Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 2001-02PLANNING COMMISSION _. RESOLUTION NO. 2001-02 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVINGCONDITIONALUSE PERMIT NO. 98-09(01), DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-11(l) AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,A REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONS.OF APPROVAL OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL. USE PERMIT NO. 98-09 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-11 TO ACCOMODATE ON-SITE SEATING FOR TOGO'S LOCATED AT 1193 DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD (PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL 'MAP NO. 12738) DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. RECITALS 1. The property owner, J. Coleman Trust, and applicant, - Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC, have filed an application to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 98-09 and Development Review No, 98-11, herein referred to as Conditional Use Permit No. 98-09(l) and Development Review No. 98-11(1), for 'a property located at 1193, Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County,; California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this - Resolution, the subject Conditional ' Use Permit and Development Review revisions, and Categorical Exemption, shall be referred to as the "Revised Application." 2. On October 13, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 98-9 and Development Review No. --98-11 and approved such per Planning Commission Resolution No. 99-21. 3. On September 25, 2000, thirty-six property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail.. On September 29`, 2000, notification of the public hearing for this `project .was made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and 'a notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site and displayed, for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other sites were posted within the vicinity of the application. 4. On October 10, 2000, and November 14, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond. Bar conducted a duly noticed -public hearing on the Revised Application and continued the public hearing to January 9, 2001, and concluded the public hearing on January 9, 2001. 1 i B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the Cit of Diamond Bar as follows • 1' � 1. The 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 determines that, the project identified above in this resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the- California Environmental Quality "Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. This is pursuant to Section 15301(e) of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 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 wild life resources or the habitat` upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning commission hereby R rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in i_ Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the.California Code of Regulations. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, j this Planning Commission, hereby finds as follows: (a) The Revised Application relates to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit No. 98-09 and Development Review No. 98-11. This approval was to G construct a 5,029 square foot addition to an existing 5,380 square foot one- tory commercial building at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard (Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 12738), Diamond Bar, CA. The project site is approximately 28,594 square feet at the corner of Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard, adjacent to (not a part of) a retail shopping. center identified as Diamond Bar Town., Center. Hollywood Video, Starbucks Coffee, Cathay Bank and Togo's Delicatessen currently occupy the project site. a. 2 The previous approval, Condition 5 (d), Planning ..-, Commission Resolution No. 98-21, stated that additional uses based on occupancy shall not be permitted without a revision to the approved Conditional Use Permit. Currently, Togo's is a. take out delicatessen and the, addition of seating is considered a restaurant, an intensification of use. Therefore, the request is subject to both the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review revision. Additionally, the previous approval, Condition 5.(c) Planning Commission "Resolution No. 98-21, required the owners to obtain `a reciprocal parking agreement with the adjacent shopping center. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.03OD(2)(c) the Applicant has had prepared b a licensed traffic engineer and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer a Shared `Parking Analysis based on site observations and Development Code parking standards and uses,- that substantiates the request to remove' Condition 5.;(c) of the original approval that required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that J the current 42 spaces on-site are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is General Commercial (C) The project site _ is zoned Unlimited Commercial (C-3): (c) Generally, the following zones surround .the subject site: to the north and west is the Unlimited Multiple 'Residence -Minimum Lot Size -8,000 Square Feet -25 Units Per Acre (R -3-8,000-25U) Zone and to the south and east is the Unlimited Commercial (C-3) Zone.- (d) The revised application is a request to amend the. - Conditional Use Permit No. 98-9 and Development Review No. 98-11 by removing Condition 5(c) of the Planning Commission Resolution No.. 98-21 that required the owner to obtain a Reciprocal Parking, Agreement with the adjacent shopping center. It also is a request to approve an intensification of use of 'on-site seating of tables and chairs for a total seating of six at Togo's. 3 CONDITIONAL ` USE PERMIT' (e) The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code - ode_Pursuant-to Pu rsuant toTable 2-6, Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Commercial/Industrial Zoning Districts, of the Development Code, a restaurant is permitted in the .0-3 Zone. The request to add seating to the Togo's delicatessen is an intensification of an approved use. Therefore, it ;is subject to revision of both the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review. The original project was'approved in 1998 and is considered a legal nonconforming structure because it does not meet today's Development -Code Standards. IPursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.03OD(2)(c), nonconforming structures with parking space deficienciesshallbe ,permitted to be occupied by new allowed uses provided that the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traffic engineer' based on site observations, Development Code parking standards, the uses, hours of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis.;. The Analysis substantiates the request to remove Condition 5(c) of the original approval that required the 'owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the 'subject site. The Shared Parking: Analysis also substantiates that the current 42 spaces on-site are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. As conditioned, the proposed use will comply with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. (f) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. 