decision is forever. His personal opinion, having represented Kmart for 10 years, is that an agreement is not in the foreseeable future. C/Tye pointed out that Ms. Nicholson has raised issues of noise and safety. To Mr. Thompson's comment that the City of Diamond Bar is not diverse is interesting to him. His children attended grade school where 15 languages were spoken. Ms. Nicholson said "those people" that Mr. Thompson assumed she meant people of color or Latins. He (C/Tye) did not assume that for a minute. He understood her to mean those people at that establishment. Any more than when he heard Mr. Thompson say "we're" 16 months into this process, he didn't assume for a minute that he was part of the ownership. Mr. Duffner has made it pretty clear that Kmart has no inclination to provide shared parking which he believes is different from what Mr. Munoz represented. As the Continental Burger owner stated, it will be an ongoing_ problem._ It is something that needs to be addressed because _ it is not something that was considered when the Planning Commission considered this use as a restaurant that the City would have this problem today. To Mr. Munoz's point that Diamond Bar is an awful place to do business he took exception and appreciated Mr. Duffner's comment on behalf of Kmart. The City went to great lengths to see that this business (Platinum) as represented could open without the appropriate licenses and permits, and here we are today as a result. Anybody can sue anyone at anytime for anything they want. It isn't who is right or wrong, it is who can afford to lose the most. Unfortunately, this is an entity that is willing to go to the mat and a resident (Ms. Nicholson) who states that the walls of her residence shake which gets back to the noise and safety issue and he wants to make certain that the Commission addresses those issues as it looks at the Conditional Use Permit. NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Nelson asked Ms. Nicholson if the noise is constant or if it occurs only when the front doors are open to which Ms. Nicholson responded it's constant. Chair/Nelson, addressing Jill Pierce, asked her to talk about valet parking. Jill Pierce stated she felt that valet parking was very appropriate for Platinum's upscale customers. It is an expensive proposition, it is not a money maker. Platinum did it as an added customer service. It became a liability issue. Valet parking was done for three month and it was discontinued because Platinum felt it was detrimental to moving people out of the parking lot in order to avoid additional talking and noise. Currently, it takes Platinum about 15 minutes to get everyone out of the parking lot and onto the freeway at closing time. When they had valet parking it took about 45 minutes. Platinum has about the same number of clientele currently that it had when valet parking was offered. There was no parking problem until the barricade went up. ACA/Pittman advised the Commission that the Conditional Use Permit runs with the land and it grants the property owner a vested right to continue that use provided it is in compliance with the conditions of approval and does not constitute a public nuisance. Among the grounds for the Commission's ability to impose conditions on a discretionary permit, Mr. Munoz is correct that generally, the opportunity to do so is at the time of approval unless there are grounds to hold a hearing and that there is substantial evidence to support the imposition of additional conditions, modification of existing conditions, or - evidence that substantiates that the continued operation of the use that was approved constitutes a nuisance. If the Commission determines that those grounds exist it could impose additional conditions or it could commence revocation proceedings. VC/Zirbes stated that it seems to him from what he has read from August 1999, what was presented to that Planning Commission and what the approval was based upon, was conversation and representation that this establishment was intended to be a restaurant which would provide entertainment after 10:00 p.m. In none of the documents that were submitted by the applicant or through testimony at the Planning Commission level or through the questions posed by the Planning Commissions would there be any reason to believe that the Platinum Nightclub to be as popular as it is and cause these numbers of people to patronize the establishment. His concern about its use centers around the nearby residents and business that may be impacted both positively and negatively by the operation. He is not sure how he feels about the Conditional Use Permit as it is written and he does not know that there is an easy answer: Recently, he read an article about 19 people being killed in Mexico in a nightclub that was over crowded. The establishment was operating as a nightclub but under a CUP for a restaurant. It seems to him that a load occupancy of 600 with parking spaces of 192 there may still be a parking deficiency. This is a family business and there has been testimony on both sides. NOVEMBER 289 2000 PAGE 18 PLANNING CONBUSSION C/Ruzicka agreed that this is a difficult situation. He personally does not want to see any business in this City that is close to being successful for any reason, die because of what he might or might not do. Therefore, anything that he can do to help iron out the problems that exist and keep this business,in operation is what he would like to see. He is not really too sure about where it comes from, but there has been some type of onus put on this situation that there is some type of a race issue. He cannot in his wildest imagination see how there is a race problem in this issue. The only color that everyone is trying to see is the color green because these folks are spending money. But while they are doing so, they are causing others a problem somehow. What this Commission is about is trying to solve that problem. He believes that the CUP needs to be modified in some way so as to insure the applicant's right to use their property and to take care of some of the problems that exist. He does not understand why Kmart does not see a business opportunity and most especially a profitable business opportunity in this instance in supporting some type of reciprocal parking agreement. Such an agreement would solve a good portion of the parking problem and it could be managed in such a way as to insure that Kmart had ample parking during the daytime hours and Platinum had ample parking during the evening hours. This leaves hirci questioning how the CUP can be modified to take care of all parties. He wants no part of revoking this CUP. Neither does he want it to stand as is. Therefore, it needs to be modified. C/Tye asked if it is possible to tie parking requirements to occupancy to which DCM/DeStefano responded "yes, it is." He asked if, using a number of 500 patrons, the - City decided that there had to be enough parking spaces to assume that 80 percent of the patrons arrive alone so that they would need 400 parking spots, is that a legitimate way to deal with this issue to which DCM/DeStefano responded that fundamentally, it is a legitimate conclusion, but such a conclusion would require much more of an analysis than one given night of observation. The numbers indicated seem too high. C/Tye asked if occupancy can be set based upon the number of available spaces, to which DCM/DeStefano responded affirmatively. C/Kuo asked if during the past year the City brought to Platinum's attention that they may be in violation of the conditions of approval of the CUP. Based on the City's study, what is the total number of parking spaces staff would like to recommend to the Commission? On one hand, the City wants to help and protect new business. On the other hand, the City Ordinances must be adhered to for the benefit of all parties. Chair/Nelson shares C/Ruzicka's thoughts ori being optimistic and being able to work out this situation. He tends to take exception to criticisms of this body or the City's desire and ability to conduct periodic review. He does not want to confuse his own thoughts with whether or not this was a bait and switch type of situation. He does not believe the City was duped. He believes that this is an opportunistic private enterprise that made a projection that indicated it was more profitable to go in one direction rather than in another direction. He does not believe that Platinum came in attempting to hide anything. He NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION believes that the operator is more than willing to be a good neighbor. He believes that the operator did the right thing which was unfortunate in sending a bulldog attorney in here who didhis job very well, although he did take exception to Mr. Munoz's. constantly pointing at Sgt. Flannery. He believes there is a trash problem. Perhaps the solution is picking up at night and again in the morning and being more thorough about it. He believes that there can be parking issues and he believes there are solutions which the operator is on the road to solving in a permanent fashion. He is concerned about the noise issue. He does not live in the condominium complex but he has to believe that the walls and/or windows vibrate from the noise. He would prefer to have the operator be a good neighbor and to come to a compromise solution whether it be turning down the volume or some other solution. He believes that modifications are in order and he does not believe that modifications will be so onerous as to cause a hardship for the owner. He believes that if the Commission is reasonable that the operator will accept those modifications. If the owner is going to police its own operation, there must be some commitment that it will be done so in perpetuity as long as they own the establishment, that it is not going to be something that is done for a month and then becomes lax and falls off altogether. Mr. Munoz stated that coming into tonight's meeting it was the owner's opinion that parking was the major issue. With respect to parking, Platinum is in an impossible situation because it only has rights to so much land. Platinum is very disappointed to hear from Kmart's counsel that what they were led to believe at 5:30 this evening is not a possibility. Platinum is still willing to do whatever it takes to continue to work with Kmart which is an obvious and easy solution for all parties. If there is insufficient parking to accommodate patrons, they will not come to the establishment. Legally, Platinum is entitled to do what they are doing with 96 parking spaces. They are doing everything within their power to insure that more spaces are available. The other issues can be addressed. The trash issue is simple. Platinum's position is that they are not causing the problem; they are cleaning up the trash. If the Commission modifies Platinum to clean up in the evening and in the morning they will abide by the modification. However, Platinum would prefer to be asked to do so and they will comply, rather than having the Commission make it a part of the CUP modification. With respect to noise, the City's Code provides noise levels within which Platinum must operate. If a noise issue exists, Platinum is willing to address it. Platinum will re -institute valet parking, however, there is a concern that this will, in fact, generate more noise. If the Commission has other suggestions or other possible solutions related to parking, Platinum would like to hear them. Chair/Nelson asked PC/Meyer to comment on Mr. Munoz's analysis in which he compared site conditions with the most common requirement for similar uses, one parking space per 37.5 square feet of assembly area which amounts to 178 parking spaces and the Platinum's ability to accommodate their patrons. Jill Pierce stated that 6,700 square feet is the assembly area. The remaining area (the difference between 8,900 and 6,700 square feet is kitchen area and non -assembly areas. NOVEMIBER 28,2000 PAGE 20 PLANNING CONMSSION PC/Meyer stated that most nightclub parking operations is a major concern and is generally not satisfied on site. Most nightclubs of this size run upward of 200 available parking spaces. VC/Zirbes stated the original condition has 96 spaces based on a restaurant use. It seems that the nightclub use comes into play after 10:00 p.m. We're not really sure what the outcome will be with the property owner SX Diamond Bar. Is there a way to modify the parking condition based upon the hours of use, i.e., if the condition is left at 96 parking spaces for the restaurant use, that leaves the restaurant in tact. Moving into the Minor Conditional Use Permit for entertainment, to modify that parking condition, can the condition say that the parking would be 96, but at 10:00 when entertainment takes effect, the establishment must provide XX spaces on-site and/or off-site. ACA/Pittman agreed that such a condition is fairly common that conditions run with the use because urbanized cities in particular suffer from parking shortages. It is not uncommon to have shared parking arrangements where after, for example an office building which doesn't need their parking after 6:00 or 7:00 p.m., offers it up to a nightclub or restaurant that needs it somewhere between 6:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. The problem in this case is the applicant's ability to obtain parking agreements or reciprocal agreements with their neighbors. All of this is dependent on the number of spaces staff and the Commission determine to be adequate. VC/Zirbes stated that with the on-site parking required for the hotel, it would seem to be in this property owner's best interest to accommodate both of these properties. If you look at the number of parking spaces that are currently on-site and you assume that most of the people who check into the Best Western will do so prior to 10:00 p.m., the Best Western should have a fairly solid feel for what their parking load will be. This is still assuming that 88 spaces are available for the hotel use. He feels that at this point Platinum is entitled to use_those_.spaces.