Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC 2006-13PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION NO. 5.A(3) OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2005.60 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-01, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2004-19 AND VARIANCE NO. 2004-01 TO THE CITY COUNCIL. A. RECITALS The applicant, Michael McCarthy of Country Hills DB, LLC, has filed an application for a Modification to condition no. 5.A(3) of City Council Resolution No. 2005-60 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-01, Development Review No. 2004-19 and Variance No. 2004-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject request to modify the conditions of approval of City Council Resolution No. 2005-60 shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On March 17, 2006, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 332 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site. In addition, the project site was posted with a display board and the public notice was posted in three public places. Furthermore, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. 3. At the public hearing of March 28, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar reviewed the Application, received additional public testimony and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior 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: 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 upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above referenced meeting on March 28, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The Application applies to property generally located on the west side of Diamond Bar Boulevard between Fountain Springs Road and Cold Springs lane. The site is fully developed except for a small piece of graded pad at the north side of the site. (b) To the north and south of the property are existing single-family residential areas. To the west of the property are the existing Brea Canyon Channel and single family residential area. To the east of the property is an existing condominium complex. (c) The General Plan land use designation for the site is Commercial and the Zone is Community Commercial. (d) The Application is in conformance with the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines. (e) The Application will not be detrimental to the health, safety, orwelfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity. (f) The Application has been reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15070. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for the project on December 6, 2005. 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: Conditional Use Permit (a) The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with approval of a conditional use permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this development code and the Municipal Code. The proposed modification to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) will result in a change in the timing of the project construction schedule and will not the change the use as approved by City Council Resolution 2005-60. Therefore, the proposed modification is consistent with the subject zoning and complies with the zoning district and all other applicable provisions of the development code and Municipal Code. 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-13 (b) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposed modification to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) will result in a change in the timing of the project construction schedule and will not the change the use as approved by City Council Resolution 2005-60. Therefore, the proposed modification not affect the project's consistency with the General Plan and Development Code. (c) 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 modification to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) will result in a change in the timing of the project construction schedule and will not the change the use as approved by City Council Resolution 2005-60. Therefore, the proposed modification not affect the design, location, size and operating characteristics of the uses approved under City Council Resolution No. 2005-60. (d) The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and the absence of physical constraints. The proposed modification to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) will result in a change in the timing of the project construction schedule and will not the change the project approved by City Council Resolution 2005-60. Therefore, granting the modification not affect the physical suitability of the project for the proposed site. (e) Granting the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. Granting the modification will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. Granting this modification will improve the operation of the existing businesses by allowing them to relocate into the new two-story building while construction is taking place and will ensure that all of the project improvements approved under City Council Resolution No. 2005-60 will be completed in a timely manner. 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-13 (f) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the Californian Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 15070. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was previously approved by the City Council. The granting of the modification will not change the project description or cause additional environmental impacts over those reviewed in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. Development Review (g) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the general plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g. theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments). The proposed modification to City Council Condition no. 5.A(3) will not change the design and layout of the proposed project, the design of the facade for the existing buildings as approved under City Council Resolution No. 2005-60 and, therefore, is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines. (h) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The proposed modification to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) will result in a change in the timing of the project construction schedule and will not affect the design and layout of the project approved by City Council Resolution 2005-60. Therefore, the proposed modification will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. (i) The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this chapter, the general plan, or applicable specific plan. The proposed modification will not result in a change to the architectural design of the development project approved by City Council Resolution No. 2005-60. 4 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-13 (j) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environmental for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, textures and color and will remain aesthetically appealing. The proposed modification will not result in a change to the architectural design of the development project approved by City Council Resolution No. 2005-60. Therefore, the proposed modification will not conflict with the requirement to provide a desirable environment for occupants and visiting public. (k) The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed modification to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) will result in a change in the timing of the project construction schedule that will allow the continued operation of the existing on-site business with less disruption from the proposed construction. Therefore, the Proposed modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (I) The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 45070. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for the project on December 6, 2005, finding that with mitigation the project, with the implementation of mitigation measures, will not result in potentially significant impact to air quality, cultural resources, hazardous materials, noise and trafflc/transportation. The proposed modification will not change the approved project description or create additional environmental impacts. Variance (m) There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions), so that the strict application of the City's Development Code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards. 