4- .vr, itt 71 "az', n� The project site hasrtl a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C) . -Pursuant to the General Plan, this land use designation_ provides for regional, freeway oriented, and/or community retail and service commercial uses The proposed project is considered a retail commercial use and as such is consistent with the General Plan. As there is no change to the site's exterior configuration, the current site's architectural style, construction materials and colors are consistent and compatible with the surrounding commercial sites. (g) The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity. The proposed uses are within an existing legal non- conforming commercial center processed by the City of Diamond Bar and approved per Planning Resolution - No. `98-21. The parking on-site does not meet the current requirements of the Diamond Bar Development Code for the proposedintensification_ of, use of a restaurant. Therefore_, the structure is considered a legal nonconforming structure: Also, the approved Resolution No. 98-21, Condition 5(d), requires revision to the approved Conditional Use Permit for additional uses. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.03OD(2)(c) nonconforming structures with parking space deficienciesshall be permitted to be occupied by new allowed uses providedthat the new use will -be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traffic engineer based on site observations, Development Code parking standards, the uses, hours of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The . Analysis substantiates the request .to remove Condition 5(c) of the original approval that _ required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that the current. 42 spaces, on-site are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. 5 There are no changes, expansion, or structural alterations to this existing legal non -conforming structure. The existing site of the proposed project is within the Unlimited Commercial (C=3)+nlu4 Zone:. The site's existing architecture, construction materials, and colors are consistent and compatible with the surrounding commercial sites. The operating characteristics will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity; as conditioned through the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review process. (h) 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. As referenced in Item (g) above, the proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a'total seating of six at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval require. revision, the use does not alter the physical appearance of the structure or the commercial center in which the use is located except for the .. parking requirements. Although this is an existing development, the -proposed project would. be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed use. The original project was approved in 1998 and is -considered a legal nonconforming structure because it does not meet today's Development Code Standards. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.03OD(2)(c),` nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to be occupied by new allowed uses provided that the new use will be underparked by 25>percent `or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traffic engineer based' on site observations, Development Code parking standards, the uses, hours 'M of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The Analysis substantiates the request to remove 6 t ",,7P fi .v,. Condition 5(c) of t` e original approval that € required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that the current. " 42 -spaces on -`site are adequate quate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. Therefore, the 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 (i) Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located: Though this is an existing facility needing no construction permits or additional Business License applications, the Shared Parking Analysis Reports and the operational conditions listed within.thi.s. resolution will ensure that the facility will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, of the City. (j) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) _. The -environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines -of theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15301(e) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW (k)' -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 specialized`'area (e.g., theme areas', specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments). The proposed -project complies with the elements of the adopted General Plan of July 25<, 1995, which 7 has a land use designation of, General Commercial (C). As referenced in Item (g) above, the proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a total seating of six at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development `Review approval require revision, the use does not alter the physical appearance of the structure or the commercial center in which the use is located except for the parking requirements. Although this is an existing development, the proposed project would be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed use. The original project was approved; in 1998 and is considered a legal nonconforming structurebecause it does not meet today's- Development Code Standards. Pursuant to Development .Code Section - T 22.68.03OD(2)(c), nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to be -occupied by new allowed uses provided that the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more.and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis' for the subject site ,by a registered traffic engineer based on site observations, Development Codeparkingstandards, the uses, hours of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The Analysis substantiates the request to remove Condition 5(c) of the original approval that required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that the current - 42 spaces on-site are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. Therefore,- the design and layout of the proposed development is cons tent with the. General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and there are no architectural criteria for specialized area. (1) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring 'existing or; future development, and h1? will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. } 8 The project site was previously approved < by the Planning Commission Resolution No 98-21. The ! proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables, and chairs for a total seating of six at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval- require revision, the use does not alter the physical appearance of the structure or the commercial center in which the use is located except for the parking requirements. Although this is an existing development, the proposed project would be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed use. ,The original