__If matters_of.noise, trash-andloitering are cured by -Platinum which will _ create less of a burden and impact to their residential and business neighbors, perhaps there is a way to work around the parking issue. Like C/Ruzicka, he would like to see that this restaurant/nightclub moves forward. C/Ruzicka agreed. He said he believes that the Kmart attorney can see how the Commission is struggling to find an equitable solution for all parties and he hopes that Mr. Duffner relays that message to his people at corporate headquarters. This is an honest attempt in good faith to accommodate everyone including Kmart. If Kmart would extend themselves and realize that it is not their philosophy that the Commission has any argument with at all. They have a very good business sense of what is good for them. In this particular case, however, there is an opportunity for both the folks at Platinum to ameliorate one of their problems and for Kmart to make a profit on a possible agreement in which Platinum could work out a plan to protect Kmart's parking lot during the hours of their use NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 21 PLANNING COMMISSION and even cleaned up and made a better parking lot as a result of the reciprocal agreement. He is certain that Platinum wants to work with the Commission. Mr. Munoz recommended that the Planning Commission recess in order to allow him to speak with the Kmart attorney to ascertain the possibility of an agreement. RECESS: Chair/Nelson recessed the Planning Commission meeting at 11:55 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Nelson reconvened the Planning Commission meeting at 12:14 a.m. Mr. Munoz stated that he spoke with the Kmart representative who indicated he cannot make any decisions tonight, but that he certainly will relay the offers that Platinum has set forth as well as, comments from the Commission. He has also indicated that Kmart has an adamant policy and in all likelihood would not agree to a shared parking agreement. Based on what he's hearing he does not believe Platinum can rely on Kmart for a solution. With respect to the existing parking he believes that now that an injunction exists and as long as it stays in place with the 290 spots on-site less the 100 spots for the hotel, it leaves about 200 spots on-site plus the 30-50 on -street parking spots. He believes that there is a general consensus between PC/Meyer and DCM/DeStefano that this is probably adequate based upon the numbers indicated. His concern is that if the Planning Commission were to impose a modified condition that Platinum has to have 200 parking spaces, if the judge ultimately came up with a ruling that did not guarantee Platinum an unimpeded right to the full amount Platinum would then be in violation. As a practical matter, perhaps the Commission need not do anything. The issue may have solved itself. Platinum is in negotiations with the hotel owner to pave the open area. Platinum is also willing to do additional cleanups. With respect _ to noise, there is a patio door nearest to the condominiums that is apparently open much of the time and so long as it is okay with the fire department, that door can remains closed except when people are entering or exiting the area. He offered that the Commission could conclude their review for now and review the matter again in six months to be certain that these issues have been resolved. His clients have asked him to state that if this is the position of the Commission they will do everything in their power to increase the cleanup and attempt to come up with solutions for noise mitigation. VC/Zirbes moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to modify the Conditional Use Permit with regard to parking to wit: The required number of parking spaces will remain at 96 until 10:00 p.m. at which time the required number of parking spaces will increase to 222. In addition, the owner is required to seek whatever remedies possible including buffering to reduce the noise levels and increase trash cleanup on and off-site. Mr. Munoz pointed out that if the judge renders an adverse decision, Platinum will be unable to comply with the modification. He offered as a possible solution that the motion be amended to indicate that those numbers would only apply as long as the existing NOVEMBER LLI PAGE 22 PLANNING CONMSSION conditions in the preliminary injunction continue to prevail; or, as a preferable consideration, to reconsider whether the Commission. needs to make this as a modification to make it a resolution rather than a modification indicating that the Commission strongly urge or direct the applicant to insure that 222 spaces are available after 10:00 p.m. and that the owner address the trash issue with diligence. ACA/Pittman concurred with Chair/Nelson that the applicant can always ask for a modification to the CUP. Mr. Munoz stated that if the Commission passes such a motion, Platinum will be in a position of having to appeal the decision in order to preserve the rights it currently has because Platinum does not know at this time what the judge will ultimately do in the case with the hotel. ACA/Pittman agreed that Mr. Munoz's statement is accurate. If Platinum consents to the modification of the conditions there is a small window of time for them to challenge the conditions. If the resolution is worded to the effect that assuming that the court or a court of competent jurisdiction does not otherwise limit the applicant's ability to provide the required number of parking spaces on-site, after 10:00 p.m. they must provide 192 on-site and 30 off-site, either on street or at another location. An additional requirement could be added to the effect that if the court determined that the hotel does not have to maintain those spaces available to the restaurant that the City be notified immediately and that the applicant work with the City to make whatever necessary arrangements can be made. Mr. Munoz indicated that his client will consent to that type of modification without waiving their rights as long as the modification to 222 parking spaces after 10:00 p.m. would revert back to 96 if the court did anything that would impede the ability of Platinum to provide those spaces. In this event, they would immediately notify the City. _. _VC/Zirbes_agreed to_amend_his_motion to include the provision._ to direct_ staff_ to work with _ the applicant that in the event that the case before the trial judge goes against the applicant. If the applicant is successful in this court proceeding, the applicant agrees to accept the condition. C/Ruzicka seconded the amended motion. C/Tye said he believes the Commission needs to be more specific in its direction. Mr. Munoz explained that he and the owners as well as, staff members, are unable to come up with specifics at this time with which Platinum can unequivocally comply. His preference is that the Commission pass a resolution that states the Commission would like Platinum to do some things that has no impact on the CUP. If those things are not done, review Platinum again in six months or a year. NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 23 PLANNING COMNIISSION Chair/Nelson said that until specific recommendations are made for mitigation he is uncomfortable imposing conditions. He asked C/Tye if he would be comfortable leaving all issues up to staff. C/Ruzicka said he believes the Commission has a handle on this matter in that it has a perfect right to review the CUP at any time. C/Tye stated that in light of the contempt that Mrs. Pierce has for Mr. DeStefano and staff he would suggest to the Commission that if it chooses to review this matter it will only provide more evidence to pile on her long litany of abuse, oversight and meddling. Therefore, it makes more sense for the Commission to be specific. ACA/Pittman suggested that the noise and trash issue be dealt with by making it subject to staff's approval or have them work with staff. The concern at the moment is that we do not know what would work. And if the owner is tied to a specific noise mitigation, for example, we may find out that it will not solve the problem and yet they have been tied to a specific condition that either needs to be amended or they are in violation of the CUP. Mr. Munoz again emphasized that his client is willing to work with the City's staff in these matters. His concern is, however, if the Commission makes a modification to the CUP tonight he is painted into a box where he has to appeal that modification to protect his client's rights to live with what is on the CUP at this time. He understands that there are strong feelings on the part of all parties involved in this issue. He really believes that since the best solution is at this point, a resolution, as opposed to a modification to the CUP, to the effect that you want us to work with staff on the trash and noise issue, and that you want us to have 222 parking spots after 10:00 p.m. that doesn't modify the CUP, doesn't put him in the position of having to decide whether to appeal or not; the Commission has been clear about what it wants and Platinum knows it has no more than six months before the City looks at the CUP once again. He appreciates C/Tye's concerns and is also not anxious to relive this matter. However, he will tell his clients that as long as staff is coming up with reasonable solutions, they should incorporate those solutions. DCM/DeStefano stated that the Commission is not in a position to take action on a resolution this evening. Based upon the motion, the second and the discussion, the Commission is in a position whereby it would be directing staff to come back with a resolution that would amend the conditions of approval. If the Commission directs staff to prepare a resolution for the December 12 meeting, it would provide staff with time to work with the restaurant operator, their legal staff and the City's legal staff to see if reasonable solutions can be determined for the issues that have been identified. If staff is not able to do so, that information can be reported on December 12. ACA/Pittman stated that the motion, as he understands it, is to direct staff to prepare a resolution for the meeting of December 12, 2000, amending the conditions of approval on NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 24 PLANNING COMMISSION the Conditional Use Permit and the MCUP to include a requirement that 96 spaces be maintained up until 10:00 p.m.; that when the use changes primarily to a nightclub at 10:00 p.m. the applicant maintain 192 on-site and 30 off-site parking spaces, providing that the court allows those spaces to be provided; in the event that those spaces are not open to them that they notify the City as soon as the court so determines and that the requirement after 10:00 p.m. would revert back to 96 spaces; that the restaurant owner seek reasonable remedies to address the potential noise impacts on the residents at the adjacent condominium complex; and that the applicant to implement more diligent trash pickup both on-site and off-site. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye ABSENT: CONMSSIONER& None Chair/Nelson thanked the members of the audience who participated in this matter. 7.2 Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element (under the authority of Government Code Sections 65091(a)(3) and 65588(b)(5)) for the periodic review and revision to the city of Diamond Bar General Plan. (Continued from November 14, 2000.) Six elements comprise the City's General Plan, which was adopted in July 1995 (pursuant to Governmental code 65300). The General Plan is a comprehensive document establishing goals and strategies to fulfill the community's vision for its future. PROJECT: Draft 2000-2005 Housing Element (GPA No. 2000-01) ADDRESS: Citywide APPLICANT: City -of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive Diamond bar, CA 91765 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission re -open the public hearing, receive testimony, close the public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 00-01) for the draft 2000-2005 Housing Element. Chair/Nelson re -opened the public hearing. There being no one who wished to testify on this matter, Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. NOVEMBER 28, 2000 PAGE 25 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Zirbes moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to adopt a resolution recommending City Council approval of General Plan Amendment GPA No. 00-01 for the draft 2000-2005 Housing Element. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 8. 'PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None offered. 9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects - as noted. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nelson adjourned the meeting at 12:52 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: Chairman Steve Nelson DATE: December 6, 2000 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Sonya Joe, Development Services Assistant 4 SUBJECT: Final entry gate details for Tract No. 52267 On May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Development Review No. 2000-02, subject to the following conditions: 1. The final entry gate details shall be submitted for the Planning Commission's review and approval. 2. The applicant shall incorporate a three gate system, which includes two ingress gates and one egress gate at Crestview Drive. 3. The Grant Deed shall reflect that there shall be no garage conversions permitted at a future date for all lots. 4. The HOVE and MGA Product III shall be revised to show a standard three car garage and tandem garage parking is removed. Staff shall continue to work with the applicant to ensure item nos. 3 and 4 are appropriately addressed. On December 5, 2000, the applicant submitted the final entry gate details to the Planning Division. The proposed design includes a visually pleasing main entry at Crestview Drive and Diamond. Bar Boulevard with Mediterranean architectural features. The main entry includes a guardhouse, heavy trellis with pre -cast column and vines, landscaped islands, low retaining walls with stone facade, and decorative wrought iron gates with pilasters for pedestrian and vehicle access. The overall design appropriately relates to the design of the future homes within the gated community through the use of materials and textures. An entry monument sign supported by a low wall framework with a matching stone facade also been proposed. The main entry is further enhanced by complimentary landscape. Staff and the City's landscape consultant continue to coordinate with one another to ensure the appropriate type of species are planted. Additionally, the plans indicate a three gate system, including two ingress gates and one egress gate at Crestview Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard. The ingress lane with the proposed trellis is designated for visitors. The second ingress lane is designated for residents. Future residents will be able to control the gate with a remote control device similar to a garage door opener. Emergency vehicles will be provided with their own remote control device upon request. Since the Planning Commission meeting on May 9, 2000, staff has worked with the applicant and the City's traffic engineer to move forward on the design of the traffic signals to be located at Diamond Bar Boulevard/Tin Drive/Crestview Drive. The following items were reviewed to ensure adequate queuing and stacking: 1) lengthening the left turn lane on southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard into Crestview Drive; 2) establishing a dedicated right turn lane northbound Diamond Bar Boulevard into Crestview Drive. The City Engineer has approved the traffic signal design. Therefore, the proposed main entry gate will provide for adequate queuing and stacking. Furthermore, the applicant submitted emergency access gate details. The emergency access gate located near the end of Highcrest Drive includes wrought iron gates with pilasters for pedestrian and vehicle access and accent trees. The proposed design compliments the design of the main entry and the future homes within the gated community. C 1 ►Ih/ 1_ x,11 - Il LOW Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the proposed final entry gate details as shown on Exhibit "A" dated December 12, 2000. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Pages 5-9 of the Minutes of the City of Diamond Bar Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission dated May 9, 2000. 2. Exhibit "A" — Final entry gate details dated December 12, 2000. 19 May 9, 2,000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano explained that the Highcrest Drive gate at the upper elevation of the site is proposed to be an emergency ingress/egress only design. That concept has been reviewed with and requires final concurrence with both captains of both fire department stations that would be reporting to this site. Tin Drive will terminate at Diamond Bar Boulevard and will turn into the new Pulte project name "Crestview Drive" upon entrance to the site.. With the signalization that Pulte will be constructing, a sign will indicate that one of the streets is public and one of the streets is private. The developer has considered the Commission's concern about the stacking of vehicles entering the project site. This is the only ingress/egress and the matter has been discussed with the City's Engineer who has indicated that there must be one foot of stacking for every dwelling unit within the project. This project has 127 dwelling units. The Traffic Engineer is suggesting that there should be at least 127 feet of stacking room. The prior proposal indicated 120 feet and t— He nronosal has been revised to illustrate 130 feet of stacking area. The developer has illustrated further ways to enhance the capacity of vehicles to get into this site by working t to consider the pe to at least 220 feet. turn aximately 180 feet in length to allow a safer access to the project a sp it driveway separates visitors and residents. This additional t from its present design /deceleration lane of site. Upon entering the pocket supplies an a ttiona-ITIO-fe—et of queuing within the gate entry. Staff is recommending approval of this alternative which doubles the capacity. DCM/DeStefano stated that the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of pushing the entry gate further into the project. There is a point at which that scenario becomes difficult for the motorists due to the rise of about 65 feet from the entry to the first cul-de-sac. The run from where the houses begin down to the gate area about 500 feet is at about a 14 percent grade leading down to a lesser grade. Pushing the gate further into the slope increases the grade on Tin Drive. Staff would recommend that the grade not be increased beyond 14 percent. DCM/DeStefano further stated that with these responses, staff believes that the developer has addressed the issues of concern expressed by the Commission. Staff is satisfied with the developer's proposal and therefore recommends approval based upon the current conditions and proposed changes contained within the resolution. C/Tye asked for clarification of on -street parking statistics. DCM/DeStefano responded that the 266 spaces incorporates the areas for driveways, fixe hydrants and so forth meaning that those spaces have been discounted. DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Tye that staff is recommending that the matter of disallowing garage conversions be handled through the CC&R's which are recorded, and through the Buyers' Awareness Package. The Planning Commission may wish to handle this in a different manner. May 9, X000 PAGE b PLANNING COi1IMISSION C/Tye said he wants the tightest restriction possible with respect to Condition 5. u) 3. on page 11 "There shall be no garage conversions permitted at a future date for all lots." He said he believes that CC&R's are inadequate. VC/Zirbes asked who would have access to the Highcrest Drive emergency gate. DCM/DeStefano responded that this is an unanswered question at this point.. Clearly,. emergency services personnel would have access. Beyond that, the details have not been established. VC/Zirbes said that if the gate is available to be opened by any type of remote device at the disposal of residents what is to prevent them from using the device in a non -emergency situation. DCM/DeStefano indicated that VC/Zirbes concern is an implementation detail that staff and the developer need to agree upon. C/Ruzicka asked how many possible automobiles this project will generate, how will they be parked when not in use and how will they get in and out of this development. How many cars does 310 feet accommodate? Over and above these potential 15 cars, how much backup is anticipated at rush hour, or is the capacity for,these two streets larger than he believes it to be. Referring to paragraph 3 on Page 4 of staff's report, he said he is not sure how this scenario will work. Although the development review on Page 4 lists options to convert garages for increased square footage, he understands that in accordance with the proposed CC&R's that this cannot happen. Will the Planning Commission see and review the details and precise location of the primary and secondary gates to be installed. He stated that the project appears to be a good work and he would like to vote its approval if these items can be satisfactorily answered. DCM/DeStefano said that according to C/Ruzicka's figures it is possible that about 1000 vehicles can.reside within this project. Staff believes that significantly fewer vehicles will be present in the site at any given time as is seen within all of the neighborhoods within the community.- One -thousand -vehicles would-presume-wall-to-wall--parking-which is -not -the casein-- any asein--any other area of Diamond Bar and from staff's perspective is not anticipated. When this project was proposed the project was assessed with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) within which there was a traffic study conducted resulting in an anticipated volume of about 1300 vehicles per day as a result of this project. This is a generally accepted mathematical formula of about 10 trips per unit. This anticipated number contemplates occupants, guests, service vehicles, postal vehicles, sheriff's department vehicles, etc. The streets that are designed within this project can accommodate well in excess of that number of vehicles. Diamond Bar Boulevard can accommodate 40,000 vehicles based upon its design characteristics. The signal installation results from peak hour traffic considerations which anticipated 15 percent of the total trips generated. Not all of these vehicles will be parked on the site at any one time. The 1300 trips that have been assessed for this project would be entering and leaving this site throughout the May 9, 2000 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION, day. The design detail issues of the gate will be considered upon approval of the conceptual product. If the Planning Commission would like to see the design details of the gate if it so wishes. Historically, the Planning Commission has directed the City's staff to implement those details. The developer will tell you that it would be advantageous to at least get the conceptual details so that they can move forward with the drawings, work with the City staff, law enforcement, fire department and bring those results to the Planning Commission if it so desires.. Scott Wright, Forward Planner, Pulte Home Corporation, stated that his firm is amenable to having parking restrictions added to the Grant Deed. With respect to the emergency access gate at Highcrest Drive, there would typically be no remote acc ents. Fire and olice generally requtre a a oc ox a Installed with a ke or combination access to a separate key that would open the gate. t ere is an emergency and residents need to evacuate the area promptly, there are breakaway gate& aval a e. Dual access has been provided at the main entry gate w Ich accommo ates e.stac 'ng of about 14 vehicles without going into Diamond Bar Boulevard. The right and left turn dedicated lanes would provide for an additional eight or nine vehicles. The applicant has reviewed the conditions of approval and Pulte Home Corporation is in agreement with all of the conditions as stated. VC/Zirbes thanked Mr. Wright and staff for their consideration in responding to the Commission's concerns. He asked if Mr. Wright would have a problem with making condition aa) on page 11 to "The applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission for review and approval, etc." with respect to approval of the gate design. Mr. Wright responded to VC/Zirbes that the applicant has decided to make that an emergency gate at the request of the Highcrest residents. If that condition were to delay the approval of the project his initial reaction would be not to make it an emergency access. In an effort to be a good neighbor he would be open to having that discussion but he would not like for it to hold up the project or the ability to move forward with the initial design. He asked that the Commission provide clear direction on how to proceed so that when the project proceeds into construction level detail that portion would not need to be redone. VC/Zirbes asked if the front gate could be designed with three gates, one for the residents exiting the development and two gates for ingress with one for residents and one for visitors. Mr. Wright responded that this configuration was considered. During the past two weeks, this has been discussed with staff. If a separation is provided there tends to be more of a cueing problem because there is no way to leave the area without backing up. This type of design did not work from a functional standpoint. The landscape architect found no project with the three gate concept that actually works. Therefore, Pulte determined that such a system was not technically feasible and staff concurred with the analysis. May 9, 2,000 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION- VC/Zirbes asked if the tandem garage concept works. Mr. Wright said that virtually every project that has been done in the California market has had some sort of tandem garage on one or more of the plans and they work. Any vehicle can fit within that area. Pulte has never received a complaint that they do not work as garages. Tandems were included in the Rowland Heights project. However, a suite option was offered in the third car garage. VC/Zirbes said that it would appear that on the three plan option a standard three -car garage could be incorporated instead of a tandem garage. Mr. Wright responded that an option of eliminating the tandem garage and moving the three car garage over has been indicated for the MGA and HOVE products. VC/Zirbes said that he is concerned about the design of the tandem garage and how easy it would be to conceal a bootleg room in that area. He said he would be more inclined to view the design favorably with the removal of the tandem design and the incorporation of the three car standard design on Plan III. Mr. Wright responded that anyone can convert a garage into a room. He has -never had to put such a restriction into a Grant Deed. It is difficult to detect such a conversion. If the property owner sold the house they would have to convert the space back to a garage area. Pulte likes the fact that the tandem garage provides greater variation on the front elevation which does not . _ appear to be all garage. In addition, such a change would require a major design of the product. At this point, the developer would prefer not to go in that direction. He said he feels that the issue is adequately addressed through the Buyers' Awareness Package, the CC&R's and the Grant Deed. He pointed out that the code requires a two -car garage and he believes that the tandem garage provides a viable alternative. Chair/Nelson re -opened the public-hearing.----- Mayor ublic-hearing.--- Mayor Debby O'Connor stated that she is concerned about consideration of on-site parking for recreational vehicles. Mr. Wright stated that the CC&R's prohibit the exterior storage of recreational vehicles, boats, airplanes, etc. throughout the project. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Zirbes said that he is still concerned about the tandem garage. He would look favorably upon the project with a couple of modifications to the resolution, i.e., a standard three -car garage May 9,.;t-000 PAGE 9 PLANNING COI\IMISSION on the HOVE product; and adding the supplement conditions provided by staff, i.c., a condition that the Grant Deed be recorded with the restriction that there will be no garage conversions and that floor plans identified in Condition 5 (u) (2) will remain as 5 bedroom homes, and that Condition aa) is changed to read that "The applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission for review and approval the details for the installation, location and operation of the gates, both primary and emergency secondary_ access." C/Ruzicka reiterated his concerns about the possible number of automobiles that this project will generate, how will they be stored, and how will they get in and out of the project. He stated that by no means does he wish to make anything onerous for the applicant, but he would like to do everything possible to insure that the project is as good as it can be for the entire city. He wonders that if the main entry gate is moved an additional 50 feet into the slope will it be helpful in the years to come. DCM/DeStefano stated that pushing the gate further into the site reduces the amount of room between that gate and the beginnings of the first cul-de-sac which is 65 feet above and increases the slope of the street to get from the high point down to Tin Drive. That area is already at about 14 percent. When the area is reduced, the slope of the street is increased above 14 percent and staff would not recommend this concept. C/Tye said lie believes that a three gates main entry is a good idea and would increase capacity. This prevents traffic backup on Diamond Bar Boulevard and it accommodates the street grade consideration. Chair/Nelson thanked staff and the applicant for providing statistics for on -street parking which he finds to be reasonable. In general, there is a lack of consideration and disregard for CC&R's with respect to RV parking. DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Nelson that most of the driveways are between 20 and 25 feet in length and are generally flat with the exception of the main spine lots which are as steep as 15 percent. C/Ruzicka moved that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution subject to the following: Include that the gate detail come back to the Planning Commission for review and approval; that the main er two ingress gates and one spaces to t eir -intended ;m at Tin Drive/Crestview Drive and that deed restrictions be included for VC/Zirbes moved that C/Ruzicka's motion be amended to include the followin :That the Planning Commission approve Development Review _No. 2000-02F;ndings of Fact, and Mai, 9, 7000 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution subject to the follo%6112 amendments: _Modify