Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/08/1991AGENDA CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD MEETING ROOM 880 SOUTH LEMON STREET DIAMOND BAR, CA 91789 April 8, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 P.M. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, Lin, Vice Chair- man Harmony, Chairman Schey 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. Generally, items to be discussed are those which do not appear on this agenda. MINUTES: 1. Minutes of Meetings of March 11 and March 25, 1991 OLD BUSINESS: 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 1634- (1) Resolution of Denial regarding a request for an extension of time for Evangelical Free Church. Public discussion closed on March 25, 1991. Applicant: EvangetIical Free Church Location: 3255 Diamond Bar Boulevard 3. Development Agreement 91-2 Resolution of Denial regarding a request for Development Agreement to construct a self-service gasoline station, au- tomated car wash, automotive detail facility, offices and a restaurant. Public hearing closed on March 25, 1991. Applicant: Gary Clapp Location: 22000 Golden Springs Drive PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Page Two April 25, 1991 PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: 4. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-0127 A request to complete,in two phases, the addition of twenty- nine pads for the placement of mobile homes. The 19.5 acre site is currently developed with 118 pads and is known com- monly as Diamond Bar Estates. The site is surrounded by industrial uses and multiple family residences. Applicant: McDermott Engineering Location: 21217 East Washington V)a� n It"*A1 �31E 5. Review of Draft Development Code: Chapter 1.1 - Administration; Chapter 1.11- Definitions Chapter 1.4 - Residential Districts S: 6. Staff 7. Planning Commissioners: ADJOURNMENT: April 25, 1991 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 11, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: CONSENT CALENDAR: NEW BUSINESS: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Vice Chairman Harmony.. Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner MacBride, Vice Chairman Harmony, and Chairman Schey. Commissioner Lin was absent (excused). Also present were City Planner Irwin Kaplan, Assoc. Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy City Attorney Bill Curley, City Engineer Sid Mousavi, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Intern Steven Koffroth, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. Planning Director James DeStefano arrived at 10:30 p.m. VC/Harmony requested the Minutes of February 25, 1991 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 25, 1991. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, and Chair/Schey. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Harmony. Review of Draft Irwin Kaplan, City Planner, reviewed the Development Code Development Code proposal to establish a Design Chapters 1.1 & Review Board, which had been submitted to the 1.11 Commission. Chair/Schey inquired how narrow the scope of review should be in regards to single homes. CP/Kaplan suggested that the scope be limited to height, bulk, basic materials, and landscaping to maintain the established or prevailing community or neighborhood character. Chair/Schey indicated that the level of detail of design review needs to be defined for the overall architectural theme of a master plan development. He questioned how the design review will be dealt with in regards to custom homes in the Country, or March 11, 1991 Page 2 other subdivisions, that have their own design review process. The concept of maintaining consistency within given neighborhoods is important beyond the scope of size, bulk, etc. C/Grothe stated guidelines should be tough and complete to assure development is of top quality. Dan Dunham, a principal with the Planning Network, stated the policy issues for Design Review are: 1. The level the design review appropriate for Diamond Bar. 2. The kind of committee that will handle design review. VC/Harmony suggested that the committee be a standing committee that serves at the will of the Commission. Instead of delaying every project for architectural review, those cases that need more work can be assigned to the committee and then be referred back to the Commission. Mr. Dunham stated that the decision of determining which projects will be reviewed is a policy issue that will have to addressed by the Commission. VC/Harmony stipulated that a neighborhood with CC&R's, that want to regulate their own architectural processes, should be allowed to prevail. The Commission should not get involved with individual house construction, other than to ensure good standards. He suggested, with the consensus of the Commission, that commercial and tract developments should be subjected to architectural review. C/Grothe assertediIthat he is against another whole body coming up with another whole set of guidelines. There shouldbe a set of strict guidelines regulating standards. Mr. Dunham explained that every attempt has been made to ensure that the code gives some very definite standards to give a clear picture. What is being referred to here is the aesthetics and some of the other issues that relate to commercial buildings, to neighborhood character, and to tract homes. Those are the issues of the development code that, because of the very nature of euclidian zoning, is not covered and cannot be regulated. Chair/Schey is not opposed to putting houses under the design review because the Commission will eventually have to deal with the pit falls. He is March 11, 1991 Page 3 concerned with the possibility that a series of tract homes could be bought up and be replaced by larger homes. VC/Harmony inquired if the code addressed the concept of mansionization, not necessarily on the big lots but on some of the tract lots and private smaller lots. He inquired if the issue is an architectural review concept. CP/Kaplan replied that the issue would become an aspect of review if it is a stated objective. Someone would have to say, as a matter of policy, there is a concern with the relationship of the size of the house, to the size of the lot. Chair/Schey inquired if the purpose of design review is for architectural design or to encompass the broader functions of a development review committee. CP/Kaplan stated that design review could encompass all types of residential and commercial uses or could be limited to certain uses. A fundamental policy choice would be a determination of the types of uses and kinds of structures and projects to be subject to design review. He asked for discussion of the scope of review appropriate for commercial structures. C/Grothe stated the design review procedure could require the Commission to do a design review on single family residences. There is not a need for another organization, or a level of bureaucracy, to do so. CP/KapliIn inquired if the Commission wants architectural review where there is an architectural review board on the premises, such as a situation like the "Country". C/Grothe stated that in that situation, it should be determined that it would become an architectural review body that is advisory to the Commission. Regardless of their approval, it is still to be reviewed at the Commission's level. CP/Kaplan inquired if for larger projects the Commission prefers a freestanding review board or a function of staff level review. VC/Harmony suggested that it should be a standing review, consisting of professionals, meeting occasionally, at the request of the Planning Commission when additional help is needed. March 11, 1991 Page 4 Chair/Schey stated that a particular case will either meet a set of criteria that triggers the use of the board, or the case will go directly to the Commission. His concern was the potential delay of projects while being reviewed by