HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 91-09r
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 9
7
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DENY
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 91-2 AND THE RELATED
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW THERETO.
A. Recitals.
(i) The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond
Bar, at a duly noticed public hearing commenced February 25, 1991
and continued to and concluded March 25, 1991, received and
considered testimony related to Development Agreement No. 91-2.
(ii) The application proposes to develop a car wash and
a restaurant in a C -2 -B-E (Neighborhood Business - Billboard
Exclusion) Zoning District. The site is generally located at
22000 Golden Springs Road. The applicant for the project is Mr.
Gary Clapp.
(iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW THEREFORE t s
, i i found and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, as follows:
IN
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds
Ilk
that all representations set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of
'I'I
this Resolution are true and correct.
I'
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this
Commission during the public hearing, and at each date thereof,
including oral and written staff reports, together with both oral
,rr>
1
1,
and written public testimony, and in conformance with Government
Code Section 65360 et seq., this Commission hereby finds
specifically as follows:
a. The subject property is an irregularly shaped
parcel generally located at 22000 Golden Springs Road, Diamond
Bar, California.
b. The surrounding properties status of
development is; north - freeway; east and west - vacant/and golf
course; and south - business/administrative offices.
C. The subject property is zoned C -2 -B-E
(Neighborhood Business - Billboard Exclusion); the Community Plan
designation for the subject property is Commercial.
d. The subject property is presently vacant and
�,. undeveloped.
e. The proposed development project for which
approval of the development agreement is sought exhibits
characteristics and development ment related conditions which this
ch t s
Commisi
on believes are deleterious to the health safety f y and
welfare of the citizens of the City and further does not provide
a project which is suitable for the subject site. The specific
JI
concerns, as found and identified by the Commission, are:
i. Traffic and Circulation:
(A) The high volume of patrons proposed
to be utilizing this site present a foreseeable risk of accident,
injury and harm being realized from such usage in light of the
high traffic volume on Golden Springs Road. Traffic mitigation
�, 2
y --L, ..A.id"14-61 tip—, I-.». --. I._—'f ,-- ---a I"I'lii«I,,..1-1.,..,�,�,,..�.,.,.....-.._ --- - - --- - --_ - -
measures have not been adequately refined so as to provide
specific, definable and enforceable mitigation measures and
conditions of approval. Additionally, proposed traffic mitigation
measures, including an eleven (11) foot roadway dedication, have
been identified as preventing the development proposal from
occurring due to onsite design constraints.
(B) Onsite Circulation: Insufficient
credible evidence has been presented which demonstrates that the
proposed site development plan provides safe, efficient and
utilitarian traffic circulation. The reasonable likelihood of
site redesign as a result of proposed traffic mitigation measures
prevents an accurate review and analysis of the ultimate onsite
circulation pattern from being conducted.
(C) Pedestrian traffic improvements:
The provision and location of pedestrian related improvements,
including sidewalks, is not able to be specifically reviewed and
analyzed as a result of the uncertainty related to traffic and
circulation mitigation improvements.
ii. bite Design: The site plan proposed for
the subject property does not utilize the site in an efficient
manner. Redesign of the site plan, taking into consideration the
ultimately defined traffic mitigation measures will provide a
design which is better suited for the site. Further, concern
exists regarding expanding the scope of uses on the site via the
K?
l'
mechanism of a development agreement; consideration into seeking
a change of zone to accommodate the otherwise prohibited car wash
use, has been recommended as a potential alternative to the
development agreement.
iii. Architectural Compatibility: The
Commission identified the subject property as a visually
prominent identification point which will be readily perceived by
motorists. The prominence of this site was deemed to require
strict project scrutiny as to the image that such development
will establish for the City. The juxtaposition of the subject
site to the pre-existing development in the Gateway Corporate
Center requires a design and architectural style which will both
complement existing development and present an appropriate
"image" for the City. This Commission does not believe the
proposed architectural style is appropriate for the subject
property.
3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth
hereinabove, this Commission recommends that the Council of the
City of Diamond Bar deny �he proposed development agreement.
4. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall
certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall forward this
Resolution and supporting evidence and materials to the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar.
PASSED, ADOPTED and APPROVED this 8th day April, 1991.
C airman _
�ly
4
- — . -,,--�.,--.m-�,rym1'�A`f-^"Tr`i-^'=--- --•-.,-�,--. r -,p= -'7_--, -- -_ ..�........ �., i.lu. i I f_d_._ ... . ,. .--. - ---- - -.
_T
I, JAMES DESTEFANO, Secretary to the Planning
Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a
regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond
Bar held on the 8th day of April, 1991, by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, Lin,
Ch/Schey and VC/ Harmony
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS: None
n
ATTEST:
5 re to the Planning
Commission
NX1011ARESODAIDB 5