conditions (y) and (bb) as recommended by.staff; that a condition be added recording to the Grant Deed that there shall be no garage conversions permitted; modify Condition (aa) that the applicant shall submit toCommission for review and approval the gate detai s; and that e HOVE and MGA Product Us,= revised to show a standard three car garage removing the tandem garage parking. C/Ruzicka accepted VC/Zirbes' amended motion. VC/Zirbes seconded the amended motion. Mr. Wright concurred with the amended motion. He stated that with respect to converting Plan III's to a traditional three -car garage, in an effort to provide diversity for the street scape and not have three car garages on all of the houses throughout the project Pulte would respectfully request that the Commission consider that portion of the motion. He asked for some flexibility with respect to the main entry gate because in reviewing the possibility of three gates it appears to present complications. He again reviewed the main gate problems encountered by a three -gate plan. He reiterated that he does not believe that the three gate system is feasible from a design standpoint. Mr. Wright indicated to C/Tye that there are approximately 24 HOVE Plan III's and about 20 MGA Plan III's. - Mark Gross, Architect, 1551 North Tustin Avenue, said that the tandem concept is driven by several factors such as de-emphasizing the garages and gaining a better street scene which .... concerns cities and architects. Tandem areas are generally used for storage or hobby centers, or parking of small recreational vehicles such as jet skis. A tandem space allows parking room for at least two vehicles. He designed a tandem for the house as a marketing tool giving the option of a suite which is a real desired amenity. The Rowland Heights project provided the same option and 70 percent of the buyers chose the suite option. This option adds 200 square feet. Chair/Nelson called -for -the -question., Motioncarried-following-Roll Call vote: - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMIISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMNIISSIONER& 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson None None C/Tye asked what is being done about signs and banners. He pointed out the Cathay Bank banner that was bracketed to the top of the monument sign at Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard. He asked if the Planning Commission will consider the matter of a Farmer's Boy Restaurant or is the project already approved. Agenda Item 5.1 — Tract No. 52267 Landscaping plans found in project file. qnl:) ig3tN/jaujnmsag [unnpuld—uoda-d jjmS -X:podozd joafgns oqj uo paluoot ag IIugs Z61 Isual Ir saouds Burxn?d ZZZ paiinbai oqj jp u -Sup ssouisng X.IaAa Puu goua Jo Wd 00:0T n1ju suox4ud sli joj saouds 2ugnd ZZZ Isual wu 01 ss000u suq 11 jugj uoijuzuogjnu uanunn apinoid Ilugs juuoilddu oqj, :suoiliPuoo sulmolloj aqj of loofgns oq Ilugs luumiddu oqj `azojoiogy •sossouisng puu szaumo X:vodoid Suipunozzns oqa sloudmi jugj Sugjud hails-jjo ioj puuuiop u solmouaB gnlo jgBiu/Iuuznujsoi uinuiluld oqj, 19NIx2Ivd I •uoissHUMOD suiuuuld aqj Sq possaidxo uiaouoo jo suim! Buimolloi oqi pogpuopi suq jims oqj, •uoiwJapisuoo .ioi uoilnlosaa IIurp L, paiudaid suq ooijjp s,gotuouV XiID oqj, -uiaouoo jo sonssi uiu:voo ssaippu of luuoilddu oqj loduioo pinonn juqj suoi�ipuoo puu Suipui3 glioj Sumps uoilnlosaz u aiudoid of jjuls oql paloazip puu ioafozd siga 3uiuiaouoo 2uuuaq oilgnd oql pasolo OOOZ `8Z .zaguzanoN Jo SUIIaaui 911 Iu uoissn RUOD Suiuuuld aq j 99Li6 VD `JUg Puouiui(I auuZ sSuudS olluaf) gVZ 99LI6 VD `Jug PuouiuiQ auuZ sSuudS alluOD 69Z Jug PuouMiQ XS 99Li6 VD `JEg PuoureiQ auuZ ssuuds alluaD StZ gnlD jgRiNpuuanujsa-I uinumlld •juauiumlioluo puu 8ui0uuP `sa2uianag oilogoolu jo olus ails-uo glim luumuisai u jo uoiTUiodo aqj Jo mainaz oipouad 6-66 'ON Iiuuad asn IuuoiIipuoD aouTq puu V-66 'ON Iiuuad asn luuoiIipuo- OOOZ `ZI aaguiooaQ OOOZ `S aagui000(I RA IaodaH 3jqS NIOISSINNOJ ONINNvrld aug PUOIUUIQ jo 9Ii3 «2IOZv2Idd0 ZNvuavlsau /.LNVJIrlddv :Nollvaorl Sharp Id -ZSaf i)au Noij alrlddv :IWIM I N gild/asva :91va 19mISa3 nI f :W[UPI1 N N211I VCIN21.9v gnlD jq2! Ipuemmsad tunupuld-:►oda2t 3p is Z •umitliodo Io smog sit Suunp gnlo jg2iu/juuznulsoi utnutltld oql �,q papinoad oq llugs jugj louuoszad puu saznsuaut Xjpnoos Io sodSl puu iogtunu Spoods of gsim Sum uoissttutuo--) Suiuuuld aqs •sluoMsai PUL, sluuual ilogl puv sossouisnq put; snumo A:Vodoid 2uipunouns oqj loudmi SIC)ATIu2au Iugl suozjud sji Io XIIAllov oqj Iouuoo Xl odotd of gnlo igSiu/luuznujsaz utnuiWld aqj Xq papinoid louuostad Xlunoas ajunbopnui st azagj jugj pasinpu uaaq suq ,(iiD aqy :)LyI 32[S '.m • Cup X.IOAa puu goua Io •ut•u 00:6 Xq sugap puu gsutl llu Io pamolo oq„llugs puul Io slootud Buipunouns oql puu kpodotd loofgns oqj, Z •suouud sit Xq poziliIn On Iugl puul Io shored 2utpunouns oqj puu X:iadoui loofgns oqj utoij sugap puu gsull anouiat 01 leuuosiad alunbopu apinotd llugs Iuuoilddu oqj, •I •suoiipuoo 2uimollol aql 01 loofgns oq Ilugs junoilddu oqj, •gnlo jq$iu/juumujsat wnuiluld oqj Io suouud Xq pownua2 uaaq suq sugap puu gsutl cions iugi oputu uaaq suq uoilu2allu agy •puul Io shored ftpunouns uo polpodap uaaq suq sugap puu gsuA Iugl pastnpu uaaq sug XI!D agy :SI2IIIaQ CINV IISVais •III •suotlud xtagl Xq suoijulnSai osiou s,Xi!D aqj glim oouutldwoo amsut of louuosiod Xlynoas alunbapu apinoid hugs juuoilddu oql £ •sluopisat .to s1mual jtagl puu sassautsnq `saaumo Xljodotd 2uipunouns oql joudun Xuut augl slanal astou aqj oonpai of idutallu uu ut suo4ud sit Io uotju opisuoo puu uoilutad000 oqj 2uilsonbai suds lsod llugs moilddu aqZ Z •sptupuuIs asiou s,XIiD aqj gJim aouupz000u ui `sjuapisat.to sluuual jiogl puu sassautsnq `szaumo Xitadotd 2uipunouns oqj slouduti XIoATIu2au Iugl uotsntlut astou Iuanazd of su os pasolo uiuutaa llugs sosiutaad loofgns oqj Io stoop Iouaixa aqZ I :suoilipuoo 2utmolloj aqj 01 100fgns oq llugs juuoilddu aqi `atolazagy •sassautsnq puu staumo X:Podoad 2uipunouns oqj sloudutt juqj asiou solviouoS gnlo jq2iu/juuanujsat utnuipgi I aq,L : SI®�I II .iol puuutap s,gnlo jg2tuuuusaoqj �ut�auIo spogjauz aniva�losuuuz/mu olut Milos oI Suuuaq oijgnd u ploq uogi Ilugs Xi!D aqj •saouds 96 Io 0101 u 01 Panat llugs gnlo jgSiu/juuznujsaz oqj aoI luautaimbaz 2uTgnd jaans-go oql `saouds OLZ suilstxo aql Io Z61 Isuol It oziliin of Sj4ogjnu oql anuq iou scop it Iugl `uoiioipsunf lualadutoo Io ltnoo u Sq `punoj si juuoilddu aqj puu panlosat si uotIu2tlil juauno aqj jugj Juana aql uI saouds 2utA nd alts-uo OLZ Bui�sixa aql ss000u of Xl!liqu s,gnlo jgStupuuinujsaz oqj quip i?az mumo Xljodozd oql grim uot�u2t�tl ui panlonut si juuoilddu oqy £ •sopilioul Buplred alis-IIo pazmbat ag; SutpiAoid ZoI aAtjuu.ajlu uu su pazapisuoo oq lou llugs 1! `Bul4nd hails-uo ligigotd of palsod st 1! asnuoaq puu joumo Aliodozd joafgns oql Xq poumo IOU st (aau-I sSuudS alJuaj))1aatIs aIunud oql su paluuBisop kpodoul oql Io Ilu asnuoaq Z •saouds 2uTjmd ails-Ijo 0£ Isual Iu 01 MOM anuq suotlud aql lugs sogpods jugj XI!D oql 01 papino d aq llugs uoiluzuoglnu uOuPAN •q ti - PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2000- A r A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-04 AND MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-09 AND MODIFYING ITS PRIOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-04 AND MINOR CONDITIONAL USE .PERMIT NO. 99-09 TO ALLOW ENTERTAINMENT, OUTDOOR DINING, AND THE SALE AND ON-SITE CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE PLATINUM RESTAURANT AND NIGHT CLUB LOCATED AT 245 GENTLE SPRINGS LANE, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA It ' i • 1 1 • • 1 • • • ' RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. On August 10, 1999, the Planning Commission adopted Planning Commission Resolution 99-19 ("Resolution 99-19") approving Conditional Use Permit No. 99-04 ("CUP 99-04") and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 99-09 ("MCUP 99-09") to allow entertainment, outdoor dining, and the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages at an existing restaurant facility located at 245 Gentle Springs Lane, Diamond Bar, California, subject to conditions. The restaurant, know as the Platinum Restaurant and Night Club (the "Platinum"), is owned and operated by Platinum Financial Systems, Inc. (the "Business Operator"). Section 2. On October 10, 2000, a periodic review of CUP 99-04 and MCUP 99- 09 was scheduled before the Planning Commission pursuant to the authority granted by Section 22.76.020 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code ("DBMC") and the provisions set forth in condition 50) of Resolution 99-19. Section 3. In accordance with the provisions of Section 22.76.020 of the DBMC, a public hearing was duly noticed as follows: (1) a legal notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and in The Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on September 28, 2000; (2) public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 25 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site on September 25, 2000; and (3) notice of the public hearing was posted in three public places in compliance with Development Code Section 22.72.020. Section 4. The Planning Commission opened the public hearing on this matter at its regular meeting on October 10, 2000, and continued said hearing to its regular meeting on November 28, 2000. All members of the public wishing to speak on this matter, including representatives of the Business Operator, were afforded an opportunity to address the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission received approximately 10 hours of testimony, both oral 11393\0001\636214.1 -1- LI and written, during the public hearing process. After due deliberation, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing on November 28, 2000. Y finds: Section 5. In accordance with Section 22.76.020(8)(1) the Planning Commission 1. Circumstances have been changed by the Business Operator to a degree that one or more of the findings contained in the original approval of CUP 99-04 and MCUP 99- 09 can no longer be made in an affirmative manner and the public health, safety and welfare require modification of the original approval. Specifically, the Planning Commission finds substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the Business Operator has intensified the use of the property beyond the level which was presented to and approved by the Planning Commission pursuant to Resolution 99- 19. The night club operations, which generate a significantly greater demand for parking, comprise a substantially larger portion of the business activities of the Platinum than originally presented in the Business Operator's 1999 application. The parking provided on-site is inadequate to satisfy the higher demand generated by the night club use. Ample evidence was presented to the Planning Commission to document the parking demand, including the use of adjacent businesses' parking, the heavy use of on -street parking, and the parking study conducted by LDM Associates. Additionally, testimony was provided, both orally and in writing, that documented the adverse noise impacts the night club operations imposes on adjacent residential uses. In particular, residents of the Fall Creek Condominiums testified that the noise from the night club caused their walls to vibrate, awoke them at all hours of the night, and forced them to abandon their bedrooms and sleep elsewhere to escape the noise. In light of this evidence, the Planning Commission can no longer find that the Platinum is compatible with adjacent land uses (Finding 4(i) in Resolution 99-19) or that the Platinum is not detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity (Finding 40) in Resolution 99-19) without the implementation of the additional measures to mitigate the Platinum's impacts on adjacent land uses. 2. The use authorized by CUP 99-04 and MCUP 99-09 has become detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Substantial evidence was presented at the public hearing, both orally and in writing, that documented the adverse noise impacts the night club operations imposes on adjacent residential uses. In particular, residents of the Fall Creek Condominiums testified that the noise from the night club caused their walls to vibrate, awoke them at all hours of the night, and forayed them to abandon their bedrooms and sleep elsewhere to escape the noise. Additionally, evidence was introduced, both through oral testimony and pictorial evidence, to support the conclusion that the trash pick-up measures implemented by the Business Owner are inadequate to address the need generated by the use. Public testimony was provided that empty bottles and other debris generated by patrons of the 11393\0001\636214.1 -2- Platinum is regularly found along Gentle Springs Lane. The adverse impacts from noise and trash are incompatible with adjacent land uses and detrimental to the public health, safety, injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The continued operation of the Platinum under the existing conditions of approval contained in Resolution 99-19 will be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of adjacent residents and the residents of Diamond Bar as a whole, and the Planning Commission finds that additional measures are necessary to mitigate the negative impacts from parking, noise, and trash identified during the public hearing. Section 6. The Planning Commission further finds that with the imposition and implementation of the measures set forth in Section 7 herein the Planning Commission can make each of the findings contained in the Resolution 99-19, the original approval of CUP 99-04 and MCUP 99-09, in an affirmative manner. Section 7. Based on the foregoing findings, the Planning Commission hereby modifies its prior approval of CUP 99-04 and MCUP 99-09 by adding the following operating conditions : 1. Parking. The Business Operator shall provide a minimum of 96 parking spaces on- site prior to 10:00 p.m. when the Platinum operates primarily as a restaurant. After 10:00 p.m. when the Platinum operates primarily as a night club, the Business Operator shall provide a minimum of 222 parking spaces. The 222 parking spaces shall be provided as follows: 192 parking spaces shall be provided on-site with the remaining 30 -parking spaces provided off-site. The Planning Commission recognizes that a portion of the 192 on-site parking spaces are located on the parcel occupied by the Best Western Hotel and acknowledges that there is an on-going dispute between the hotel and the Platinum over the use of those spaces. By virtue of a preliminary injunction granted on October _, 2000,.the Business Operator has a legal right to use a portion of the on-site parking spaces located on the hotel parcel. If a court of competent jurisdiction subsequently lifts the preliminary injunction and. determines that the hotel has no legal obligation to make those parking spaces available to the Platinum, the on-site parking requirement for the Platinum shall revert to 96 spaces. 