staff. CP/Kaplan, recapping the Commissions statements, stated the desire appears to be that all projects going to the Commission be .accompanied by a staff level design review. If the Commission requires further design review advice, it can request the assistance of the professional design review board. C/MacBride questioned if there is sufficient budget constraints for staff to perform the design review function without ongoing reliance upon the design review board. CP/Kaplan stated staff will develop a proposal to reflect the Planning Commissions desire for the use of a committee, when needed, to review projects. Otherwise it will be part of the normal staff review process. C/MacBride added to underscore the Commission's concern that the Commission is not enthusiastic about creating an additional level of bureaucratic supervision. Chair/Schey announced the next discussion of the development code will be at 6:30 p.m., March 25, 1991. A recess was called at 8:06 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 8:16 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: Intern Steven Koffroth presented a report on the request for an extension of five (5) years to -UP 1634-(1) finish the third 1phase building of the sanctuary Evangelical Free for the Evangelical Free Church. The request will Church require modification of condition #18 of CUP 1634 - (1). Staff recommended that the Commission adopt the attached resolution granting a five year time extension to the original CUP and require that any changes on the project come back before the Commission for a new CUP approval. Chair/Schey inquired if there are plans to change the scope of the original phase three plan. I/Koffroth stated that no plans to change phase III have been submitted as of yet. C/Grothe inquired if upon granting the extension, would there be a design review process to ensure that the project stays in conformity to the code. March 11, 1991 Page 5 I/Koffroth replied that at this time the applicant has not completed the development of the plans. However, the applicant has indicated a desire to change the scope of the third phase, at a later date, by eliminating one of the classrooms, relocating one of the classrooms to the rear, increasing the size of the sanctuary to be moved back towards the center, increasing the parking area, and gaining an additional access on to Diamond Bar Boulevard. VC/Harmony inquired if there were any objections in the original approval, or currently, to the project. I/Koffroth responded that he did receive telephone calls from surrounding residents who were concerned about the expansion. The Public Hearing was declared open. Bob Huff, representative of the Diamond Bar Evangelical Free Church, requested extra time for the project. He stated that nothing changed in regards to the original purpose. Christine Pry, residing at 3155 Cherrydale, inquired if the present trees will be destroyed because more grading will occur on the hill in order to increase the size of the sanctuary. I/Koffroth, Intern, stated that it is anticipated that the knoll will be graded to provide for additional parking. The trees will be eliminated, but will be replaced on the site. VC/Harmony noted that to be taken out on applicant, therefore, another plan to be Commission as part process. the trees are not scheduled the current plan. The would be required to submit returned to the Planning of another Public Hearing Chair/Schey inquired if there are any requirements under the County approval that would not meet the current codes. I/Koffroth responded that the parking to be provided under the CUP is less than would be required under current codes. C/Grothe stated he would prefer letting the CUP expire with the intent of making any returning project conform to the current codes and regulations of the community. March 11, 1991 Page 6 C/MacBride indicated that he is comfortable with permitting the extension, but acknowledges the importance that the project meet current codes. His concern is with what would be advantageous to the community and the church. VC/Harmony inquired if there are any other significant changes from the original approval, and some of the new ordinances and concepts currently being considered. CP/Kaplan replied that, as previously indicated, parking is more restrictive, and though not a code issue, there is a change in the philosophy of the day care center. However, the request was evaluated as an extension of a CUP and was not analyzed in terms of the applicant's verbal request for a new project. Staff cannot give an appropriate recommendation. C/Grothe stated the only reason for needing an extension is to build the existing project to whatever was approved ten years ago. He reiterated his desire to review these projects. Chair/Schey concurred with C/Grothe, and noted that the sanctuary is the single largest facility on the site. He is concerned with the parking capabilities after the extension. It should be looked at more definitively as a developmental project. Mark Harper, pastor, residing at 1125 Grubstake, asserted that the reason for the extension is to maintain a permit to develop the property. He acknowledged that parking is a valid concern but it can be mitigated.( e explained that the landmarked trees will be preserved during grading. He would like the plan to remain until it can be refined to the Commissions satisfaction. The Public Hearing was declared closed. C/Grothe stated regardless if there is a change made on the site or not, the project needs to come back to the Commission for review. C/MacBride inquired when the CUP would lapse. I/Koffroth responded that it would have lapsed in November of 1990, had they not requested an extension. March 11, 1991 Page 7 Chair/Schey stated that when there is an opportunity to do so, the Commission should have all developments conform to our current codes. VC/Harmony stated his appreciation for what the church is trying to do. He concurred that the standards are going to change, however, looking at the situation and looking at the church as a one day use, he is inclined to approve staff's recommendation. Staff has reviewed the project and there has been sufficient discussion of the tentative changes. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by Chair/Schey to deny the extension. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Chair/Schey. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride and Harmony. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. The motion fails. Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/MacBride to continue the matter until the next regular meeting and direct staff to review reports of the existing plans and diagrams. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Harmony and MacBride. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Chair/Schey. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. The motion fails. DA/Curley explained that as a function, the request for extension is denied. CUP 90-0127 Associate Planner Robert Searcy presented the report for a request to complete in two phases the addition of twenty nine pads for the placement of mobile homes. Staff recommended the Commission approve the Resolution of Approval as submitted or amended. VC/Harmony inquired if the hydrology report was received and studied. City Engineer Sid Mousavi replied that the report was just recently received and there has not been adequate opportunity to review it. VC/Harmony requested a characterization of the issues involved in the study. CE/Mousavi stated that it basically refers to the mitigation of the drainage situation. The area to March 11, 1991 Page 8 be subdivided is presently the sump for the balance of the site. The backside is to work as a retention basin. Chair/Schey asked if there is any standard for guest parking at the mobile home property. AP/Searcy stated that the standard for a multiple family dwelling type development is used for guest parking, which is currently a 1:4 ratio. Chair/Schey inquired if, when the original CUP was approved, these areas were contemplated as being part of a future phase. AP/Searcy stated the CUP originally approved 147 units to be completed within three phases over a ten year period. This was not done and the applicant is now applying for a CUP to complete phase one and two. The Public Hearing was declared open. Richard Simonian, general partner of the mobile home park, stated that the retention basin will be in a smaller area, to hold the same amount of water, so that the additional spaces could be used to bring in additional revenue. The back of the park is presently a nuisance area. The sound wall will be moved back to incorporate the retention basin to the interior of the park and will be maintained by the park. VC/Harmony questioned if phase three proposes that the water will naturally go elsewhere because cities or countQes may have developed some additional storm drains in the future. Mr. Simonian stated that the City of Industry has plans to develop major storm drains. However, the City of Industry has not presently granted permission to drain on the property. Tom Pepper, residing .at 21217 E. Washington, president of the homeowners association, stated 92 of the 118 residents responded to the site survey. All issues have been resolved. The majority indicated that a designated play area was not imperative. Mr. Simonian stated the existing recreational area is large enough to accommodate the residents. March 11, 1991 Page 9 Chair/Schey inquired if there is an on going flow of water in the area presently acting as a retention basin. Mr. Simonian asserted that there is a very negligible flow of water. The water that does drain in the area is percolated through the ground. Chair/Schey inquired what the approximate size of the proposed revised sump area is. Mr. Simonian stated that it is approximately an acre and a half, and that the depth is geared for a 50 year "Q". CE/Mousavi indicated that if the area designated for a sump is reduced and the depth increased, as stated by the applicant, the time for the water to leave would be longer. Mr. Simonian stated that he will comply to whatever the requirements are stated by the engineer. C/Grothe requested evidence be given to staff, at a later date, indicating that the conditions of agreement have been addressed and resolved. Kathleen Rose, 21259 Cottonwood Lane, inquired if there will be provisions to maintain the property on a regular basis. Chair/Schey explained that this issue would need to be part of an abatement procedure to be dealt with through the staff. VC/Harmony stated he visited the site. The sump area needs to be cleaned up and presently the area is not in proper living condition. He requested the project be return to the Commission, to include proof there is adequate abatement of the water going into the City of Industry. C/Grothe indicated his desire for the project to go forward, with the condition that all problems regarding the homeowners association are resolved. The area must also be maintained. Mr. Simonian, to alleviate the concerns of VC/Harmony, explained that the entire retention basin would be on the inside of the park and will be landscaped and maintained. He indicated that the conditions resolved with the homeowners association will be met. March 11, 1991 Page 10 Chair/Schey stated that retention basins are frequently used as recreational areas. He is satisfied that, if the retention basin is included as part of the park, and the requirement to keep it maintained is followed, the project should go forward. CE/Mousavi stated that the idea of retention basins as recreational areas have been used in numerous projects in the past. However, the type of soil needs to be considered. Some soils do not absorb quickly, creating a pool of water, and a nuisance. C/Grothe emphasized that the approval would be subject to the engineers approval that the area will be safe. He recommended a four or five foot easement between two properties, to include sidewalks, with landscaping, in order to facilitate pedestrian movement, thereby making the recreational facilities more accessible. CP/Kaplan suggested staff prepare a list of proposed conditions for the Commission. Chair/Schey requested staff to check if permits, such as the EPA, DFG, or corps of engineers, are necessary since the existing sump has been receiving water and will no longer be serving in the current capacity. C/MacBride requested that the sound barrier meets with the code requirements of the City, and that there is a reference that it meets the satisfaction requested by the homeowners. Mr. Simonian stated the sound barrier was designed to eliminate the (sound by bouncing it back to the other direction. He indicated that he has the acoustical reports. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the meeting of April 8, 1991 to include a staff report on the engineering requirements, an easement walkway, the sound barrier, and the recommendation of the necessity of a recreational area and guest parking. Chair/Schey called a recess at 10:06 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 10:12 p.m. March 11, 1991 Page 11 CUP 50-0130 AP/Searcy presented the request to construct a two story structure totaling 8,352 square feet to Mt. Calvary provide additional classrooms for a parochial Lutheran Church school (grades K-8). Staff recommended approval of the project. The Public Hearing was declared open. Dennis Stueve, pastor at Mt. Calvary, reiterated the need for the expansion of the building. William McNeal, residing at 23315 E. Gold Rush, objected to the project because the neighbors below him will be looking into the project. He suggested that the parking plans be reversed. AP/Searcy read a letter, submitted by C. Baldwin Lowe of 23309 Gold Rush, objecting to the project if it does not comply to the County code. AP/Searcy noted that the ridgeline would not exceed the existing grade of most of the residential surrounding properties. It meets the standards of the Conditional Use Permit conditions. C/Grothe inquired if there is a way to eliminate a couple of feet off the top of the structure. Jerry Busse, architect, residing at 704 S. Primrose, indicated that it would not be feasible. Chair/Schey stated that he does not believe that the building will have undue impact on the neighbors. He suggested a condition that would mandate a submittal of a landscape plan for the street frontages of the property, that would be approved by the City, to be included in the overall development plan, and maintained as such. The drainagL area should be maintained as well. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Motion was made by Chair/Schey, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Resolution of Approval as submitted with the inclusion of an additional condition mandating submittal of landscape plan on the frontage and it's maintenance, modification of item #9 whereas the shrub does not exceed 20 feet, and amendment of item #12 to include the categorical exemption number 15314. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, and Chair/Schey. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Harmony. March 11, 1991 Page 12 CUP 90-0125 C/MacBride requested to be removed from the proceeding because of his proximity to the project. Upon the advice by the City attorney, he disqualified himself from the hearing. AP/Searcy stated that the public notice was mailed February 13, 1991. He presented the request for a CUP to construct a two floor office building located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and westerly of Sunset Crossing Road at Navajo Spring Road. Staff recommended the adoption of the Resolution of approval and the attached conditions. The Public Hearing was declared open. Fred Janz, applicant, residing at 2683 Shady Ridge, requested the CUP to build the other building, and specified that it would not affect the existing building. VC/Harmony noted that the area is very congested. Mr. Janz explained that the County mandated the two parcels be used as one to provide and ensure maintaining adequate parking. He would like a CUP to build an office building on the remaining portion site. C/Grothe requested drawings of the building to be set into photographs to get a better idea of the proposed project. He stated he is concerned with the increase of traffic and the availability of parking. He would like the traffic issue addressed by the Traffic Commission, a traffic study, if necessary, and assurance that there is adequate parking. I' VC/Harmony stated his concerns that parking and traffic are a problem, and sees no reason to approve further construction. He asserted that the building itself is in violation of the goals and intent of the Hillside Ordinance. David Ayala, designer, stated that the reason for the siting was to preserve the forest like setting. He stated upgrading parking would widen the building, more trees will be planted in the rear, it does not block the view of existing homes, and there are plans for further landscaping. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Chair/Schey requested further review by staff in regards to the traffic increase. He inquired if March 11, 1991 Page 13 the applicant would concur if the Commission is inclined to continue the project. Mr. Janz gave his concurrence. VC/Harmony asked the City Attorney to advise the Commission, when the project is returned, as to whether there is a mandate to allow further development of the property, or if the denial of development constitutes some sort of a taking. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by Chair/Schey and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the second meeting in April pending submittal by the applicant of a traffic analysis specifically oriented towards the traffic safety issues relating to the project as prepared under the scope of the direction of the Traffic Commission. ZCA 91-1 CP/Kaplan reported that all amendments were included in the sign code ordinance. He brought to Sign Code the attention of the Commission that the Ordinance requirements for menu boards and attraction boards seems excessive. The Commission decided to limit attraction board to theaters only. The Public Hearing was declared open. Jake Williamson, residing at 259 Gentle Springs Lane, offered his approval of the draft sign ordinance. VC/HarmQny inquired why the abatement of signs is after N years. Bill Curley, City Attorney, explained that it is better to implement discretionary actions as opposed to mandatory action, from an ordinance structure standpoint. The abatement can therefore be structured in whatever manner is suitable to the City in the future. Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend to the Council to approve the ordinance with the revision restricting menu boards to theaters only. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/MacBride shared a story found in the Harmony Report of a store owner who, upon feeling badly Commissioners because of a sign ordinance, painted a mural in the cafe. March 11, 1991 Page 14 VC/Harmony discussed the issue of parking standards. He would like to eventually vote on the issue to create a policy confirming the Commissions request. James DeStefano, Planning Director, stated staff utilizes a running list of Commission policies. The list would be brought back to the Planning Commission for the purpose of adopting a code amendment. This is also done for policy pertaining to the development code. VC/Harmony requested that standardized parking be brought to the Commission for discussion and consideration of a vote at the next regular meeting. Chair/Schey directed staff to come up with a recommendation on how best to deal with the issue, with the intent to eliminate compact spaces, to be brought back at the next regular meeting. C/MacBride requested staff to pursue data regarding oak tree preservation and replacement, with the purpose of.looking at and embracing a generic tree ordinance. Chair/Schey noted the follow up letter from "Illumination" wanting to be rescheduled for presentation before the Commission. He directed staff to indicate the Commission is not interested in rescheduling. Staff PD/DeStefano stated staff has not received the traffic report requested by the Commission in regards to the car wash issue. Chair/Schey directed staff to put in a recommendation for continuance if data is not received within the appropriate timeline. PD/DeStefano stated that earlier this evening he spoke before a subcommittee of the board of trustees to determine the use of surplus school property known as site "D". Staff presented a recommendation for a community park. The Walnut School District proposed a housing development. There was substantial support for the community park. PD/DeStefano presented the Commission with a copy of the park schematic plan. March 11, 1991 Page 15 ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 12:18 a.m. David Schey Chairman Attest: James DeStefano Secretary/Planning Commission CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 25, 1991 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 6:35 p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Harmony. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Grothe, Commissioner MacBride, Vice Chairman Harmony, and Chairman Schey. Commissioner Lin arrived at 6:50 p.m. Also present were Planning Director James DeStefano, City Planner Irwin Kaplan, Assoc. Planner Robert Searcy, Deputy Attorney Bill Curley, City Engineer Sid Mousavi, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: Planning Director James DeStefano requested item #2 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. VC/Harmony requested the Minutes of March 11, 1991 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. VC/Harmony indicated that the Minutes of March 11, 1991 were condensed to a point of not being wholly comprehensible. He requested the minutes be held over until the next meeting to allow further discussion with staff on the merits of this particular set of minutes. C/MacBride requested the Minutes of March 11, 1991 be amended on page 3, paragraph 2, to read as "budget constraints" as opposed .to "skills", and page 11, fifth paragraph to add "with the purpose of looking at and embracing a generic tree ordinan6e" to the end of the sentence. Chair/Schey suggested that the approval of the minutes be placed as a separate agenda item before the Consent Calendar. Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED to continue the matter for the purpose of clarifying the Minutes of March 11, 1991, and setting the tone for future minutes. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, Harmony, and Chair/Schey. NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Lin. MarCa 25, 1991 Page 2 Resolution of James DeStefano suggested that the Commission Denial for the withhold action, at this time, in consideration of extension of the Resolution for Denial regarding a request for Evangelical Free an extension of time for the Evangelical Free Church Church. Chair/Schey was concerned that the wording of the Resolution of Denial implies an active action of denial. It could be taken as too positive of an action, in terms of denial of the project, and may create an impression that is not accurate. The project was neither approved nor denied, and expired on it's own accord. Deputy Attorney Bill Curley explained that there was an affirmative request to allow an extension of the existing resolution on the existing terms and conditions. The request was not granted regardless how it is characterized. It appears to be a standard form of denial. VC/Harmony ascertained that substantiating or confirming an action taken previously at a public meeting is a reconsideration of that action and does not follow parliamentary procedure. C/MacBride noted that the resolution does not indicate the reasoning behind allowing the expiration, only the final result of the decision. He would like wording to indicate the why's and wherefor's of the Commission's actions. Chair/Schey directed staff to work through the issues stated, come back with an appropriate document for the Commission's reconsideration, and include consideration for the concerns stated by VC/Harmony. This is to be brought back to the Commission at the next meeting. OLD BUSINESS: City Planner Irwin Kaplan indicated that, at the March 11, 1991 meeting, the Planning Commission 2eview of the considered the establishment of a separate design :)evelopment Code review board to advise the City on the design "hapters 1.1 & aspects of a variety of projects. According to the Commission, the design review process should: 1. Not create another level of "bureaucratic intervention". 