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-93 The proposed modification will result in a change in the timing of construction of the approved project and will not change the circumstances applicable to the site or the project description. Therefore, proposed modification will not be contrary to the finding that there are special circumstances applicable to the property as determined by City Council Resolution No. 2005-60. (n) Granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning districts and denied to the property owner for which the Variance is sought. The proposed modification will result in a change in the timing of construction of the approved project and will not change the project description. Therefore, proposed modification will not be contrary to the finding that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment e same t ial property rights possessed by other property th owners in the vicinity and zoning districts and denied to the property owner for which the Variance was granted. (a) Granting the Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed modification will result in a change in the timing of construction of the approved project and will not change the project description or the circumstances applicable to the site. Therefore, granting of the modcation sisternrt with helnot Geneecontrary to ral Plan.he area that the variance is con does not have a specific plan. (p) The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Approval of the Modification affects only the timing of the construction and not the circumstances which warranted the variance. Therefore, the proposed modification would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City because the proposed resoect is required compy with all lution and the assn anclrt ions within the approved resolution e is through the plan heck, permit and inspection process. (q) The proposed entitlement has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)15070. 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-13 A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for the project on December 6, 2005, tending that the project, with the implementation of mitigation measures, will not result in potentially significant impact to air quality, cultural resources, hazardous materials, noise and traffic/transportation. The proposed modification will not change the approved project description or create additional environmental impacts. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the following revision to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) approved under and subject to all of the other Special Conditions, Standard Conditions, and Mitigated in attached City Council Resolution No. 2005-60: A. General/Planning Division (3) The market building, the inline retail and restaurant buildings, and the drive-through cafe building shall be submitted for plan check prior to issuance of permits for the new two-story and three-story buildings. The market building, the inline retail and restaurant buildings and the drive-through cafe buildings shall be in substantial construction prior to release of occupancy of the new two-story building. Substantial construction shall mean tower elements are framed and ready for applying surface materials such as stucco and stone veneer. The market building shall be occupied and in operation and all site improvements completed prior to release of occupancy for the three-story building. 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: Country Hills, DB LLC, 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 214, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-13 APPROVED AND ADOPT OF THIS 8th DAY THE CITY OF DDIOAMO NOVEMBER, 2005, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY. L;0jo McManus, Chairman I, Na? Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resoi tion was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of March 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner: WINalson, F.-rerett, Lee, Yarm;, cnnirfYcMem s NOES: Commissioner: ABSENT: commissioner: o .p ABSTAIN: Commissioner None ATTEST: ricy Fonq, El. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2006-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A MODIFICATION TO CONDITION NO. 5.A(3) OF CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2005-60 APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2004-01, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2004-19 AND VARIANCE NO. 2004-01 TO THE CITY COUNCIL. A. RECITALS 1 The applicant, Michael McCarthy of Country Hills DB, LLC, has filed an application for a Modification to condition no. 5.A(3) of City Council Resolution No. 2005-60 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-01, Development Review No. 2004-19 and Variance No. 2004-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject request to modify the conditions of approval of City Council Resolution No. 2005-60 shall be referred to as the "Application." 2. On March 17, 2006, public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 332 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the project site. In addition, the project site was posted with a display board and the public notice was posted in three public places. Furthermore, notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. 3. At the public hearing of March 28, 2006, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar reviewed the Application, received additional public testimony and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior 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. 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 upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the above referenced meeting on March 28, 2006, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The Application applies to property generally located on the west side of Diamond Bar Boulevard between Fountain Springs Road and Cold Springs Lane. The site is fully developed except for a small piece of graded pad at the north side of the site. (b) To the north and south of the property are existing single-family residential areas. To the west of the property are the existing Brea Canyon Channel and single family residential area. To the east of the property is an existing condominium complex. (c) The General Plan land use designation for the site is Commercial and the Zone is Community Commercial. (d) The Application is in conformance with the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Design Guidelines. (e) The Application will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity. (f) The Application has been reviewed pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) section 15070. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for the project on December 6, 2005. 3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: Conditional Use Permit (a) The proposed use is allowed within the subject zoning district with approval of a conditional use permit and complies with all other applicable provisions of this development code and the Municipal Code. The proposed modification to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) will result in a change in the timing of the project construction schedule and will not the change the use as approved by City Council Resolution 2005-60. Therefore, the proposed modification is consistent with the subject zoning and complies with the zoning district and all other applicable provisions of the development code and Municipal Code. 2 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-13 (b) The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The proposed modification to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) will result in a change in the timing of the project construction schedule and will not the change the use as approved by City Council Resolution 2005-60. Therefore, the proposed modification not affect the project's consistency with the General Plan and Development Code. (c) 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 modification to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) will result in a change in the timing of the project construction schedule and will not the change the use as approved by City Council Resolution 2005-60. Therefore, the proposed modification not affect the design, location, size and operating characteristics of the uses approved under City Council Resolution No. 2005-60. (d) The subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of use being proposed including access, provision of utilities, compatibility with adjoining land uses and the absence of physical constraints. The proposed modification to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) will result in a change in the timing of the project construction schedule and will not the change the project approved by City Council Resolution 2005-60. Therefore, granting the modification not affect the physical suitability of the project for the proposed site. (e) Granting the conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. Granting the modification will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare, or injurious to persons, property, or improvements in the vicinity and zoning district in which the property is located. Granting this modification will improve the operation of the existing businesses by allowing them to relocate into the new two-story building while construction is taking place and will ensure that all of the project improvements approved under City Council Resolution No. 2005-60 will be completed in a timely manner. 