project was approved in 1998 and is considered a legal nonconforming structure because it does not meet today's Development Code Standards. -Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.030D(2)(c), nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to.be occupied by new allowed uses provided that the new use will be underparked by 25 percent ormore and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traffic engineer based on site observations, Development Code parking standards, the uses, hours of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The Analysis substantiates the request to remove Condition 5(c) of the original approval that required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that the current 42 spaces on-site are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed use will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. (m) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the ' surrounding neighborhood and will Maintain the 9 (n) harmonious, orderly and attractive development i contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines,or any applicable specifichlll(a plan. The proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs fora total seating of six at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval require revision, the use does not alter the physical appearance of the structure or the commercial center in which the use is located except for the parking requirements. Although this is an existing development, the proposed project would be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to, serve the proposed use. The original ;project 'was approved in 1998 and is considered a`legal nonconforming structure because it does not meet today's Development= Code ` Standards. PursuanttoDevelopment Code Section 22.68.030D(2)(c),' nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to be occupied by new all uses provided that the new y use will be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study, has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces., The Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traffic engineer based on site observations, :... Development Code parking standards, the uses,-hours of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The Analysis substantiates the request to -remove Condition 5(c) of the original approval that required the owner to.obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Ana that the current l sis also, substantiates Analysis 42 spaces on are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use., (n) 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. 10 The 'project site was' '`previously approved by the f.. Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21. The proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a total seating of six at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval require revision, the use does not alter the physical appearance of the structure or the commercial center in which the use is located except for the parking requirements. Although this is :an existing development, the proposed project would be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities, are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed use. The original project was approved in 1998 and is considered a legal, nonconforming structure because it does` not meet today's Development Code Standards. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.030D(2)(c), nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to be occupied by new allowed uses provided that the new use will be underparked.by 25 percent or_more>and.a.- parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traffic engineer based on site observations, Development Code parking standards, the uses, hours of operation," and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The Analysis substantiates the request to remove Condition 5(c) of the original approval that required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that the current 42 spaces on-site are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. (o)- The proposed` project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative' affect on property values or -resales) of property) to the properties or improvements' in the vicinity. Though this is an existing facility needing no construction permits or additional Business License applications, the Shared Parking Analysis Reports 11 and the -operational conditions listed within this resolution will ensure that the facility will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare,: of the ;City. (p) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality _Act" of 1970 (CEQA)`, Section 15301(e). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, and floor plan collectively labeled as ed to �� , Exhibit "A.dated January 9, 2001, as submitted approved, and amended herein by the Planning �d Commission. (b) The existing parking lot shall maintain a minimum of I, 42 spaces-. (c1 Curb, pavement, or bumper markings for specific f l businesses on-site shall be removed and remain free of restrictions to parking except for ADA requirements. I,• (d) Togo's shall be allowed tables and chairs for a total seating of ix for indoor restaurant use..,. (e) All on-site trash containers shall be emptied daily, except on Sunday; for the large _commercial unit behind the trash enclosure. (f) A total of three sidewalk trash receptacles with ashtrays shall be placed on the sidewalk, one each in front of Togo's entrances- and another near Starbucks. (g) Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.76.020, the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to periodic review by the Planning Commission. If non- compliance with conditions of approval occurs, the Planning Commission may review the Conditional Use be conditions may operational co nal o Y and additional A Permit ito revoked. added dorr I� 12 (h) Planning Commission Resolution- No. 98`-21 shall be retained in its, entirety excepting Condition 5(c), i which is null and void and as amended herein. (i) This grant is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercised (i.e., construction) within that period or this grant shall 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 will consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the city of Diamond Bar Development Code_ (j) This grant 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 approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are awareand agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing,fees. (k) 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 to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, it 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 Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. 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 J. Coleman Trust, 12341 Oak Knoll Road, # B, Poway, CA 92064, and Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC, 1193 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 13 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9" OF JANUARY 2001, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. By: .