2. Not create further delays to the approval process. 3. Be handled by staff as part of the normal review process. March 25, 1991 Page 3 4. Call upon a citizen's board of design professionals to review projects, "as needed", when design guidance is required beyond that which staff can provide. VC/Harmony specified that he is not opposed to delaying any project until it is fully evaluated. He suggested that the architectural review committee should be appointed now. It should only be called in if additional information is needed. The following are his suggestions to some of the responsibilities of the standing committee: 1. To develop the guidelines, and recommend to the Commission their level of involvement. 2. To deal with issues of art public places, and it's initiation processes. 3. To be composed of a mixture of professionals and nonprofessionals, to include perhaps an architect, a landscape architect, and an artist. Each committee member would have an alternative. 4. To have a review authority and a reporting responsibility to the Commission. They would be purely advisory to the Commission, work side by side with staff, and meet on a regular bases to keep up with the level of activities. C/Grothe indicated that the design review committee need not be on-going. He suggested that professionals are preferred so that the Commission may receive the technical aspects to a project. The board should be advisory to the Commission. Chair/Schey questioned if there is enough activity to warrant a standing committee. PD/DeStdfano confirmed that, based on the present volume of projects, the committee will be on-going. They will probably meet once or twice a month in order to maintain the timelines mandated by a variety of California codes. C/Grothe questioned if the intent of the Commission is to develop another level of bureaucracy, or develop a set of guidelines and standards for architectural design. He suggested the Commission request to the City Council to consider the hiring of an additional staff member for the purpose of assisting the planning staff to set up and follow appropriate guidelines. C/Grothe inquired if all cities have a design review committee. inarcn 29, 1991 Page 4 CP/Kaplan explained that more and more communities are having a design review. The question the Commission needs to ascertain is what problem is trying to be resolved. Chair/Schey stated that the Commission has not had adequate time to look at architectural review in great detail. He would feel more comfortable with a committee based in the community that will take the time to look at these projects. VC/Harmony stated that there is a general consensus that there is a need for a subcommittee to review architectural standards. He stressed the importance of having a community involved committee of professionals that can give technical expertise to the Commission, on an "as needed" bases. The Commission has avoided architectural review and must start at some point. C/Grothe concluded that the Commission has done a fine job on architectural review up to date. He does not agree there is a problem. He would like to see the design review looked at more specifically and sees no reason to add further bureaucracy. There needs to be an establishment of proper guidelines to aide the Commission in the process of their review, to include better input from staff. He reiterated a need for one more staff member to assist the planning staff. C/MacBride requested staff to define if there is a design review problem, to include information on the quantity of cases reviewed, and how extensive the review is being done presently at a staff level. He does not have a desire to interlace the Commission's activities with another bureaucratic level. Chair/Schey directed staff to present to the Commission, at the next meeting, a synopsis of the degree of review presently being done by staff. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Technician Ann Lungu gave a report concerning the request for approval to open a dry CUP 91-2 cleaning establishment, located at 1155 Diamond Bar A request to Boulevard in the Standard Brands Shopping Center. establish a The applicant will maintain a dry cleaning and dry cleaners. laundry plant on the premises. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and CUP 91-002 with the Findings of Fact and conditions listed. The Public Hearing was declared open. March 25, 1991 Page 5 Don Chapman, residing at 1801 E. La Veta, City of Orange, applicant, offered to answer any questions. C/MacBride inquired what term is used to designate "Perc". Mr. Chapman responded that the chemical is called tetrachloroethylene, but that "perc" is the accepted trade name. The Public Hearing was declared closed. Chair/Schey indicated he has no problem with the project as long as it meets the "AQMD" standards. Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by C/MacBride and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve staff's recommendation and resolution as outlined in the agenda with the modification of item 113d" of the resolution to read "...shall be obtained and maintained from...". Development PD/DeStefano gave a report reviewing the issues Agreement 91-2 discussed by the Planning Commission on the continued from February 25, 1991 public hearing. The following Feb. 25, 1991 are the issues addressed concerning the proposed project: 1. Traffic and Safety. 2. Architectural Style. 3. Convenience Store or Snack Shop. 4. Development Agreement. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Agreement 91-2 with the stated concerns mitigated and with the conditions listed. i Chair/Schey inquired if the City Engineer is comfortable with the analysis and the mitigation measures recommended in the revised traffic study. City Engineer Sid Mousavi responded that the traffic. study was satisfactory. However, staff's additional requirements of an extended auxiliary lane, and the mitigation measures on Golden Springs and Colima, were not addressed as part of the traffic study. VC/Harmony inquired on the safety of crossing lanes of traffic on to Golden Springs, coming out of the development, and heading east. CE/Mousavi explained that a site distance of 600 feet is required for a speed of 50 mph. That distance is available for a left turn. However, if March 25, 1991 6 there are slow moving vehicles, such as a truck, and the speed of the traveling vehicle is greater than 50 mph, there may be site distance problems. The Public Hearing was declared open. Gary Clapp, residing at 21055 Glenbrook Drive, Diamond Bar, addressed several issues: 1. Internal Traffic - he referred to the letter from UNOCAL, solicited from their traffic engineer, which approved the site and the turning movement the truck will make on the site, as well as the restrictive delivery hours. 2. Visibility - he emphasized that their traffic engineer determined that there is sufficient visibility. The traffic is made safer with the inclusion of the right turn pocket. 