3 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-13 M The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the Californian Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 15070. A Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project was previously approved by the City Council. The granting of the modification will not change the project description or cause additional environmental impacts over those reviewed in the approved Mitigated Negative Declaration. Development Review (g) The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the general plan, development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g. theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments). The proposed modification to City Council Condition no. 5.A(3) will not change the design and layout of the proposed project, the design of the facade for the existing buildings as approved under City Council Resolution No. 2005-60 and, therefore, is consistent with the General Plan, Development Code and Design Guidelines. (h) The design and layout of the proposed development will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. (i) The proposed modification to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) will result in a change in the timing of the project construction schedule and will not affect the design and layout of the project approved by City Council Resolution 2005-60. Therefore, the proposed modification will not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by this chapter, the general plan, or applicable specific plan. The proposed modification will not result in a change to the architectural design of the development project approved by City Council Resolution No. 2005-60. 4 Planning Commission Resolutlon No. 2006-13 G) The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environmental for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, textures and color and will remain aesthetically appealing. The proposed modification will not result in a change to the architectural design of the development project approved by City Council Resolution No. 2005-60. Therefore, the proposed modification will not conflict with the requirement to provide a desirable environment for occupants and visiting public. (k) The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious (e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property) to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. (I) Variance (m) The proposed modification to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) will result in a change in the timing of the project construction schedule that will allow the continued operation of the existing on-site business with less disruption from the proposed construction. Therefore, the proposed modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 15070. A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for the project on December 6, 2005, finding that with mitigation the project, with the implementation of mitigation measures, will not result in potentially significant impact to air quality, cultural resources, hazardous materials, noise and traffic/transportation. The proposed modification will not change the approved project description or create additional environmental impacts. There are special circumstances applicable to the property (e.g., location, shape, size, surroundings, topography, or other conditions), so that the strict application of the City's Development Code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which makes it obviously impractical to require compliance with the development standards. 5 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-13 The proposed modification will result in a change in the timing of construction of the approved project and will not change the circumstances applicable to the site or the project description. Therefore, proposed modification will not be contrary to the finding that there are special circumstances applicable to the property as determined by City Council Resolution No. 2005-60. (n) Granting the Variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning districts and denied to the property owner for which the Variance is sought. The proposed modification will result in a change in the timing of construction of the approved project and will not change the project description. Therefore, proposed modification will not be contrary to the finding that the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning districts and denied to the property owner for which the Variance was granted. (o) Granting the Variance is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. (p) (q) The proposed modification will result in a change in the timing of construction of the approved project and will not change the project description or the circumstances applicable to the site. Therefore, granting of the modification will not be contrary to the finding that the variance is consistent with the General Plan. The project area does not have a specific plan. The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City. Approval of the Modification affects only the timing of the construction and not the circumstances which warranted the variance. Therefore, the proposed modification would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City because the proposed project is required to comply with all conditions within the approved resolution and the assurance is through the plan check, permit and inspection process. The proposed entitlement has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 15070. 6 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-13 A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved for the project on December 6, 2005, finding that the project, with the implementation of mitigation measures, will not result in potentially significant impact to air quality, cultural resources, hazardous materials, noise and traffic/transportation. The proposed modification will not change the approved project description or create additional environmental impacts. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of the following revision to City Council Condition No. 5.A(3) approved under and subject to all of the other Special Conditions, Standard Conditions, and Mitigated in attached City Council Resolution No. 2005-60: A. General/Planning Division (3) The market building, the inline retail and restaurant buildings, and the drive-through cafe building shall be submitted for plan check prior to issuance of permits for the new two-story and three-story buildings. The market building, the inline retail and restaurant buildings and the drive-through cafe buildings shall be in substantial construction prior to release of occupancy of the new two-story building. Substantial construction shall mean tower elements are framed and ready for applying surface materials such as stucco and stone veneer. The market building shall be occupied and in operation and all site improvements completed prior to release of occupancy for the three-story building. The Planning Commission shall: (a) (b) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Country Hills, DB LLC, 9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 214, Beverly Hills, CA 90212. 7 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2006-13 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 8th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2005, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. ob McManus, Chairman I, Narqft Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 28th day of March 2006, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioner: vC/Nelson, Everett, Lee, Torng, Chair/3ff.cManun NOES: Commissioner: Note ABSENT: Commissioner: Note ABSTAIN: Commissioner: None ATTEST: 8