Loading...
CC - 2005-42 - Approving Design Review 03-11000 0• RESOLUTION 2005-42 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 03-110 FOR EXTERIOR FAQADE AND LANDSCAPING RENOVATIONS, AND DENYING ZONE VARIANCE 05-328 FOR CONVERSION OF LAND USE NYITHIN A CENTER FROM COMMERCIAL BANK TO COMMERCIAL FOOD ESTABLISHEMENT FORA LEGAL, NON-CONFORMING SHOPPING CENTER WITH LESS THAN THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS; LOCATED AT 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE CBD-D (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN 5391-009-002). WHEREAS, on October 23, 2003, Eric Lee of DC Universal, LLC, filed an application for a Design Review for exterior facade renovations and on March 3, 2005, Eric Lee of DC Universal, LLC filed an application for a zone variance including the conversion of existing vacant office space into restaurant use with less than the required amount of parking; WHEREAS, on August 15, 2005, the Rosemead Planning Commission approved Design Review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328 and thereafter adopted Resolution 05-41 making findings and determinations with regard to the approvals; WHEREAS, on August 24, 2005, Bob Nguyen of Universal Square Shopping Center, the adjacent land owner filed an appeal of the Planning Conunission approval of Designs Review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328; WHEREAS, this property located at 8855 Valley Boulevard is located in the CBD-D (Central Business District with a Design Overlay) zone; WHEREAS. Section 17.72.050 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) provides the purpose and criteria for a design review; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.72.070 of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorizes the City Council to approve, disapprove. or modify the decision of the Planning Conmiission, and its decision shall be final on design review applications; and WHEREAS, Section 17.72.0 10 of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) states that design review procedures shall be followed for all improvements involving visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior facade or landscaping. so N Section 17.72.050 provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission and on appeal the City Council may approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application: • The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed stricture and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood; • The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the mamrer in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas; • The proposed structure or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value; • The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style; The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, - and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. WHEREAS, an applicant must obtain a variance in order to create a development that does not meet the minimum standards. Section 17.108.020 sets criteria required for granting such a variance. If one of these criteria cannot be met, then the variance may not be granted. These criteria require that granting such a variance will not: • Constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity; • Be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity; • Adversely affect the comprehensive general plan; and 0 That because of special circumstances, the strict enforcement of the code would 00 •0 deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classifications. WHEREAS, on October 13, 2005, 26 notices were sent to property owners within a 300-foot radius from the subject property, in addition to notices posted in 8 public locations, specifying the availability of the application, plus the date, time and location of the public hearing for Design Review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328 APPEAL; - WHEREAS, on October 25, 2005, the City Council held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328 APPEAL; and J WHEREAS, the Rosemead City Council has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofRosemead as follows: SECTION l . The City Council HEREBY DETERMINES Design Review 03-110 and Zone Variance 05-328 are entitled to a Class 1 and Class 3 Categorical Exemptions pursuant to Section 15301 (e) and 15303(c) of CEQA Regulations. Section 15301 (e) and Section 15303(c) and local environmental guidelines exempt projects that consist of additions to existing structures and the construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, including but not limited to the construction of up to four (4) such commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant'amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive SECTION 2. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify approving Design Review 03-1 10 according to the Criteria of Chapter 17.108.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed structure and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. FINDING: The subject site is located within the Universal Square Shopping Center. The center includes the Post Office, Universal Bank Building, additional retail and commercial uses. The proposed design will not change the overall character of the building configuration. B. The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. FINDING: Staff has incorporated conditions designed to protect the surroundingproperties N 00 from noise, vibrations and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment. Storage areas for trash and mechanical areas have been adequately screened. C. The proposed structure or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing building or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: The proposed new exterior will provide a new architectural style and color scheme. The new exterior renovations will also give an aesthetically pleasing view from Valley Boulevard and Ivar Avenue as well as other surrounding properties. Landscaping, signage, and building facades will be upgraded to a modern design theme. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size or style. FINDING: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan in that it calls for the upgrading of commercial uses by implementing architectural and design reviews of proposals for projects. The proposed new exterior will provide a clean, modern architectural style and color scheme and an aesthetically pleasing view from Valley Boulevard as well as other surrounding properties. The project is adjacent to the Civic Center area and the architectural treatments in the design have incorporated stone veneer, water fountain and pond features, extensive new landscaping treatments and a variety of architectural details including trellis systems, new hardscape and outdoor patio areas. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved. FINDING: The site is designated in the General Plan for Commnercial and on the zoning map, it is designated as CBD-D, Central Business District with a Design Overlay. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: Staff has worked extensively with the applicant to develop a plan that improves functional aspects like loading, unloading and traffic circulation and also improves the appearance of the operation. SECTION 3. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do not exist to justify approving Zone Variance 05-328 according to the Criteria of Chapter 17.108.020 of the Rosemead Municipal Code as follows: A. The project does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity. FINDING: Other restaurant uses within the CBD zone have similarily been granted variances for minimum number of parking stalls. B. The project will not be materially detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. FINDING: The proposal which includes a re-design of the main entry along Valley Boulevard to add an additional row of angled stalls within this area presents detrimental property impacts to the adjacent center owner. These areas include portions of the shopping center parking lot that have existing reciprocal parking agreements recorded on the deeds to the properties. The property owners should seek a joint effort for improvement of the shopping center and maximization of parking. C. The project will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. FINDING: The proposed project is in accordance with the General Plan which designates the site for Commercial use. Restaurant and coffee shop uses are consistent with commercial land uses D. That because of special circumstances, the strict enforcement of the code would deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zone classification. FINDING: The property owner has not met parking requirements for conversion of the bank use into a restaurant use. However, other restaurant uses within the CBD zone have been granted variances for a minimum number of parking stalls. SECTION 4. The City Council HEREBY UPHOLDS THE APPROVAL of Design Review 03-110 to allow exterior renovations of the exterior building fagade, new landscaping materials and the addition of water fountains, trellis' and a new color scheme, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 5 The City Council HEREBY DENIES Zone Variance 05-328 for change of land use with a legal, non-conforming shopping center with less than the minimum number of required parking stalls, SECTION 6 The denial of Zone Variance 05-328 is without prejudice to the applicant refilling for approval of a variance in conjunction with the adjacent property owner and application fees will be waived. SECTION 7. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the City Council on October • • 25, 2005, by the following vote: YES: IMPERIAL, TAYLOR and CLARK NO: NUNEZ,TRAN ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE 00 SECTION 8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant, the appellant and the Rosemead Planning Department. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 22nd day of November, 2005. y T. Imperial, Ma r i! STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES CITY OF ROSEMEAD SS. I, Nina Castruita, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2005-42 being: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 03-110 FOR EXTERIOR FAQADE AND LANDSCAPING RENOVATIONS, AND DENYING ZONE VARIANCE 05-328 FOR CONVERSION OF LAND USE WITHIN A CENTER FROM COMMERCIAL BANK TO COMMERCIAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENT FOR A LEGAL, NON- CONFORMING SHOPPING CENTER WITH LESS THAN THE MINIMUM NUMBER OF REQUIRED PARKING STALLS; LOCATED AT 8855 VALLEY BOULEVARD IN THE CBD-D (CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH A DESIGN OVERLAY) ZONE (APN 5391-009-002). was duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead City Council on the 22nd of November 2005, by the following vote to wit: YES: CLARK, IMPERIAL, NUNEZ, TAYLOR, TRAN NO: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE 0-'(1kSA11itL Nina Castruita City Clerk