2. Noise Mitigation. The Business Operator shall post signs of at least 12" x 1811 at exits to the restaurant and night club and within all parking areas, requesting patrons to respect residents of nearby residential neighborhoods by being quiet when leaving the restaurant and night club. 3. Noise Mitigation. The Business Operator shall post a sign in a clear and conspicuous location, listing a phone number at which a responsible party may be contacted during all open hours of the establishment to address any concerns of the community regarding activities and noise in the restaurant. Said contact person's 11393\0001\636214.1 -3- vf~ l name and phone number shall also be available through the restaurant staff at all ti- times. 4. Noise Miti ag tion. The Business Operator shall not permit any public nuisance in the outdoor dining area, including but not limited to, unruly behavior by patrons, which may contribute to noise impacts on adjacent land uses. S. Noise Mitigation. No amplified sound or music shall be permitted in the outdoor dining area at any time. 6. Noise Mitigation. The doors to the outdoor dining area be kept closed at all times to minimise any noise impacts on adjacent land uses. 7. Noise Mitigation. The Business Operator shall instruct its security personnel to regularly patrol the parking lot and Gentle Springs Lane to control the noise level of patrons in the parking areas and to ensure that patrons respect residents of nearby residential neighborhoods by being quiet when arriving at and leaving the restaurant and night club. 8. Trash Pick -Un. The Business Operator shall implement a more aggressive trash pick-up program to collect the trash generated by Platinum patrons both at on-site and immediately adjacent off-site locations, including but not limited to conducting trash sweeps after closing and during daylight hours, subject to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. Section 8. All other conditions of approval contained in Resolution 99-19 shall remain in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 2000. MM Eve-10*3111 Steve Nelson, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar at a duly noticed regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of December, 2000, by the following vote: 11393\0001\636214.1 -4- AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James DeStefano, Secretary 11393\0001\636214.1 -5- City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 8.1 REPORT DATE: December 6, 2000 MEETING DATE: December 12, 2000 CASEXILE NUMBER: Development Review No. 2000-15 APPLICATION REQUEST: To construct a new two-story, single-family residence of approximately 9,471 square feet with basement, balconies, porch and a three -car garage. PROJECT LOCATION: 1819 Derringer Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (Lot 2 of Tract No. 24046) PROPERTY OWNER: Mr. Hardip Gill 100 Stagecoach Circle West Covina, CA 91791 APPLICANT: Chary Dagam 100 Regal Canyon Dr. Walnut, CA 91789 BACKGROUND: The staff requests that this item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 9, 2001 to provided sufficient time to analyze the preliminary grading plan for compliance with the City's Development Code requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing for Development Review No. 2000-15 to its regular meeting of January 9, 2001. Prepared by: LDM Associates, Planning Consultant gnjD agSTjyiuemejsag mnutaejd —ijodad 33uiS uopnlosag l jtj(l • I sluauig37311V jusIinsuoD Suiuunid °so utoossy w(I-I :Xq paaudoicl •po!jlpoui ag Xuuc 1! su zo pa;uosazd su uoilnlosoi Iju.zp pogoum, oqi jo uoijdopu iap!suoo uoisstuuuoD i?uzuuuld oql Iugl spuauzuzooai J3uIS NOIZVCIN2[WNODHH •uzaouoo jo sonssi oqj sassazppu XIolunbopu it p oumuaaap of uminlosaz oqi jo womoo oqj ssnosip of pa2usnooua st uoissuuwoD guluuuld aqs, •loafozd sigl Supiomoo ssaoozd 2uuuaq oilgnd oqj 2uunp polpiuopi uzaouoo jo SLUQJ! aqj sassaappu jugj uotlnlosoi Ijuip u qi!m uoissTarmoD Sutuuuld aqj papinozd suq jjuls aqs INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION FROM: Linda Kay Smith, Development Services Assistant j_ DATE: December 7, 2000 SUBJECT: Development Review No. 2000-21, Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-21, and Negative Declaration No. 2000-07, for Verizon, 1041 South Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, CA This project was advertised with a total square footage of existing and addition of approximately 16, 397 square feet. This is actually the building footprint and does not include the second story of the structure. It has been discovered that the actual total square footage of this two-story structure is 12,193 existing and 13,572 proposed for a total square footage of 25,765. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the project be re -advertised for the January 9, 2000, Planning Commission meeting and Negative Declaration No. 2000-07 be amended to reflect the appropriate square footage. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASEXILE NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNER: APPLICANT: APPLICANT REQUEST: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 8.3 December 6, 2000 December 12, 2000 Development Review No. 2000-08 Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-14 1626 Derringer Lane (Tract 24046, Lot 20) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Razgo and Pao Chin Lee 22125 Bird's Eye Drive Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 (909) 860-1678 Leslie Lippich 4768 Park Granada, Suite 210 Calabasas, Ca 91302 (818) 591-2655 The applicant is requesting approval of plans to construct a 20,398 square foot single-family residence with a 5 -car 1,300 square foot attached garage. The residence will include a basement with two additional floors, 6 bedrooms, 8 baths, 5 half baths, tennis courts, and a pool. The proposed structure will have a maximum height of 35 feet as measured from the finished grade to the highest point of the roofline. In addition, the applicant is requesting approval to construct a 1,857 square foot accessory building that is comprised of a 1,009 square foot maid's quarters, with a 598 square foot 2-cAr garage and a 250 square foot trash area. The maid's quarters contains 2 bedrooms, 1 bathroom, 1 kitchen. The accessory structure will have a maximum height of 28'10". BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at 1626 Derringer Lane, approximately 750 feet south of Grand Avenue, within "The Country Estates," a gated community. It has a General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential (RR) and is zoned R-1-40,000. The land uses surrounding the subject property to the north, south, and west are single-family residential estates. The land use to the east of the subject property is Open Space. . The single-family dwelling use is permitted within the zone pursuant to Section 22.08.030 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code. In accordance with Section 22.48.020.A.1 and 3, an application for Development Review is required to establish consistency of new development with the General Plan thereby ensuring that new development and intensification of, existing development yields a pleasant living environment and attracts the interest of residents as the result of consistent exemplary design. In accordance with Section 22.42.120 (Secondary Housing ' Units) a Minor Conditional Use Permit (MCUP) is required for the proposed development of the maid's quarters located at the rear of the property. The structure will be used solely for the convenience of the homeowner and its placement will be veiled from Derringer Lane. The detached building will be partially visible from the abutting property to the north. - The subject property is vacant, approximately 96,600 square feet (approximately 2.2 acres), rectangular in shape and measures 150 feet in width by 642 feet in depth. The area of the property exceeds the minimum 1 -acre for parcels in the R-1, 40,000 zone. The property slopes down from the west to the east at a ratio of between 3:1 and 4:1. The property currently includes a restricted use area that begins 98 feet east of the front property line. The property has been properly graded, according to the City of Diamond Bar's regulations, and was inspected and certified on July 13, 1999. The applicant has submitted documentation indicating that the subject property, in addition to the property to the south (Lot 21), was re -graded to repair the ancient landslide identified by Robert Stone and Associates in 1969-1970. Soil and Geology Inc., prepared an updated report in March 1997. Based on the recommendations of the soils report from Soil and Geology Inc., John B. Abell Inc., Civil Engineering Co. prepared a remedial grading plan in 1997. During the grading of the property, it was discovered that the landslide area was larger than anticipated and imported dirt would be required. The engineer and the owner determined that instead of importing soil for the remedial work and then exporting the same amount when the proposed residence with a basement is constructed, it would be prudent to revise the grading plan and balance the grading on-site. By complying with the soils report prepared by Soil and Geology Inc., the restricted use line can be moved easterly to the toe of the new fill slope which will be created approximately 340 feet east of the front property line. ANALYSIS: __The.,proposed_dw.elling_will:be_setback_approximately_.52..feet_from_the_front_pr-opert-y-.line. The -main --- dwelling will be set back 15 feet from the northerly (side) property line and by 23 feet from the southerly (side) property line. In addition, the accessory building is set back 10 feet from the southerly (side) property line. The minimum setback requirements per Section 22.08.040 have been complied with. The site has access to Derringer Lane via a semi -circular driveway. A driveway located on the southerly section of the property provides access to the 5 parking spaces for the dwelling and the 2 parking spaces for the maid's quarters. A service drive on the northerly side of the property provides access to the rear of the property. The rear portion of the property will be improved with a tennis court, a putting green, ornamentally paved gathering areas, and a series of water elements such as waterfalls, ponds and fountains. The total lot coverage of the building footprint is 11,322 square feet. The total lot coverage for areas dedicated to vehicle access (driveways) is 6,491 square feet. The total lot coverage for accessory uses such as the tennis court, walkways, service road, decks and other miscellaneous impervious areas is 2 10,944 square feet. The total lot coverage (impervious area) for the subject property is 28,757 square feet. (i.e., 29.7%) which is less than the 30% maximum lot coverage allowed. The proposed residence is in the Venetian/Baroque architectural style. The exterior elements include items such as a porte-cochere, quoins, Corinthian pilasters and columns, a mansard roof of slate material, pre -cast panels with low -relief carvings, and balconies with pre -cast balusters. The sections submitted by the architect show that the maximum height of the proposed dwelling is 35 feet as measured from the natural grade. The proposed height of the dwelling complies with the provisions of Section 22.08.040 (Residential Zoning District General Development Standards) set forth in the Diamond Bar Municipal Code. Development Standards The following is a comparison of the City's required development standards and the projects proposed developmental standards. Development Feature R-1-40,000 Zoning District Requirements Proposed Meet Requirements Minimum Lot Area: 1 Acre (43,560 S.F.) 96,600 S.F. Yes Residential Density: 1 Single Fan -lily Unit 1 Single Family Unit Yes Setbacks Required: Front: 30 52 Yes Sides (each): 15 Ft. & 10 Ft. 15 Ft. & 10 Ft. Yes Street Side: 15 Ft. reversed corner lot; 10 Ft. otherwise. N/A N/A *Rear: 25 410 Yes Height Limit: 35 35 Yes Hillside Development: As required by Chapter 22.22 (Hillside Management). Yes Landscaping: p g' As required by Chapter 22.24 (Landscaping). Yes Parking. 2 in fully enclosed garage. 5 in fully enclosed garage Yes Parking for Second Unit 1 in fully enclosed garage 2 in fully enclosed garage Yes Lot Covera 129.7% Yes * Ordinance 02 (2000) Amendment — Adopted 4/4/00, Effective 5/4/00 Notice of this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on December 1, 2000. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 30 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site on December 1, 2000. Furthermore, the project site was posted with a display board on December 1, 2000 and the public notice was posted in three public places on December 1, 2000. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The environment evaluation shows that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder, according to Section 15303 (a). RECONEWENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-08, Minor Conditional Use Permit. Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution. In accordance with Section 22.56.040 (Findings and Decision) of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, the following findings of fact can be made and apply to the Minor Conditional Use Permit portion of the application: 1. The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code; and 2. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; and 3. The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity; and 4. The subject site is physically suitable for the "type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provisions of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints; and 5. Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare, or materially injurious to persons, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located; and 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 4 In accordance with Section 22.42.120.H (Required Findings for Approval) of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, the following findings of fact can be made in conjunction with the secondary housing unit: 1. The secondary dwelling unit is compatible with the design of the main dwelling unit and the surrounding neighborhood in terms of scale, exterior treatment, height, setbacks and landscaping, and will not cause excessive noise, traffic, or other disturbances to the existing residential neighborhood or result in significantly adverse effects on public services and resources; and 2. The second dwelling unit will not contribute to high concentration of these units sufficient to change the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. In accordance with Section 22.48.040 (Findings and Decision) of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, the following findings - of fact can be made and apply to the Development Review portion of the application: 1. The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments); and 2. The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards; and 3. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance he harmonious orderly and attractive development contemplated by the Development Code, the General Plan or any applicable specific plan; 4. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture and color, and will remain aesthetically appealing; 5. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity; and 6. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 5 Prepared by: LDM Associates Planning Consultant Attachments: 1. Draft resolution 2. Exhibit "A" site plan, floor plan, elevations, sections, grading plan, landscape plan and colors/materials board dated December 12, 2000; A. B. PLANNING COMMIISSION RESOLUTION NO.2000-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2000-08, MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2000-14 AND A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY, 20,398 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND A 1,009 SQUARE FOOT SECONDARY HOUSING UNIT ON A VACANT PARCEL. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 1626 DERRINGER LANE (LOT 20, TRACT 24046), DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. RECITALS. 1. The applicant Leslie Lippich, acting as the agent for the property owners, Razgo Lee and Pao Chin Tu Lee, has filed an application for Development Review No. 2000-08 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-14 for property located at 1626 Derringer Lane, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review, Minor Conditional Use Permit, and Categorical Exemption shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On December 1, 2000, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 30 property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site, and posted in three public places. On December 2, 2000, the project site was posted with a display board. On December 1, 2000, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Furthermore, on December 1, 200 public notices were posted in three public places within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. On December 12, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Environmental Categorical Exemption has been prepared by the City of Diamond Bar in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 as, amended and guidelines g:\\resolutions Pc\dr2000-08 1626 Derringer Lane.doc 1 a L Uf promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15303(a). Furthermore, the Categorical Exemption reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the Application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5(d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The project site is a vacant parcel of land created by Tract No. 24046 which is located in the gate guarded community known as the Country Estates. The site contains 2.21 gross acres of land area. The site is subject to recorded "Restricted Use Area", Private Street Easements, and CC&R's. The site is rectangular in shape; it fronts on a private street (Derringer Lane); and it slopes in an easterly direction. The site has been previously graded and it does not contain any mature trees. (b) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. (c) The project site zoned R 1,40,000 (Single -Family Residential). (d) Generally, the site is surrounded to the north, south, east and west with R-1, 40,000 zoned property. Development Review (e) The design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guide rocs, an -the development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments). The project site is a vacant single-family residential estate parcel of land located in the developed "County Estates". On July 25, 1995, the City adopted its General Plan. The proposed project complies with the General Plan land use goals, objectives and strategies. (f) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development and will not g:\\resolutions pc\dr2000-O8 1626 Derringer Lane.doc 2 r777 - create create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The project site is an existing vacant single-family residential estate parcel of land surrounded by existing residential development. The proposed project would complete and compliment the development of the neighborhood. (g) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing as defined by the City's design guidelines. The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding development in terms of mass and scale. The proposed project is consistent with the surrounding development and it complies with the minimum setback requirements set forth in the City's Development Code. Access to the proposed project is obtained from a fully developed private street. (i) The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor will it be materially injurious (e.g., negative affect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. Before the issuance of City development permits, the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions set forth in this resolution and the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Division, and Fire Department requirements. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process will ensure that the proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor will it be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (j) The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Section 15303(a), the City has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. Minor Conditional Use Permit (k) The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Minor Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of the Development Code and the Municipal Code; The proposed secondary housing unit is permitted on the subject property as set forth in Section 22.42.120 of the Diamond Bar Development Code. (1) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan; g:\\resolutions pc\dr2000-O8 1626 Derringer Lane.doc 3 L '�L L The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives and strategies as set forth in the City's adopted General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (m) Design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity; The proposed maid's quarters is an accessory use to the proposed single-family dwelling unit. The scale, mass and design characteristics of the proposed structure are consistent with the appearance of the main dwelling unit. (n) . The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses, and the absence of physical constraints. The project site is a fully prepared vacant developable lot located within an existing residential estate neighborhood. The proposed project design is consistent with the surrounding community and the site has access to all urban services. (o) Granting the Minor Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located; Before the issuance of an occupancy certificate, the proposed project must comply with all conditions set forth in this resolution; and the requirements of the Building and Safety Division; Public Works Division; and Fire Department. The referenced agencies through the permit and inspection process will ensure that the proposed project is not detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare nor will it be materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application subject to compliance with the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, floor plans, elevations, landscaping plan, grading plan and materials/colors board collectively labeled as Exhibit "A" as presented to the Planning Commission on December 12, 2000 and as amended herein. (b) The site shall be maintained in a condition, which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, the applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It g:\\resolutions pc\dr2000-08 1626 Derringer Lane.doc 4 L 1L L r. shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) The applicant shall be required to submit a final landscape/irrigation plan delineating the type of planting materials color, size, quantity and location, for review and approval by the planning staff. The landscaping and irrigation shall be installed prior to final inspection or the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (d) The landscape plan shall include provisions for the tennis court fencing and lighting. Fencing shall comply with the provision of Chapter 22.20 of the City's Development Code.. The tennis court lighting fixtures shall be designed to insure that the light does not intrude on the adjacent properties as per Section 22.42.110 of the Development Code. (e) The single-family residence shall not be utilized in a manner that creates adverse effects upon the neighborhood and environmental setting as to levels of dust, glare/light, noise, odor, traffic, or other similar types of disturbances. Nor shall the project be operated so as to result in significantly adverse effects on public services and resources. The single-family residence shall not be used for commercial/institutional purposes, or otherwise used as a separate dwelling. The property shall not be used for regular gatherings which result in a nuisance or which create traffic and parking problems in the neighborhood. (f) The applicant shall complete and record, on a form to be provided by the City, a "Covenant and Agreement to Maintain a Single Family Residence". The covenant must be completed and recorded in the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a building permit. (g) The maid's quarters shall not be separately rented or leased from the main dwelling, whether compensation is direct or indirect. (h) Before construction begins, the applicant shall install temporary construction fencing pursuant to the Building and Safety Division's requirements along the project site's perimeter. This fencing shall remain until the Building Official approves its removal. (i) The Applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction. (j) Before the issuance of any City permits, the applicant shall submit an erosion control plan for the City's review and approval. The erosion control plan shall conform to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards and incorporate the appropriate Best Management Practices (BMP's). Additionally, the Applicant shall obtain the necessary NPDES permits. g:\\resolutions pc\dr2000-08 1626 Derringer Lene.doc :i L 'L L (k) Applicant shall submit a soils report for the proposed improvements to be reviewed and approved by the City. The preparation of the site and the construction of the proposed structures shall be in compliance with the recommendations set forth in such soils report. (1) A grading plan review and approval shall be required for cut/fill quantities greater than 50 cubic yards, otherwise a fine grade/drainage plan shall be filed with the City's Engineering Division. (m) A fine grade certification shall be required before building final. (n) Drainage patterns shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Division; surface water shall drain away from the building at a 2% minimum slope. (o) Site, driveway grade, and house design shall be approved by the Fire Department. The maximum driveway slope is 15% per the Public Works Division. (p) Due to the site's topography, applicant shall comply with special design requirements as specified in the Universal Building Code, Section 18.4.3, building setback, top and toe of slopes. (q) The single-family structure shall meet the 1998 California Building Code, California Plumbing Code, California Mechanical Code, and California Electrical Code requirements. (r) The minimum design wind pressure shall be 80 miles per hour and "C" exposure. (s) All balconies shall be designed for 40 pound per square foot live load. (t) Hand rails and guardrails shall be designed for 40 -pound load applied laterally at the top of the rail. (u) The single-family structure is located in "Fire Zone 4" and shall meet the _f6l owing requirements o -that fife zone: (1) All roof covering shall be "Fire Retardant, Class A"; the roofs shall be fire stopped at the eaves to preclude entry of the flame or members under the fire; (2) All enclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior walls; (3) All openings into the attic, floor, and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than '/a inch nor more than '/2 inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door; (4) Chimneys shall have spark arresters of maximum'/2 inch screen. g:\\resolutions pc\dr2000-08 1626 Derringer Lane.doc 6 (v) The proposed construction plans shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval. (w) This single-family structure shall meet the State Energy Conservation Standards. (x) All sleeping rooms shall have windows that comply with egress requirements. (y) Smoke detectors shall be provided in conformance with the 1998 California Building Code. (z) Applicant shall make application to the water purveyor as necessary, and shall submit the evidence of their approval to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. (aa) Maximum height of the residence shall not exceed 35 feet from the finish grade at any exterior wall of the structure to the highest point of the roofline evidence of compliance with this requirement may require a height survey at completion of framing. (bb) All utility service to the proposed project shall be installed underground. (cc) This entitlement is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercised (i.e. construction shall commence) within that period or this entitlement shall automatically expire. A one(1) year extension may be approved when submitted to the City in writing at least 60 days prior to the expiration date. The Planning Commission may consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the City of Diamond Bar Development Code. (dd) This entitlement shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of the approval date, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not become effective until the permittee pays any remaining City processing fees. (ee) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit o the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. g:\\resolutions pc\dr2Q00-08 1626 Derringer rane.doc 7 The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Leslie Lippich, 4768 Park Granada, Suite 210, Calabasas, CA 91302.and Razgo and Pao Chin Lee, 21125 Bird's Eye Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12" DAY OF DECEMBER 2000, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. Steve Nelson, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of December 2000, by the following vote: ;kw James DeStefano, Secretary g:\\resolutions pc\dr2000-08 1626 Derringer Lane.doc 8 I SITE PLAN 2 3 DF1�R5EM`ZL04T0FRLPoLoARtP 4 SECONDFLO RPLAX 5 ROOFPLAN % 6. FLOORPLAN /MAIDS QUARTERS 7 FRONTELEVAMON 8 REARELEVAMON -UPPMLEVEL 9 REAR ELEVATION,LOWERIEVEL 10 LEFT& RIGHT SIDE ELEVATIONS IMaBRIORrI.FVATIONSIMAH)SQUARTERS It MaBRIORFI.EVA770NS/MA[OSQUARTERS 12 S S DNS A, B, C L. srrE,Ecn rm acnoNs D, F F lixf i m _0 A: C71/ z z z 0 STTE AN N MS st-I-KE PLAN 7 % It 'wr T m _0 A: C71/ z z z 0 STTE AN N MS st-I-KE PLAN 7 m _0 A: C71/ z z z 0 STTE AN N MS st-I-KE PLAN , , , 1 I I i I I t BASEMENT PLAN Wz f i Q � U cd S I t BASEMENT PLAN N AA j o z G A. 11 { { { .{ ' Ow � �z ItIt I I a `' ;o . 1 " i 1 t { sear no o+R CT GI AAA PLAN I I II j WU � W _0 1 ; 1 � i iyxnxivCnEExry '41 i I +ma I I 1 1 \ Roo- M. 1 ----- AA j o z G A. 11 { { { .