3. Acceleration Lane - he deferred discussion to the traffic engineer. Paul Wilkensen, a principal of Linscott, Law, and Greenspan, traffic engineer, accompanied by Jay Nelson, addressed the issue of the acceleration lane. The concern for the lane is that it encourages a movement to enter the traffic stream without there being an adequate gap. This causes them to be placed in a weaving situation because of the various traffic maneuvers needed, and creates a rear end accident potential. It is safer for the motorist to wait for a gap long enough to pull out. Gary Clapp continued to address some issues: 4. The additional 11 foot street dedication - accommodating another eleven feet would require at least a 12 foot high retaining wall to hold the soil, which would be against city ordinance. The other alternative would be to build out on a 2:1 grade slope. However, this action, coupled with the request to add another 15 foot setback, would result in eliminating the building because a total of 39 feet would have to be moved out. This stops the project then and there. 5. Pullout Traffic - the traffic on Golden Springs will not be as busy during peak business hours. However, there can be a restriction of a left turn out of the site but allow a U turn at the Gateway Drive. 6. Street Improvement - there will be 60% of total landscaping of the property. Since there will be little pedestrian movement in the area, he questioned the demand for sidewalks. March 25, 1991 Page 7 7. Concerns of the AQMD - the building will not block much of the view of the AQMD. He illustrated such by photos, presented to the Commission, taken on the third floor of the AQMD building. 8. Clock Tower - the clock tower was an idea of the applicant as a gift to the City, and will include the Diamond Bar logo. 9. Concession Stand - purpose is to sell packaged candy, chips, etc., as a convenience to the customers. C/Lin inquired how steep the driveway will be going out of the project. Mr. Clapp explained that the driveway will feather out and will be level with the street when exiting the property. Chair/Schey recessed the meeting at 8:52 p.m. The meeting was called to order at 9:07 p.m. He requested speakers in favor of the project. Dan Buffington, residing at 2605 Indian Creek, commented that sidewalks should not be given up; direction of the tanker should be changed to avoid crossing lanes; the left turn should be allowed until a traffic problem is indicated; keep the 11 foot street dedication; there is a need to the 15 foot setback for the building; and the CC&R's require a sign into Diamond Bar on that property, and it should be ensured that one will placed there. Frank Arciero Jr., of Arciero and Sons, stated that the 11 �oot easement is an additional request that will ca se lost of parking and building; there is an interest in the development and will ensure it is first class; and any new buyer must be approved by them. Pat Bell, 23460 Coyote Springs, stated his desire for a car wash. Sidewalks are not important because part of the aesthetics of Diamond Bar is it's rural qualities. Frank Schabarum, from West Covina, in behalf of the property owner and the applicant, commented that the applicant has been diligent and cooperative in processing his development agreement. He noted that approval of the car wash would allow for restaurants. He distributed a letter to the Commission from a restaurant owner who might be interested in the site. March 25, 1991 Page 8 Chair/Schey requested speakers in opposition of the project. Bob Burbon, residing at 1200 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, homeowner and realtor, is appalled by the project. He noted the location of the project and stated that it does not project a, good image for Diamond Bar. The project will create traffic difficulties resulting in problems to attract future users within Gateway. There is no need for 3 car washes in south Diamond Bar and suggested placing one in the north side to attract customers from the surrounding cities for greater revenue. John Brewster, residing at 4071 Second Street, was concerned with the on site traffic movement; the incompatible design of the building in comparison to the area; and the 25 foot above grade signage allotment. He questioned the wisdom of allowing one mile distances between car washes and stated the area will not support two. He pointed out the costs already expended by himself and Honda. His car wash project is now in plan check and will be in construction within 30 to 60 days. The location for a car wash at Grand has a safe egress and ingress. Jack Guiso, of SCAQMD, was concerned with the traffic circulation problem; the on site traffic; the lack of trees in the parking area; and that the theme of the building is not in conformance with the neighborhood. Ben Reiling, of Zelman Development, representing Gateway, stated that the left turn should not be allowed coming put of the project at Golden Springs. He questioned the determination for $50,000 for traffic mitigation indicated in the traffic report. CE/Mousavi stated that a pedestrian sidewalk is desirable and should be enforced keeping in mind possible future developments in the area. The left turn issue does not have to be a condition at this time because it can be mitigated anytime in the future. The $50,000 requested is based upon construction cost of today. He disagreed with the opinion in opposition to the acceleration lane. It would be ideal to have the lane go all the way to the traffic signal, however, the minimum of loo feet is deemed allowable to accommodate 50 mph traffic. C/Grothe stated that 11 feet for sidewalks seems excessive. d March 25, 1991 Page 9 CE/Mousavi explained that there is presently 12 feet of parkway area at Golden Springs. The addition of 11 feet of new lane is needed in order to maintain continuity of the parkway area. Mr. Wilkensen asserted that the road is currently 34 feet in width. The width needed is already there. VC/Harmony inquired if there is 40% compact parking. He further questioned if the requirement was changed to 100% standard parking, would there be adequate space. PD/DeStefano replied that presently the parking requirement exceeds the minimum allotted by a space or two. There would not be adequate space for 100% standard parking. VC/Harmony noted the possibility for traffic backup due to the inside traffic circulation pattern. CE/Mousavi explained that if there was traffic backup, it would back up into the auxiliary lane. C/Grothe discussed the positive aspects of the project. These aspects included the style of architecture; the use of the convenient store; and the landmark sign with the Diamond Bar logo. The issues he found to be a problem are the traffic; the rigid site design that have not included any revisions requested; and the lack of a total site plan. He would like the total site plan to indicate if, with grading, it could be a viable option to extend the roadway and align like a private . street, turning with that bottom interse8tion signal. The left turn problem would be solved with the use of the traffic light. Currently, the traffic is so dense it would be impossible to egress without a traffic signal. His recommendation would be to deny the project or to continue it with a redesign. C/Lin agreed that the acceleration lane can cause more problems and would prefer to see cars egress one at a time. She inquired why the 11 foot setback is significant. PD/DeStefano explained that the setback issue on the building is intended to draw the buildings away from the street with the purpose of creating the same type of aesthetics seen throughout the majority of Diamond Bar. A 15 foot set back seemed appropriate for the size and scale of the buildings being proposed. March 25, 1991 Page 10 VC/Harmony stated at present a car wash is not permitted in the