(3e Steve Nelson, Chairman I, James DeStefano,, Planning Commission,, Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at'a regular meeting of -the Planning Commission held on the 9th 'day -of January, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, V/C Zirbes, Kuo,,Ruzicka, Chair Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERSc ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: a ATTEST: *Detefano, Secretary 4 t } 14 k LA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2001-02 A, RESOLUT ON OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-09(01), DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-11(1) AND CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, A REQUEST TO AMEND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-09 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 98-11 TO ACCOMODATE ON- SITE SEATING FOR TOGO'S LOCATED AT 1193 DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD (PARCEL 3 OF PARCEL MAP NO. 12738) DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. RECITALS 1. The property owner, J. Coleman Trust, and applicant, - Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC, have filed an application to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 198-09 and Development Review No. 98-11, herein referred to as Conditional Use Permit No. 98-09(1) and Development Review No. 98-11(1), for a property located at 1193 Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit and Development Review revisions, and Categorical Exemption, shall be referred to as the "Revised Application.,, 2. On October 13, 1998, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on Conditional Use Permit No. 98-9 and Development Review No. 98-11 and approved such per Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21. 3. On September 25, 2000, thirty-six property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified by mail. On September 29, 2000, notification of the public hearing for this project was made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers and -a --notice of public hearing on a display board was posted at the site and displayed for at least 10 days before the public hearing. Three other sites were posted within the vicinity of the application. 4. On October 10, 2000, and November 14, 2000, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed -public hearing on the Revised Application and continued the public hearing to January 9, 2001, and concluded the public hearing on January 9, 2001. B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The 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 determines that. the project identified above in this, Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Ouality Act of 1970 (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated thereunder. This is pursuant to Section 15301(e) of Article 19 of Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 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 wild life 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 upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission, hereby finds as follows: (a) The Revised Application relates to a previously approved Conditional Use Permit No. 98-09 and Development Review No. 98-11. This approval was toconstruct a 5,029 square foot addition to -an existing 5,380 square foot one-story commercial building at 1195 Diamond Bar Boulevard (Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 12738), Diamond Bar, CA. The project site is approximately 28,594 square feet at the corner of Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard, adjacent to (not a part of) a retail shopping -center identified as Diamond Bar Town Center. Hollywood Video, Starbucks Coffee, Cathay Bank and Togo's Delicatessen currently occupy the project site. The previous approval, Condition 5. (d), Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21, stated that additional uses based on occupancy shall not be permitted without a revision to the approved Conditional Use Permit. Currently, Togo's is- a' take out delicatessen and the addition of seating is considered a restaurant, an intensification of use. Therefore, the request is subject to both the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review revision. Additionally, the previous approval, condition 5.(c), Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21, required the owners to obtain — a reciprocal parking agreement with the adjacent shopping center. -Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.03OD(2)(c), the Applicant has had prepared by a licensed traf f is engineer and approved by the City's Traffic Engineer a Shared Parking Analysis based on site observations and Development Code parking standards and uses, that substantiates the request to remove Condition 5.(c) of the original approval that required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that the current 42 spaces on- site are adequate for themix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. (b) The General Plan Land Use designation is General Commercial (C). The project site is zoned Unlimited Commercial (C-3). (c) Generally, the following zones surround the subject site: to the north and west is the Unlimited Multiple Residence -Minimum Lot Size -8,000 Square Feet -25 Units Per Acre (R -3-8,000-25U) Zone and to the south and east is the Unlimited Commercial (C-3) Zone. (d) The revised application is a request to amend the. Conditional Use Permit No. 98- 9 and Development Review No. 98-11 by removing Condition 5(c) of the Planning- Commission Resolution No. 98-21 that required the owner to obtain a Reciprocal ParkingAgreement with the adjacent shopping center. It also is a request to approve an intensification of use of on-site seating of tables and chairs for a total seating of six at Togo's. CONDITIONAL USE (e) The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this Development Code and the Municipal Code. Pursuant to Table 2-6, Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements for Commercial/Industrial Zoning Districts, of the Development Code, a restaurant is permitted in the C-3 Zone. The request to add seating to the Togo's delicatessen is an intensification of an approved use. Therefore, it is subject to revision of both the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review. The original project was -approved in 1998 and is considered a legal nonconforming structure because it does not meet today -s Development - Code Standards. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.03OD(2)(c),- nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to be occupied by new allowed uses provided that,the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traf f is engineer based on site observations, Development Code parking standards, the uses, hours of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The Analysis substantiates the request to removeCondition- 5(c) of the original approval that required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also subst -antiates that the current 42 spaces on-site are adequate for the mix of uses and -the proposed intensification of use. As conditioned, the proposed use will comply with all other applicable provisions of this Development code and the Municipal (f) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and any The project site has a General Plan land use designation of General Commercial (C). Pursuant to the General Plan, this land use designation provides for regional, freeway oriented, and/or community retail and service commercial uses. The proposed project is considered a retail commercial use and as such is consistent with the General Plan. As there is no change to the site's exterior configuration, the current site's architectural style, construction materials and colors are consistent and compatible with the surrounding commercial sites. (g) The design, location, size and operating characteristics of the proposed use are compatible with the existing and future land uses in the -Vicinity. The proposed uses are within an existing legal nonconforming commercial center processed by the City of Diamond Bar and approved per Planning Resolution No. 98-21. The parking on-site does not meet the current requirements of the Diamond Bar Development Code for the proposed intensification of use of a restaurant. Therefore, the structure is considered a legal nonconforming structure, Also, the approved Resolution No. 98-21, Condition 5(d), requires revision to the approved Conditional Use Permit for additional uses. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.03OD(2)(c), nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to be occupied by new allowed uses provided that the new use will -be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The Applicant had prepared a - Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traffic engineer based on site observations, Development Code parking standards, the uses, hours of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The Analysis substantiates the request - to remove Condition 5(c) of the original approval that required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that the current 42 spaces on-site are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. M There are no changes, expansion, or structural alterations to this existing legal non -conforming structure. The existing site of the proposed project is within the Unlimited Commercial (C-3) Zone. The site's existing architecture, construction materials, and colors are consistent and compatible with the surrounding commercial sites. The operating characteristics will be compatible with the existing and future land uses in the vicinity as conditioned through the Conditional Use Permit and Development Review process. (h) 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. As referenced in Item (g) above, the proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a total seating of six at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval require, J revision, the use does not alter the physical appearance of the structure or the commercial center in which the use is located except for the parking requirements. Although this is an existing development, the proposed project would be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed use. The original project was approved in 1998 and is considered a legal nonconforming structure because it does not meet today's Development Co'de Standards. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.03OD(2)(c), nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to be occupied by new allowed uses provided that the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traffic engineer based on site observations, Development Code parking standards, the uses, hours of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The Analysis substantiates the request to remove Condition 5(c) of original approval that required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that the current 42 -spaces on-site are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. Therefore, the 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 (i) Granting the Conditional Use Permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or materially injurious to person, property or improvements in the vicinity and zoning districts in which the property is located. Though this is an existing facility needing no construction permits or additional Business License applications, -the Shared Parking Analysis Reports and the operational conditions listed within,this resolution will ensure that the facility will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, of the City. Q) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the guidel-ines,of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15301(e). DEVELOPMENT - (k) -The design and layout of the proposed development i s consistent with the General Plan, development standards- of- the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for specialized area (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments). The proposed'project complies with the elements of the adopted General has a land use designation of General Commercial (C). As referenced in Item (g) above, the proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a total seating of six at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval require revision, the use does not alter the physical appearance of the structure or the commercial center in which the use is located except for the parking -requirements. Although this is an existing development, , the proposed project would be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed use. The original project was approved in 1998 and is considered a legal nonconforming structure because it does not meet today's Development Code Standards. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.03OD(2)(c), nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to be occupied by new allowed uses provided that the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traffic engineer based on site observations, Development Code parking standards, the uses, hours of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The Analysis substantiates the request to removeCondition 5(c) of the original approval thatrequired the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that the current 42 spaces on-site are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. Therefore, the design and layout of the proposed development is consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and there are no architectural criteria for specialized area. 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 create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The project site was previously approved by the Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21. The proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a total seating of six at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review -approval require revision, the use does not alter the physical appearance of the structure or the commercial center in which the use is located -except for the parking requirements. Although this is an existing development, the proposed project would be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing -and are adequate to serve the proposed use. The original project was approved in 1998 and is considered a legal it does not meet today's Development Code Standards. -Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.03OD(2)(c), nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to be occupied by new - allowed uses provided that the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traffic engineer based on site observations, Development Code parking standards, the uses, hours of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The Analysis substantiates the request to remove Condition 5(c) of the original approval that required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that ' the current 42 spaces on -site -are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. Therefore, it is anticipated the proposed use will -not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring -existing or future development, and will not create traffic or (m) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the characteristics of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the (n) harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, City Design Guidelines, or any applicable specific plan. The proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a total seating of six at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval require revision, the use does not alter the physical -appearance of the structure or the commercial center in which the use is located except for the parking requirements. Although this is an existing development, the proposed project would be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed use. The original project was approved in 1998 and is considered a legal nonconforming structure because it does not meet today's Development Code Standards. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.03OD(2)(c), nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to be occupied by new allowed uses provided that the new use will be underparked by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traffic engineer based on site observations, Development Code parking standards, the uses, hours of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The Analysis substantiates the request to remove Condition 5(c) of the original approval that required the owner to.obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that the current 42 spaces on-site are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. (n) 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. The project site wag"—pireviously approved by the Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-21. The proposed project involves the intensification of use for tables and chairs for a total seating of six at the Togo's restaurant. Though the current Conditional Use Permit and Development Review approval require revision, the use does not alter the physical appearance of the structure or the commercial center in which the use is located except for the parking requirements. Although this is an existing development, the proposed project would be permitted with the appropriate approvals. Access for the site is existing and is adequate. Utilities are existing and are adequate to serve the proposed use. The original project was approved in 1998 and is considered a legal it does not meet today's Development Code Standards. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.68.03OD(2)(c), nonconforming structures with parking space deficiencies shall be permitted to be occupied by new allowed uses provided that the new use will be underparked,by 25 percent or more and a parking study has been prepared to determine the required number of parking spaces. The -Applicant had prepared a Shared Parking Analysis for the subject site by a registered traffic engineer based on site observations, Development Code parking standards, the uses, hours of operation, and peak hours of operation. The City's Traffic Engineer approved the Analysis. The Analysis substantiates the request to remove Condition 5(c) of the original approval that required the owner to obtain the Reciprocal Parking Agreement for the subject site. The Shared Parking Analysis also substantiates that the current 42 spaces on-site are adequate for the mix of uses and the proposed intensification of use. (o) The proposed project 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. Though this is an existing facility needing no construction permits or additional Business License applications, the Shared Parking Analysis and the operational conditions listed within this resolution will ensure that the facility will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, of the City. (p) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to -the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), Section 15301(e). 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to site plan, and floor plan collectively labeled as Exhibit "A".dated January 9, 2001, as submitted to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission. (b) The existing parking lot shall maintain a minimum of 42 spaces. (c) Curb, pavement, or bumper markings for specific businesses on-site shall be removed and remain free of restrictions to parking except for ADA requirements. (d) Togo's shall be allowed tables and chairs for a total seating of six -for indoor (e) All on-site trash containers shall be emptied daily, except on Sunday for the large commercial unit behind the trash enclosure. (f) A total of three sidewalk trash receptacles with ashtrays shall be placed on the sidewalk, one each in front of Togo's entrances and another near Starbucks. (g) Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.76.020, the Conditional Use Permit shall be subject to periodic review by the Planning Commission. If noncompliance with conditions of approval occurs, the Planning Commission may review the Conditional Use Permit and additional operational conditions may be added or revoked. 12 (h) Planning Commission I— olution No. 98-21 shall be retained in its entirety excepting Condition 5(c), which is null and void and as amended herein. (i) This grant is valid for two (2) years and shall be exercised (i.e., construction) within that period or this grant shall 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 will consider the extension request at a duly noticed public hearing in accordance with Chapter 22.72 of the city of Diamond Bar Development Code. Q) This grant 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 approval of this grant, 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 be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (k) 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 to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, it 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 Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. 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 J. Coleman Trust, 12341 Oak Knoll Road, # B, Poway, CA 92064, and Parker Holt -Doyle, LLC, 1193 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 13 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 9 th OF JANUARY 2001, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. rl"—' —4— 41A I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 9th day of January, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, V/C Zirbes, Kuo, Ruzicka, Chair Nelson NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ATTEST: 4mes—DSitef anc 14