{ ' Ow � �z ItIt I I a `' ;o . 1 " i 1 t { sear no o+R CT GI AAA PLAN --.B:R. OOUoz L) Q sxar xo a o p u_ $ �g 4., s a3o A 8fl 5 O�Qz U -0 FRONT ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION UPPER LEVEL_ Iff .pb St1EE^xT ND S �ss j< S o S a _ tl EO I s z F AR ELEVATION o - V p nz z LOWER LEVEL N y h5 9 F= Q= U: - 0 Vf _ - Vf Q Fi WV U a4arn �� wi RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION - w 0 a E ° -�� 10 ' - LEFT SIDE ELEVATION REAR ELEVATION W •P-a• FRONT ELEVATION SECTION C — C v�•-ro _ - - • a J _ It .SECTION B — B �a,•..o, - - 0 F W `>•� _ o q - go SECTION Al — A { - I ..uSa Ft<-D.vn. 1 _ — W+- 1 nv+=ail•1..1 .... _... _-__,. I.. - E-,.. uzv m ua.0 'I �LOL•Tc�igo��t115..� - 3 I - - Wr _� �Y < W < tl v - SECTION E — E - - r..mscwwcmaD - W 3 9°° - f I W2 Z =0 a sECTtoN o — 0 D.r- c� 5.1 3° . ' GRADING GENERAL NOTES .. _ apPrvved is advent• by Na city. B 3H, c adlnq oyeWtivns Hent bn tonductad =d= mginm[ andrv[ tha engin•¢ S°91at. i. Sh 9 a Pzoviaivna et GaPtvt qd al � jr, : a TRy� th• °vile vaUvne tar a[abllfty taxa and texv1 at unaulCabl• •e11a 3 mcG ba Rvervaa and am•ptra fn vtltin4 by tDe vo1L axginvz - X13 O 1LaiMa euilnln9 clvyaa • �,� ••� �i ��o \ t \ jer s 3. lllv3se grealnq vtth •upas in mc•m °[ sot -n meply 6 - _ 3 ] T➢a avlla mgineat and .minaminq q,vlegSvt. avert daatvanC and Dy lens rapvR PrSar <v,aPPtnaal by tan �l[h tDa DSSlalde Xmagtxnc Dtdln,m• Ho: I (1993). - f � 6, opt �Mi 9radln9 - c1eY. Lal r•yvrt sunt tneivde nn aa -graded gvat•ennlenl a.gzadi,g p•xalt ba, Man 1 Da Ironing UcI mma e• untilnz. M Svcvad by tCY o[ Dimond B- y� q�;•,v,_ _el _ G� (. x31 Li31 alop•a °heli M [eaDacud tv nac 1••• Nan ,p yvzc•nY .1 l` *r _T ,,., - P[ - 3 5'LT 't$° — ' e[ tae vatima density. S ECTlON S -B n(p.nq m!c vzven 6• dIe'grvaad v,v: m['J sutticMnt tanto of Hole We aeza du[etaa, ineiutling toll typ aW an9Ne eDall ,q gzedinin,ui[xiivro mei waeuuta vltn.a•sign ccicicla. I rmr°n;U ///` �- 4 �°• t acs q sh 11 n •per!•d in tba ln,l -gr°d field as°�v Utyt nuvber [field denal2y ). ',1 .1 I - �� 3) �"itun vui f�quns c c ° ( ca a -Loot vvcumi sum c' tuo°ti .A ter- r. - cnn ac>o ycginnnrv ate m tb m� [ final vera EARTH REAM (� •P�a• — roved +evxu evu< DETAIL' -I f-6- ° mm[:oer-p °�•��°.; l�e�°u '� ,oe - RIP -RAP DETAIL v . r mvpaccton at the alapv nail £`L�yxuu., — R� a -•c 'L�L t-H%.aeovnd 5nin • Nv [131 aM1sii ➢• Diacvd mcil ctilppinqq o va9atatien, z vn • eL�oKO Ea . [ oroultubl• svtlDlae,aeM Ina inner vn'a�ibdd[[!n9 Viflo9leia) in ,cc.ptaa ny • °i - : p SECTiOP/ D - v Hmanigma clvu Lnglneer Iy- '4ei• Sa dparvlsion eM 1"�•-.„1 - y �_ -^_ It.tbn tpe alto at a11't1am. p[¢Wmd l�bin.o un •r tem 31 peal v1B d P Cr _ >r ]], Final gradlM Hunt M npptoved ➢n[oto vecupmey at bu11d1Ma g3ana S3 1n[ (I.M. atlon and 4atl1M. ° 1 �[�lr ,r• - viii ba alivvad. - - ] ¢epinm boon Men -Md i,l citY a[ Dleco,ul D.i onilyQ gtac•sad In9ln•¢ x.t. [.H1gp5ba n •+y,PR ` - Na [utl: - ° xe.livvd yromctiv....,u[aa end caeposary d[alnag, piavlcIN: lelnlnq pcape[[taa rW Ne 4 Do and Wt °Y Sapgmveasnen bniP°on avlavl ° tent • tl¢PaalcL natarle3 0[ dlvsrwa Ilon Mm durtnq nn6 e[c•i tvv �Y �- _. _ _ __ traRor aM1e3` notify Na Cnty mglnnei'a attics t 3° (9097 396-6611 vanty tout (][) D Sn advancer of SntmCian tv begin grading. all W .... asea vi cmatiucttvn. ' _ ____�_�_�_n' - r{•,,, �'�v"��` 9 x11 [ZeiM tip[ n aaa it ba. rn•p3eced m Na - Ni SCY fn91n•az. city - - .. aaCieLectiort of ana a° - \qg 1q Dvvgn ei.afnq «rtlftmc. [n° Hunt ere ilgn.a q• Hou, cion and aPPzov*a CStY InaP•ctot prior to laauaroa ty Ste• P,.v �� \��. 1 otgHulldin4 Wtnl[c. \+ i av��`�r C• `•_- xiltvGa eMll a• vbvezvatl Dy my mngln••iSM Wologlat duz1M 6v - •J�—_.. " �atling en that mY adwm• mMicioro can as meognlxad nM •Ran. Sa. I,J..: e:n• � �•�_ � QIa. 1n, ap➢mved 4mdlM viva tiav a st pe1aPPWv:a aY city°. SECT7oN C -G u. x11 gtna.a alta. gnat nm• d[aln,9• •vale, a.mr. nna ou¢i - No a[l.tC dralWga d•vlcu epDmvad it ter• inug6 grading aUge. sack err vSailaz ut¢Sal gr•atar tban 11• Sn dtmamz vtli is be p3aWd 1n the fill mlvav r m•ndatSona tat sum yiacmant Dan Man fttm try ms •all• m91n•¢ n - _ apPrvved is advent• by Na city. B 3H, c adlnq oyeWtivns Hent bn tonductad =d= mginm[ andrv[ tha engin•¢ S°91at. ..✓ � jr, : a TRy� th• °vile vaUvne tar a[abllfty taxa and texv1 at unaulCabl• •e11a 3 mcG ba Rvervaa and am•ptra fn vtltin4 by tDe vo1L axginvz �,� ••� �i ��o \ t \ err •ngln•azSM gnplMlat pilor t° pLclnq ti13. 9a 6 - _ 3 ] T➢a avlla mgineat and .minaminq q,vlegSvt. avert daatvanC and Dy lens rapvR PrSar <v,aPPtnaal by tan f � 6, opt �Mi 9radln9 - c1eY. Lal r•yvrt sunt tneivde nn aa -graded gvat•ennlenl y� q�;•,v,_ 3°� Sae vSla mglmnvez and m91nmz3M gvaolnMlamt mot nano ♦ Nmcs alta s.c[Sm 9 L a Ica m9alm l` *r _T ,,., - `+__—� �&7• . tindlo9 In e��uual`M coda za[ mn vmaea .it. prior tv .pWev,l Dr S ECTlON S -B 19. pvwdeilm aM)az all afm:a�mmeina{b°oYM•41n•°rU'q F - c ptnd Sn Sua9 ➢y N pzier to placingctanl or m as e. ). ',1 .1 I gvolvgiac - a n.gfacmaa elvli tngln.ar en.ss mMtc n emalnq a a:z1[iaat• Pei 1 _.L _ _ c' tuo°ti .A ter- r. - cnn ac>o ycginnnrv ate m tb m� [ final vera t,•, - _. Pa•v,. n,... I - - `tr• . �vvc cv"platlon r.a .ball Da las °aiU<Y Irgdn•• am9[° n-J epptov� v[ •old Yn93neer•a eerc � IL_. _ �� Sba gaily and opo93„�aP[[t —w- ; aaz we ur„ee 9< ,ic F 1M°x \\ `p` I,nepu. ]i aM dated •u • bell MmL Datt aC `4r mmenditi°oro lnaa'thvr•ln N31 b• . elan and it �k ]] L Na q[ad1M permit aM ypzwvd grgdlM pima mut Wa•°°alon o[ a mvponalbla Wt°vn eM ewuebin at ' - y �_ -^_ It.tbn tpe alto at a11't1am. _ >r ]], Final gradlM Hunt M npptoved ➢n[oto vecupmey at bu11d1Ma �[�lr ,r• TDA � � � ` viii ba alivvad. - - ] ¢epinm boon Men -Md i,l citY a[ Dleco,ul D.i onilyQ SECT/ON Az_L - foC ntot �n lta C to ndnrtlen evnplinnev v vol n C°ow - Na [utl: Ne 4 Do and Wt °Y Sapgmveasnen bniP°on datallM mtbenatlevl •ek vm Had• Sar Ne em ery °ata• Sx1ntSM r aroPvaea dlmnelwu„ tecbvvn. a eon Miud1M els sitting utilivas von nv - traRor aM1e3` notify Na Cnty mglnnei'a attics t 3° (9097 396-6611 vanty tout (][) D Sn advancer of SntmCian tv begin grading. - ' x. rhe /^P 9 fRY 1jOS tore,i .Fa,n o Prcld savory Pv l r,ntd . i E1 P I'VEO C!1Y OF I r/0'10"t,'40 DAR 'CO OCT 11 P 2 :2n d ,q.Aci I � '. c13TCH't3ASYN.6ETA1L. EIL,,T Nte:,L f 2XV ueovan a" cEGAL OESCR9PriON p7YOctY4MDNbBAR covin:wd3l.,rucrw:'saa3c,na.Yasjsa�.: . OWNER LevKv,Ln SIM ADAEE15, )bDO AND drdF P HDGttAxC •AS:.>3Z1lGT _ rarr-;.62AL47N G- ALAh1 . dYti a=,uc . tLTGe� - .tl➢ w NA. r 1 5 Zo NCa'42'27'W l ` t 1'. .`it 1v __ 642.07' 1 SITE Abow=t I...1 ND /t%inEPFJNOE¢ —C 8xu t t - .uk,`aa GRADING P CAt4 n I.C. � a^ \ t l � - - 140 W.G•.rNc6 ST. - 9144 T'!/E CJTy 11 IIAMOND BAE. S4ECT > M> ('� / ��YN+�•-. OR`f Y: .<. VN:4 Lh ar;cG. f. c.1o'. D vs� t� 1 (L� 1?-IIZGO E VA LEE RESIDENCE 162r CrZ ° - r— I I) 1' G r � N' _ ..i 1 � � �� 11 :.y�• i>w� fifi S, CD l- u FRONT YARD P) RSPECTIV.p. C31 , BkCIQYARD PG�CTIY - q„-, Y: f� ........ ter mcvp �:r ° � ' fir; .i y�✓ - �. -� , �� •.�� c","-`.5� ! � � -=•y_� - ,,ice ;� `� ,,,.3 �j• ,;r;:,,�!` � ..*� � � �n, i i L ! f n A't� t 12i0f� � e G 45 2 0S." ^-UNspi o ri° - 11?AZGO '& E T17A LEE RESIDENCE.. TE DERRINGER LAA qq � -U TFNN COJcT iTNCE m ... �'jpsiNi6 LWC( 4fnN7 1 . -Y��. o. 0 YD'.�.QU-+ PRe�T FeNta �, P�Tsc Te.IN� �eT z'� i•Vi1- �1�RToN X�°a=o �_,.. PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN (RAM GVERAL NOTES move! allIm IOtMA EM Pn n m •uY ,pru�.a +�.+,r.. vu o.m ®,n uun �� •ATPA04p011 �, Cuv ArrNtPlRtt B PFP•t COx61RNLRON HotE6� ® ®_ Am uary ERO'a1IX1 CDNPPOL NDiES' . it,.��11 ll77WW�Y � III' 10A f 612aT N 6PV2'2T w 1FfL_.ov mi 0 pEraltYx�WALL OEtAII - GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN EROSION CONTROL PLAN - SCALE: I -=mW` Q TYPICAL RETAINING WALL a (SEPARATE PERMIT REQUIRED)) VICINITY MAP MEAL PERU p.PErkL - - ri .� STEP FOOTING DETAIL �"' �"Ylt`11•i�i„ � n tin:i °N „� i,n N � � u rvua curt ,� LEGAL DESCRIPTION - uua< - _. 91E MORES 1626 OEPP:lICER UNE my`f ._.�, »vaaa ma - piAIXNE h pRM1ALE PUai<o,aPT. mAsmD:n�, e,e CITY OF DIAMOND BAR- - Project MEETINGS December 12, 2000 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECTS Case # PM Location PC 12/12 CC 12/19 PC 12/26 CC 1/2/01 ' PC 1/9/01 CC 1/16/01 PC 1/23/01 11/28 (Dark) 12/26 1/9/01 DAGAM, CHARY DR 2000-15 LDM 1819 DERRINGER LANE PH (Dark) (Single Family Residence) HOUSING ELEMENT GPA 2000-01 JDS CITYWIDE PH KITE & PORTER ARCHITECTURE DR 2000-22 Si 1200 CHISOLM TRAIL DR. PH (Single Family Residence) LIPPICH, LESLIE DR 2000-08 LDM 1626 DERRINGER LANE PH (Single Family Residence) MCUP 2000-14 METRICOM — WVUSD CUP 2000-02 LDM 21400 PATHFINDER Cont. (Wireless Telecommunications) PH PLATINUM RESTAURANT CUP 99-4 JDS 245 GENTLE SPRINGS X (Review Conditional Use Permit) MCUP 99-9 AJL LDM PULTE HOME DEVELOPMENT DR 2000- LKS X (Review Gate Plans) Si TDM ARCHITECTS - POEHLMAN, NED DR 2000-21 LKS 1041 S. GRAND AVENUE PH (Verizon - 7,174 Sq. Ft. Office Addition) TOGO'S — ROBERT PARKER CUP 1998-09(1) LKS 1193 S. DIAMOND BAR BL. Cont. (Amendment—Parking to Accommodate On- DR 1998-11(1) PH Site Seating)) MV 2000-19 ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS Case # PM Location DCM - DCM DCM DCM 11/28 12/12 12/26 1/9/01 (Dark) NONE PENDING PROJECTS Case # PM Location BOURNE, JOHN MCUP 2000-09 LKS 2102 ROCKY VIEW ROAD ON HOLD - PER APPLICANT (Converting Storage into Game Room) g:Vstel1a\PrcjectMeetings\dec12 OO.doc Project MEETINGS CITY OF DIAMOND BAR December 12, 2000 COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PENDING PROJECTS Case # PM Location` (continued) DIAMOND BAR HONDA/ VAR 2000-02 AJL 515 S. GRAND AVENUE ON HOLD - PER APPLICANT ALEXANDER DEVELOPMENT JDS (Freeway Sign) JCC DEVELOPMENT ZC 2000-01 AJL DIAMOND BAR BLVD PROCESSING — TRAFFIC STUDY UNDERWAY (Zone Change to Commercial) PM 10208, -PARCEL 2 KIM, KEVIN CUP 2000-08 LKS 1403 DIAMOND BAR BL. PROCESSING (Martial Arts Studio) MOON, SEONG YEO CUP 2000-06 AJL 20627 GOLDEN SPRINGS DR. PROCESSING (Entertainment — Karoke) NOVAK & ASSOCIATES CUP 2000-09 LDM 1155 S. DIAMOND BAR BL. PROCESSING (Co -location Wireless Telecommunications) PARKS/TRAILS MASTER PLAN JDS CITYWIDE PROCESSING XM SATELLITE RADIO, INC. CUP 2000-10 LDM 21400 PATHFINDER PROCESSING (Co -location Wireless Telecommunications) PLANNING COMMISSION DLAMONDBa MEMORANDUM COMMUNITY & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Stella Marquez, Administrative Secretary SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 5.1 - Final entry Gate Details for Tract No. 52267 MEETING DATE: December 12, 2000 DATE: December 12, 2000 Attached for your review and consideration is the revised Attachment No. 1 to the above -referenced Staff Report (Pages 5-10 of the Minutes of the City of Diamond Bar Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission dated May 9, 2000.) The document that was delivered to the Commission on Friday, December 8, 2000, was copied incorrectly. Thank you. Attachment May 9, ,;000 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano explained that the Highcrest Drive gate at the upper elevation of the site is proposed to be an emergency ingress/egress only design. That concept has been reviewed with and requires final concurrence with both captains of both fire department stations that would be reporting to this site. Tin Drive will terminate at Diamond Bar Boulevard and will turn into the new Pulte project name "Crestview Drive" upon entrance to the site.. With the signalization that Pulte will be constructing, a sign will indicate that one of the streets is public and one of the streets is private. The developer has considered the Commission's concern about the stacking of vehicles entering the project site. This is the only ingress/egress and the matter has been discussed with the City's Engineer who has indicated that there must be one foot of stacking for every dwelling unit within the project. This project has 127 dwelling units. The Traffic Engineer is suggesting that there should be at least 127 feet of stacking room. The prior proposal indicated 120 feet and t e proposal has been revised to illustrate 130 feet of stacking area. The developer has illustrated further ways to en ance the capacity of vehicles to get into this site by working with staff to consi er t e possi i ity o engthening the left turn pocket from its present design of 85 feet to at least 220 feet. The developer has also affde-& a right turn/deceleration Pane of approximately 1.80 feet in length to allow a safer access to the project site. Up on entering the site, a spit driveway separates visitors and residents. This additional pocket supplies an additi-o-n-a-710 feet of aueuine within the gate entry. Staff is recommending approval of this alternative which doubles the capacity. DCM/DeStefano stated that the Planning Commission discussed the possibility of pushing the entry gate further into the project. There is a point at which that scenario becomes difficult for the motorists due to the rise of about 65 feet from the entry to the first cul-de-sac. The run from where the houses begin down to the gate area about 500 feet is at about a 14 percent grade leading down to a lesser grade. Pushing the gate further into the slope increases the grade on Tin Drive. Staff would recommend that the grade not be increased beyond 14 percent. DCM/DeStefano further stated that with these responses, staff believes that the developer has addressed the issues of concern expressed by the Commission. Staff is satisfied with the developer's proposal and therefore recommends approval based upon the current conditions and proposed changes contained within the resolution. C/Tye asked for clarification of on -street parking statistics. DCM/DeStefano responded that the 266 spaces incorporates the areas for driveways, fire hydrants and so forth meaning that those spaces have been discounted. DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Tye that staff is recommending that the matter of disallowing garage conversions be handled through the CC&R's which are recorded, and through the Buyers' Awareness Package. The Planning Commission may wish to handle this in a different manner. Mai, 9, ?000 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION C/'Tye said he wants the tightest restriction possible with respect to Condition 5. u) 3. on pale 11 "There shall be no garage conversions permitted at a future date for all lots." He said he believes that CC&R's are inadequate. VC/Zirbes asked who would have access to the Highcrest Drive emergency gate. DCM/DeStefano responded that this is an unanswered question at this point. Clearly, emergence services personnel would have access. Beyond that, the details have not been established. VC/Zirbes said that if the gate is available to be opened by any type of remote device at the disposal of residents what is to prevent them from using the device in a non -emergency situation. DCNI/DeStefano indicated that VC/Zirbes concern is an implementation detail that staff and the developer need to agree upon. C/Ruzicka asked how many possible automobiles this project will generate, how will they be parked when not in use and how. will they get