zone; the traffic patterns are a confusioh; the monument sign issue should be turned over to the Council's Monument Entryway Sign Committee; wants mature trees planted; concurred with the traffic mitigations recommended by the City Engineer; will not give up any right of way and easements; will not yield on the setback requirements; want standard parking stalls for all developments; and sidewalks are essential. The property must be developed for it's highest and best use. He would consider reviewing the project again, however, it must be redesigned to meet the stated guidelines. C/MacBride stated he would like to see a further possibility of what can yet be done to this site that could answer the question of the left turn problem; the preservation of right of way, sidewalk, and set back area; foreclose the scrambled propensity for the interior traffic; and maintain the architectural harmony of the interior community. C/Schey is concerned by the functionality of the site plan. The site is not being used as efficiently and properly as it should be. His main concern is the method the project is being pursued through the utilization of the development agreement. This particular method of doing a use variance is legal but not appropriate. If these uses are deemed appropriate to the site, then the proper method of operation would be to submit an application for a zone change to the appropriate zoning designation and pursued accordingly. The Public Hearing)' was declared closed. C/Grothe disagreed with the concerns stated by the chairman in regards to the development agreement. He has a problem with asking the applicant to request a zone change because the zoning change would remain as a C-3 zone if the project is not developed for whatever reasons. The development agreement is specific and requires changes of the site. He would not totally deny the project at this point. Chair/Schey stated that his biggest concern is not with the development agreement as an entity but with it's use in this case. In essence what is being done is using a development agreement to approve a car wash in a zone that does not allow a car wash. He is inclined to make a motion of denial. March 25, 1991 Page 11 C/Lin stated that a zone change creates a wider variety of business or other types of commercial centers, which could create more traffic problems than we are faced with today. The use of the development agreement is more favorable than a zone change. Motion was made by VC/Harmony, seconded by Chair/Schey and CARRIED for recommendation of denial for the development permit. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: G r o t h e, MacBride, Harmony, and Chair/Schey. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. PD/DeStefano stated that staff will prepare a resolution, with findings, denying the project for the Commission's consideration on April 8, 1991. ANNOUNCEMENTS: PD/DeStefano informed the Commission that the new listing of phone numbers for all the departments in Staff City Hall will be distributed to the Commission. Planning PD/DeStefano explained that the item is a follow Commissioners: up, resulting from a previous discussion, for the need of including such items on the agenda for open, a. Policy Manual discussion. VC/Harmony explained the need to codify particular issues that have the Commission's consensus. If the Commission votes on an issue, staff is better able to send signals to developers that the Commission has taken a particular position regarding such issues. Chair/Schey agreed that there are policies that might not be in the code yet, would be beneficial to staff to have the Commission's consensus in writing. Staff could then advise the applicant to be prepared on particular items because the Planning Commission will request it. The Planning Commission Manual could be modified to incorporate those type of policies. VC/Harmony requested that staff also include policy statements for the Commissions consideration on such issues. Chair/Schey stated that when these policy issues become apparent, the Commission will direct staff to draft the policy statement to be adopted by the Commission and included in the manual. March 25, 1991 Page 12 DA/Curley inquired if the ultimate purpose of these policies is to eventually convert them to an ordinance. Chair/Schey stated that this was not really the intent. The Commission would like to have an actual writing of issues that concern them, and would like to be kept informed of these issues in certain circumstances. VC/Harmony explained that the purpose is to send a signal to developers of the Commission's position. The developer can of course ignore staff's recommendation and still apply, but he has been made aware of the Commission's position and may possibly respond accordingly. Chair/Schey declared that in the case of an issue that the Commission .feels so strongly about, the Commission ought to recommend an ordinance change. PD/DeStefano stated that this interim step is being created with the acknowledgement that there are many issues that just cannot be addressed as quickly as is desired. Chair/Schey stated that the Commission needs to acknowledge that this interim step is questionable as to it's enforceability in some cases. VC/Harmony suggested staff and the city attorney prepare a preamble that takes into account the flexibility of these rules and allows that these are general guidelines. Chair/Schey recapitulated that the Commission is in consensus that the formulation of policy statements is a good addition to the Commission's manual. The Commission will direct staff accordingly as those issues arise. b. Discussion of Chair/Schey stated the Commission does not want any :urrent parking more compact stalls. standards VC/Harmony specified if the Commission is requesting staff to come back to the next regular meeting with a study, or a report on standardizing these stalls. PD/DeStefano stated that staff requires discussion on this item. The new development code is looking at parking quite extensively and will be ready for public hearing in 4 to 5 months. March 25, 1991 Y10161 *, :f"W14iii Page 13 Chair/Schey directed staff to come back to the Commission at the next meeting with a policy statement that can be added to the Planning Commission manual indicating the Commission's disinclination to approve any further compact stalls, and our inclination to see a great deal more parking lot landscaping than that is currently mandated under the code. VC/Harmony stated that, at the legal session in Monterey, he got the impression that there was some legal binding which prohibits Commissioners to meet with developers or even a situation of talking with one another. PD/DeStefano explained that it was a conflict between just meeting normally with the developers and where it falls into the Brown Act trap of meeting with individual Commissioners coming to a decision. DA/Curley cautioned the Commission to understand that when reviewing a project proposal, to always keep in mind that the information received is only a third of the story. As a basic rule, if you are uncomfortable with some situation of the developer, either don't do it or make the Commission aware of it. C/MacBride stated that it would be very helpful to have a consistent policy whereby either all Commissions react and report it in such ways as our requisite, or we do not react and presentations have to be formal. Motion yeas made by C/MacBride,' seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 11:15 p.m. .David Schey Chairman Attest: James DeStefano Secretary/Planning Director RESOLUTION NO. 91- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, NOT APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1634-(1) FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CHURCH FACILITIES WITH A MULTIPURPOSE ROOM, CLASSROOMS, OFFICES, AND SANCTUARY ON A SITE LOCATED TO THE WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AND BREA CANYON ROAD AT 3255 SOUTH DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) Robert S. Huff, on behalf of Diamond Bar Evangelical Free Church, 3255 South Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, California, has heretofore requested a time extension for Conditional Use Permit 1634-(1) as described in the title of this Resolution, hereinafter in this Resolution referred to as "the application". (ii) On November 14, 1990, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application, continued the public hearing until February 11, 1991 and concluded said public hearing on March 11, 1991. (iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, as follows: 1 1. 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. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on November 14, 1990, continued said hearing until February 11, 1991 and concluded said hearing on March 11, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with the terms and provisions of California Government Code Sections 65360, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: A. The subject property is located at 3255 South Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, California. B. The surrounding properties are developed with single family residences to the north and east, with a vacant school site to the south and with a commercial center and the Orange Freeway to the west. C. The subject property is zoned R-1 and the use I is conditionally allowed within this zone. D. The site is designated within the U2 Zone of the Diamond Bar Community Plan. E. The subject property is currently developed with a church consisting of a multipurpose room, classrooms and offices. Additionally, a nursery and additional classrooms are being constructed. The applicant desires to extend the time in which the Phase III improvements are to be accomplished. Further, 2 the applicant is considering a revision to the previously approved plans which will require further discretionary approvals by the City. F. The originally approved conditional use permit was granted prior to the development of both the area proximate to the subject property and the development of areas in the City not immediately adjacent to the subject property but which contribute to environmental factors which effect the subject property. G. The changed conditions of the community may require additional or modified conditions of approval to assist in causing the development of the subject property to provide maximum benefit to the community. The actual changed conditions were not reasonably foreseeable or quantifiable at the time of the original grant of approval accorded to this application. The City desires to achieve the goal of ensuring the development of the subject property will be complimentary to and compatible with existing and reasonably foreseeable long term conditions in the City. The Planning Commission believes that the present and proposed use of the subject property are of great benefit to the City. The Planning Commission failed to achieve a majority consensus as to how best to balance the development needs of the applicant with the overall development goals and standards of the 3 City. The lack of consensus as to the scope of this balance resulted in the applicant's request failing to obtain a majority vote to approve the requested time extension or to continue the request for further deliberation. 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission has failed to approve the requested time extension request. 4. This Commission hereby provides notice to Diamond Bar Evangelical Free Church and Robert S. Huff that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 and 5. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: a. Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; b. Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution to ROBERT S. HUFF and DIAMOND BAR EVANGELICAL FREE CHURCH at their addresses las set forth on the application. PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED th is 8th day of April, 1991. rman 4 I, JAMES DESTEFANO, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, 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: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: N\1011\RESCHRCH\DB 5 Secretary to the Planning Commission RESOLUTION NO. 91- 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, it is found and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all representations set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 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 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. undeveloped. d. The subject property is presently vacant and e. The proposed development project for which approval of the development agreement is sought exhibits characteristics and development related conditions which this Commission believes are deleterious to the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City and further does not provide a project which is suitable for the subject site. The specific 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 E 0 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. Site 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 3 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 compliment 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 I City of Diamond Bar deny the 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 of April, 1991. Cha 4 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: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAINED: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Commission N\1011\RESODA\DB 5 1�%, 9 ©apR©51991' Aprils 1991 Mr. David Schey Chairman - Planning Commission City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RE: CUP 90-0129 Dear Mr. Schey: Resulting from significant changes made to the above referenced Conditional Use Permit Application, I ask that you forego its denial and reconsider the proposed project. As a result of a meeting on April 4,1991, which included among others Mayor John Forbing, Planning Director James DeStefano, and City Engineer Sid Mousavi, and a favorable reception of the amended plans on everyone's part, it would be beneficial for everyone involved to reopen the public hearing on this matter. The amended plans have come about through extensive analysis of all of the concerns aired not only by the Commission and Planning Department, but also those mentioned by neighboring land owners. I truly feel that with these revisions the project will still be feasible while addressing concerns within the community. I ask that you table the denial and allow the public hearing to continue at the soonest available Planning Commission meeting. Also, if at all possible, I would like to address the Commission on April 8,1991, for a maximum of three minutes, to show our due diligence on this matter. I! Ver my Yours, Gary D. Clapp cc: City Planning Commissioners Jim DeStefano Ann Lungu AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: RECOMMENDATIONS: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 4 April 4, 1991 April 8, 1991 Conditional Use Permit No. 90-127 To construct 29 additional lots in two phases in an existing mobile home park currently developed with 118 lots for a total of 147 lots. 21217 East Washington Diamond Bar, CA Diamond Bar Estates 303 N. Placentia, Suite F Fullerton, CA 92631 The information requested by the Planning Commission at the March 25, 1991 public hearing was received from the developer on Wednesday April 3, 1991 . Therefore, staff has not completed review of the submitted information nor has staff prepared a report. In light of the circumstances staff recommends the following course of action: 1. Continue the public hearing until the April 22, 1991 Planning Com- mission meeting with the applicant's acquiescence. \rls Item 5: Staff will be making a presentation.