in and out of this development. How many cars does 310 feet accommodate? Over and above these potential 15 cars, how much backup is anticipated at rush hour, or is the capacity for these two streets larger than he believes it to be. Referring to paragraph 3 on Page 4 of staff's report, he said he is not sure how this scenario will work. Although the development review on Page 4 lists options to convert garages for increased square footage, he understands that in accordance with the proposed CC&R's that this cannot happen. Will the Planning Commission see and review the details and precise location of the primary and secondary gates to be installed. He stated that the project appears to be a good work and he would like to vote its approval if these items can be satisfactorily answered. DCM/DeStefano said that according to C/Ruzicka's figures it is possible that about 1000 vehicles cam reside within this project. Staff believes that significantly fewer vehicles will be present in the site at any given time as is seen within all of the neighborhoods within the community:—One-thousand vehicles -would -presume -wall -to wall-parking-which_is_not the case-in--- any ase-in_any other area of Diamond Bar and from staff's perspective is not anticipated. When this project was proposed the project was assessed with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) within which there was a traffic study conducted resulting in an anticipated volume of about 1300 vehicles per day as a result of this project. This is a generally accepted mathematical formula of about 10 trips per unit. This anticipated number contemplates occupants, guests, service vehicles, postal vehicles, sheriff's department vehicles, etc. The streets that are designed within this project can accommodate well in excess of that number of vehicles. Diamond Bar Boulevard can accommodate 40,000 vehicles based upon its design characteristics. The signal installation results from peak hour traffic considerations which anticipated 15 percent of the total trips generated. Not all of these vehicles will be parked on the site at any one time. The 1300 trips that have been assessed for this project would be entering and leaving this site throughout the May 9,_2000 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION day. The design detail issues of the g mate will be considered upon approval of the conceptual product. If the Planning Commission would like to see the design details of the gate if it so wishes. Historically, the Planning Commission has directed the City's staff to implement those details. The developer will tell you that it would be advantageous to at least get the conceptual details so that they can move forward with the drawings, work with the City staff, law enforcement, fire department and bring those results to the Planning Commission if it so desires.. Scott Wright, Forward Planner, Pulte Home Corporation, stated that his firm is amenable to having parking restrictions added to the Grant Deed. With respect to the emergency access gate at Highcrest Drive, there would typically be no remote ace ents. Fire and olice generally require ata oc ox be installed with a kev or combination access to a separate key that would open the gate. t ere is Wan and residents need to evacuate the area promptly, there are breakaway gates avai a e. Dual access has been provided at the main entry gate which accommo ates e.stac 'ng of about 14 vehicles without going into Diamond Bar Boulevard. The right and left turn dedicated lanes would provide for an additional eight or nine vehicles. The applicant has reviewed the conditions of approval and Pulte Home Corporation is in agreement with all of the conditions as stated. VC/Zirbes thanked Mr. Wright and staff for their consideration in responding to the Commission's concerns. He asked if Mr. Wright would have a problem with making condition aa) on page 11 to "The applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission for review and approval, etc." with respect to approval of the gate design. Mr. Wright responded to VC/Zirbes that the applicant has decided to make that an emergency gate at the request of the Highcrest residents. If that condition were to delay the approval of the project his initial reaction would be not to make it an emergency access. In an effort to be a good neighbor he would be open to having that discussion but he would not like for it to hold up the project or the ability to move forward with the initial design. He asked that the Commission provide clear direction on how to proceed so that when the project proceeds into construction level detail that portion would not need to be redone. VC/Zirbes asked if the front gate could be designed with three gates, one for the residents exiting the development and two gates for ingress with one for residents and one for visitors. Mr. Wright responded that this configuration was considered. During the past two weeks, this has been discussed with staff. If a separation is provided there tends to be more of a cueing - problem because there is no way to leave the area without backing up. This type of design did not work from a functional standpoint. The landscape architect found no project with the three gate concept that actually works. Therefore, Pulte determined that such a system was not technically feasible and staff concurred with the analysis. May 9, 2000 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION- VC/Zirbes asked if the tandem garage concept works. Mr. Wright said that virtually every project that has been done in the California market has had some sort of tandem garage on one or more of the plans and they work. Any vehicle can fit within that area. Pulte has never received a complaint that they do not work as garages. Tandems were included in the Rowland Heights project. However, a suite option was offered in the third car garage. VC/Zirbes said that it would appear that on the three plan option a standard three -car garage could be incorporated instead of a tandem garage. Mr. Wright responded that an option of eliminating the tandem garage and moving the three car garage over has been indicated for the MGA and HOVE products. VC/Zirbes said that he is concerned about the design of the tandem garage and how easy it would be to conceal a bootleg room in that area. He said he would be more inclined to view the design favorably with the removal of the tandem design and the incorporation of the three car standard design on Plan III. Mr. Wright responded that anyone can convert a garage into a room. He has -never had to put such a restriction into a Grant Deed. It is difficult to detect such a conversion. If the property owner sold the house they would have to convert the space back to a garage area. Pulte likes the fact that the tandem garage provides greater variation on the front elevation which does not . _ appear to be all garage. In addition, such a change would require a major design of the product. At this point, the developer would prefer not to go in that direction. He said he feels that the issue is adequately addressed through the Buyers' Awareness Package, the CC&R's and the Grant Deed. He pointed out that the code requires a two -car garage and he believes that the tandem garage provides a viable alternative. —Chair/Nelson re -opened- the -public -hearing. Mayor Debby O'Connor stated that she is concerned about consideration of on-site parking for recreational vehicles. Mr. Wright stated that the CC&R's prohibit the exterior storage of recreational vehicles, boats, airplanes, etc. throughout the project. Chair/Nelson closed the public hearing. VC/Zirbes said that he is still concerned about the tandem garage. He would look favorably upon the project with a couple of modifications to the resolution, i.e., a standard three -car garage May 9,;000 PAGE 9 PLANNING CONIMISSIO\ on the HOVE product; and adding the supplement conditions provided by staff, i.e., a condition that the Grant Deed be recorded with the restriction that there will be no garage conversions and that floor plans identified in Condition 5 (u) (2) will remain as 5 bedroom homes, and that Condition aa) is changed to read that "The applicant shall submit to the Planning Commission for review and approval the details for the installation, location and operation of the gates, both primary and emergency secondary_access." C/Ruzicka reiterated his concerns about the possible number of automobiles that this project will generate, how will they be stored, and how will they get in and out of the project. He stated that by no means does he wish to make anything onerous for the applicant, but he would like to do everything possible to insure that the project is as good as it can be for the entire city. He wonders that if the main entry gate is moved an additional 50 feet into the slope will it be helpful in the years to come. DCM/DeStefano stated that pushing the gate further into the site reduces the amount of room between that gate and the beginnings of the first cul-de-sac which is 65 feet above and increases the slope of the street to get from the high point down to Tin Drive. That area is already at about 14 percent. When the area is reduced, the slope of the street is increased above 14 percent and staff would not recommend this concept. C/Tye said lie believes that a three gates main entry is a good idea and would increase capacity. This prevents traffic backup on Diamond Bar Boulevard and it accommodates the street grade consideration. Chair/Nelson thanked staff and the applicant for providing statistics for on -street parking which he finds to be reasonable. In general, there is a lack of consideration and disregard for CC&R's with respect to RV parking. DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Nelson that most of the driveways are between 20 and 25 feet in length and are generally flat with the exception of the main spine lots which are as steep as 15 percent. C/Ruzicka moved that the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 2000-02, o� Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution subject to the following: Include that the gate detail come back to the Planning Commission for review and ,/ approval; that the main entr�ga, to provide a three gates stem at Tin Drive/Crestview Drive wi two ingress gates and one egress gate, and that deed restrictions be included for restricting gan spaces tot eir intended use. VC/Zirbes moved that C/Ruzicka's motion be amended to include the following: That the Planning Commission approve Development Review No 200n -n?_ Findings of Fact,and May 9, 7000 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution subject to the following amendments: Modify conditions (y) and (bb) as recommended by staff; that a condition be added recording to the Grant Deed that there shall be no garage conversions permitted: modifv Condition (aa) that the applicant shall submit tote Planning Commission for review and approval the gate details; and that e HOVE and MGA Product III's are revised to show a standard three car Garage removing the tandem garage parking. C/Ruzicka accepted VC/Zirbes' amended motion. VC/Zirbes seconded the amended motion. Mr. Wright concurred with the amended motion. He stated that with respect to converting Plan III's to a traditional three -car garage, in an effort to provide diversity for the street scape and not have three car garages on all of the houses throughout the project Pulte would respectfully request that the Commission consider that portion of the motion. He asked for some flexibility with respect to the main entry gate because in reviewing the possibility of three gates it appears to present complications. He again reviewed the main gate problems encountered by a three -gate plan. He reiterated that he does not believe that the three gate system is feasible from a design standpoint. Mr. Wright indicated to C/Tye that there are approximately 24 HOVE Plan III's and about 20 MGA Plan III's. ". Mark Gross, Architect, 1551 North Tustin Avenue, said that the tandem concept is driven by several factors such as de-emphasizing the garages and gaining a better street scene which concerns cities and architects. Tandem areas are generally used for storage or hobby centers, or parking of small recreational vehicles such as jet skis. A tandem space allows parking room for at least two vehicles. He designed a tandem for the house as a marketing tool giving the option of a suite which is a real desired amenity. The Rowland Heights project provided the same option and 70 percent of the buyers chose the suite option. This option adds 200 square feet. -Chair/Nelson. called-for-the-question.--Motion-carried-by-the-following-Roll_Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Ruzicka, Tye, VC/Zirbes, Chair/Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMNIISSIONERS: None y' 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: C/Tye asked what is being done about signs and banners. He pointed out the Cathay Bank banner that was bracketed to the top of the monument sign at Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard. He asked if the Planning Commission will consider the matter of a Farmer's Boy Restaurant or is the project already approved. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM * SUBJECT: &-V6 TO: Planning Commission Secretary DATE: 1t Lw� FROM: 77 Y f /74Z s ADDRESS: /°s�°�Ta�-s>' �� vw✓�-� l ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: 0 I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above. p Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Planning Commission. This form is intended to assist the Chairman inensuring that allpersons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM * SUBJECT: TO: 'Planning Commission Secretary, FROM: q DATE ADDRESS: ax VO 0' � ° . ORGANIZATION: .: --.0: SUBJECT: P.A... /o 4", • I would .like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Coj reflect my name and address as printed above. . NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Planning Commission. This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY .REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMLSSION AGENDA ITEM *0 2- SUBJECT: TO: Plarining Commission Secretary • sir ORGAND I iI DATE: 2 (2,; C)o Wkega liLtf-C fl 1 would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above. _r Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Planning Commission. Th orm is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. AGENDA ITEM * � z- SUBJECT: E nji r)N i d( h TO: ' Planning Commission Secretary DATE: a\ ( cam. l7 0 FROM: � SLIQ ADDRESS: C . ' S -�5 ORGANIZATION: Q—E. K- 4T--il ¢: -LA—)ne ter' SUBJECT: _ r'��; 1 r\ VA ArNl\ N. i a�.-E-c I would like to address the Planning Commission on the above stated item. Please have the Commission Minutes reflect my name and address as printed above. • Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the Planning Commission. This form is intended to assist the Chairman in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Commission will have the opportunity and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes.