The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About21) 8A Modification of an approved CUP to allow exterior improvements for a new restaurant located at 9055 Las Tunas Drive, 105AGENDA ITEM 8.A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: TO: FROM: MEMORANDUM June 7, 2016 The Honorable City Council Bryan Coo k, City Manager Via : Michael D. Forbes , Community Development Director ?M{ Scott Reime rs, Planning Manager By : Adam Gulick , Associate Planner SUBJECT: MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR A NEW RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 9055 LAS TUNAS DRIVE, #1 05 RECOMMENDATION: The City Council is reques ted to : 1. Open the public hearing ; 2 . Accept public testimony from applicant and members of the public ; and 3. Adopt Resolution No . 16-5170 (Attachment "A ") finding that the proje ct is exempt from the California Env i ronmental Quality Act (C EQA) and denying the re q uest to mod ify Fi le No . 15-266 . SUMMARY: The City Council is requested to consider a recommendation from the Planning Commission to deny a request for a restaurant to make exterior modifications for its storefront in the Camellia Square shopping center. The requested improvements include using a different material (brick veneer) and installing an additional s ign that is not perm itted by the shopping center's master s ign program and prohibited by the City's Zon ing Code . The applicant has indicated that the proposed imp rovements are cons istent with their corporate identity. The Planning Commission staff report (Attachment "B") includes graphics showing th e proposed chang es . City Council June 7, 2016 Page 2 of 5 BACKGROUND: 1 . On July 6 , 2015 , the applicant submitted an application to establish a new restaurant. 2 . On August 4 , 2015, the application was deemed complete . 3 . On August 12, 2015 , notice of the Planning Commission meeting was published in the newspaper and notices were sent to the property owners within 500 feet of the property. 4 . On August 25 , 2015 , the Planning Commission held the public hearing to consider the application . The Planning Commission received the report from staff, heard from the appl icant , and took testimony from the public . The Planning Comm ission approved the conditional use permit to establish the restaurant with the exception of the exterior modifications . The exterior of the business is regulated by a separate conditional use permit for the entire center, as previously approved by the City Council. That conditional use permit is the subj ect of th is report . 5. On December 8, 2015, the City received an application request ing to mod ify the approved conditional use permit for the shopping center. 6 . On February 9 , 2016 , the application was deemed complete . 7 . On February 25, 2016, notice of the Planning Commission meeting was published in the newspaper and notices were sent to the property owners within 500 feet of the property . 8. On March 8, 2016, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the application . The Plann ing Commission continued the public hearing due to the applicant submitting additional information the day of the meeting . The item was continued to the April12 , 2016 , Planning Commission Meet ing . 9 . On March 30 , 2016 , notice of the continued item before the Planning Commission was published in the newspaper and notices were sent to the property owners within 500 feet of the property. 10 . On April 12 , 2016 , the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the application . The Planning Commission received a report from staff, heard from the applicant, and took testimony from the public (Attachments "8 " and "C"). The Plann ing Commiss ion unanimously recommended that the City Council deny the applicant's request to modify the approved conditional use permit to allow for e xterior changes to their storefront. City Council June 7 , 2016 Page 3 of 5 11 . On May 20 , 2016 , the public hearing notice of the City Counci l appeal hea ring on this matter was mailed to the property owners within 500 feet of the property . Notice of the public hearing was also published in the Temple City Tribune and posted at the City Council Chambers . ANALYSIS: A condit ional use permit allows the City to analyze potential issues pertain ing to a project and to minimize or eliminate the impacts through conditions of approval. The following is a detailed analysis of the aesthetics for the requested exterior improvements . Unified Storefronts In 2011, the City Council approved the shopping center with Spanish and Mediterranean architectural elements . The buildings featured rich -toned colors , red tile roof, decorative stone veneer , metal canopies , arched window openings , and colonnade features . The City and the property owner d id not anticipate that businesses would request to make exterior improvements to individual storefronts, as nearly all new businesses located in a shopping center generally install a sign and construct interior improvements . When the applicant submitted the appl ication to establ ish the food and drink establishment last year, the proposed exterior improvements did not match the architectural style of the shopping center. Their application originally included a gray brick veneer for the full height of the wall facing Las Tunas Drive , a large red hanging lantern , a large window d isplaying art , a faux door adjacent to the main entrance, a large six-foot by six-foot decorative tile , etc . The applicant has scaled back the improvements from the original proposal and has even provided alternative colors for the stone veneer that better complement the shopping center (Attachment "D"). The brick veneer has been revised to 26 inches wide on both sides of the front entrance and five feet s ix inches above the entrance . The applicant has been responsive by choosing colors that better complement the buildings in the shopping center , the underlying issue rema i ns that this storefront w ill be the only tenant in Building 1, and the shopping center, that will have a unique storefront. There are 13 storefronts along this elevation and having only one storefront with the proposed improvements will look out of place . Furthermore , allowing one storefront to do improvements could set a precedent for other business owners seeking to customize their storefront. This could result in the shopping center having a conglomerate of materials (i.e ., stone veneer) and colors , and the shopping center would start to lose its architectural style . There is no objection to the proposed storefront improvements (with the exception of the add itional sign) and such improvements would be approved if they were on a standalone building that was not part of a shopp ing center. City Counci l June 7 , 2016 Page 4 of 5 Additional Sign The app li cant is also requesting an 18 inch tall by six-foot wide sign above the front entrance . The applicant is essentially requesting to have two signs along the same street frontage . Firstly , the sign is not an approved location per the master sign program for the shopping center. The applicant is proposing the sign to be consistent with their corporate identity ; however, the shopp ing center has a master sign program . The purpose of a master sign prog ram is to prov ide harmony amongst the signs on a building with multiple tenants and throughout the cen te r. If each tenant were allowed to install multiple signs on the same elevation it could result in sign clutter , especially if each tenant applies for an additional sign . Secondly , the proposed sign is not in compliance with the City 's Municipal Code , Section 9-1 L-6 (Commercial and Industrial Signs). Both regulat ions specify that one sign is allowed per street or parking frontage , plus one additional sign on the side or rear of a building . The applicant would need approval of a variance (exception from the code) for the add itional s ign since the City 's development standards only allow one sign per storefront. A variance requires findings necessary in order to grant an exception to the code . The required findings relate to a property having a special circumstance (e .g . irregular shaped lot, undersized lot , or topography) making it difficult to develop under the standard regulations . Allowi ng for a variance for an additional sign would create precedent for not only the shopping center, and for all commerc ial and industrial properties in the City. Conclusion The appl icant's proposed improvements are intended to be consistent with their corporate identity. The proposed improvements , with the exception of the additional sign , would be approved if they were on a standalone building . However, the shopping center was approved with Spanish and Med iterranean elements and provided no d i rection relating to individual exterior storefront mod ifications , and only one storefront with modifications will look out of place . Furthermore , based upon the fact the additional sign is not in compliance with the master sign program for the shopping center and is not in compliance with the C ity's Zoning Code staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 16-5170 denying the request to modify File No. 15-266. CITY STRATEGIC GOALS: Upholding the Planning Commi ssion 's decis ion and denyi ng the request for exte rior improvem ents will further the City's Strategic Goal of Quality of Life . City Coun cil June 7, 2016 Page 5 of 5 FISCAL IMPACT: This item does not have an impact on the Fiscal Year 2015-16 City Budget. ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolut ion No . 16-5170 B. Plann i ng Commission Staff Report and Attachm e nts , April12 , 20 16 C. Draft Planning Comm ission Minutes , A pr il12, 2016 D. Reduced Plans and Elevations ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO. 16-5170 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DENYING A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (FILE NO . 15-266) BY ALLOWING EXTERIOR MODIFICATIONS FOR A UNIT IN THE CAMELLIA SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER . THE UNIT IS LO CATE D AT 9055 LAS TUNAS DRIVE , UNIT 105 . THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TEMPLE CITY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE : SECTION 1. The City Council has considered all of the evidence submitted into the admin istrative record , wh ich i ncludes , but is not limited to : 1. Reports and presentatio n of project related data and analysis prepared by the Commun ity Development Department. 2 . The City of Temple City Municipal Code , and all other applicable regulations and codes . 3 . Public comments , written and oral, received and/or submitted at or prior to the public hearing , supporting and/or opposing the appli cant's request. 4 . Testimony and/or comments from the app licant and its rep re sentatives submitted to the City in both written and oral form at or prior to the public hearing . 5 . All re lated documents received and/or subm itted at or prior to the public hearing . SECTION 2. Based on the following prefacing facts as more fully set forth in the administrative record , the City Council finds that: 1. On July 6 , 2015 , the applicant subm itted an appl icat ion to establ is h a new restaurant. 2 . On August 4 , 2015 , the application was deemed complete . 3 . On August 12, 2015 , notice of the Planning Commission meeting was published in the newspaper and notices were sent to the property owners within 500 feet of the property. 4 . On August 25 , 2015 , the Plann ing Commiss ion held the publ ic hearing to consider the appl ication . The Planning Commission re ce ived the report from staff, heard from the app li cant, and too k testimony from the public . The Planning Commission approved the cond itional use permit to establish the restaurant with the exception of the exterior modifications . The exte rior of the bus iness is City Counci l of the City of T em pie City Resolution No. 16-5170 June 7 , 2016 Page 2 regulated by a sepa rate conditional use permit for the entire center, as previously approved by the City Council. That conditional use permit is the subject of this report . 5. On December 8 , 2015 , the City received an application requesting to mod ify the approved conditiona l use permit for the shopping center. 6 . On February 9 , 2016 , the application was deemed complete . 7 . On February 25 , 2016 , notice of the Planning Commission meet ing was published in the newspaper and notices were sent to the property owners within 500 feet of the property . 8 . On March 8 , 2016 , the Planning Commission held a publ ic hearing to consider the application . The Planning Commission continued the public hearing due to the applicant submitting additional information the day of the meeting . The item was continued to the April12, 2016 , Planning Commiss ion Meeting . 9 . On March 30 , 2016 , noti ce of the cont inued item before the Planning Comm ission was published in the newspaper and notices were sent to the property owners within 500 feet of the property . 10 . On April 12 , 2016 , the Planning Commission held a public heari ng to consider the appl ication . The Planning Commission received a report from staff, heard from the applicant, and took testimony from the public . The Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council deny the applicant's request to mod ify the approved cond itional use permit to allow for exterior changes to their storefront. 11 . On May 26 , 2016 , the public hearing notice of the City Council appeal hearing on this matter was mailed to the property owners within 500 feet of the property . Notice of the public hearing was also published in the Temple City Tribune and posted at the City Council Chambers . 12. Notice of the public hearing satisfied the noticing requirements set forth in Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091. 13 . The project site is zoned C-2 , General Commercial. 14 . The project site is designated Commercial by the General Plan . City Counci l of the City of Temple City Resolut ion No . 16-5170 June 7, 2016 Page 3 SECTION 3. Based upon a public hearing for the modification of the conditional use permit , the City Council finds : 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, topography, and circumstances; and The subj ect site conta ins 81,469 square feet of building area on 159 ,521 square feet of land area . The request is to make exterior improvements for a commercial unit in a shopping center . There will be no changes to the bui lding area , off-street park i ng spaces , or driveways. Therefore , the project meets this finding . 2. That the site has sufficient access to streets and highways, adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed use; and The proposal is to make exterior improvements for a commercial un it in an approved shopping center. The request does not involve expanding the cond itionally permitted food and drink establ ishment. Furthermore , no changes are being requested to mod ify the street or driveways for the project. Therefore , the project meets this finding . 3. That the proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon the use, enjoyment or valuation of adjacent or neighboring properties or upon the public welfare. (Ordinance 92-724) The proposal to ma ke exterior improvements is not compatible with the approved Span ish and Mediterranean architectura l sty le of the shopp ing center. Alt hough the co lo rs of the additional brick veneer a re more compatible w ith the stone veneer on the colonnade , the issue remains that only one storefront would have improvements for Bu ild ing 1 (and for this shopping center). Furthermore , the proposed additional sign above the entrance is not a designated s ign area for the un it specified in the master sign program for the shopping center and is not co nsistent with the City 's Zoning Code . Allow i ng a tenant to place multiple signs on an e levation w ill resu lt in sign clutter. T herefore , the project does not meet this finding . SECTION 5 . This project is found to have no sign ificant effects upon the environment, and is Categorically Exempt from environmental review pursuant to §15301 (Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidel i nes. SECTION 6. According ly , the City Counc il den ies File 15-266 , a request to modify a conditiona l use permit to ma ke exterior improvements for one unit in a shopp ing center. City Cou ncil of the City of Temple City Reso lution No. 16-5170 June 7 , 2016 SECTION 7. The City Clerk sha ll certify to the adoption of this Resolut ion . PASSED , APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK Page 4 I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution , Resolution No. 16-5 170 , was adopted by the City Council of the City of Temple City at a regular meeting held on the 71h of June, 2016, by the follow in g vote: AYES : Council Membe rs : NOES : Council Members : ABSENT: Council Members : -------------~- Ap ri l 12, 2016 Item: 7B City of Temple City Planning Commission Sta ff Repo rt FILE : 15-266 ADDRESS: 9055 Las Tunas Dr ive, #10 5 ATTACHMENT B DESCRIPTION : A modification of a con d itional use permi t to allow exte ri o r improve ments arou nd the fro nt entrance facin g Las Tunas Drive. APPUCANT: Xianyi Ko ng (Business Owner) PROJECT PLANNER : Adam Gul ick, Associate Planne r ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project is exempt from t he Californ ia En vi ro n mental Qual ity Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facili t ies) of the California CEQA Guid elines. RECOMMENDATION : Adopt t he attached Resolutio n finding that the project is exempt from CEQA and recommending t hat the City Co u ncil deny the request t o mod ify Fi le 15-266. SUMMARY : Bistro Na, the tenant at 9055 Las Tunas Drive #lOS (Building 1 of the Camellia Square shopping center) is requ es t ing to modify t he exte rior of its storefront by adding bri ck venee r, a decorative meta l scree n, and an additional si g n. The reques t ed exterior changes are not in substa ntial conformance with t he approved plans for the project and therefore require a modification to the conditional use permit. Staff does not support the re q uest as it would crea t e a lack of un ity amongst the adjace nt storefronts and is archi t ecturally inco nsiste nt with the project. Further, the new si g n wou ld create sig n clutter and would be inconsistent with the master sign plan an d the Zoning Code . BACKGROUND: The Planning Commiss io n cont inu ed this item from its meeting o n March 8, 2016. On the day of t he meetin g, the applicant's designer submi t te d t wo additional co lo r an d materia ls boards in response to st aff's concern that t he proposed brick veneer did not complement t he style and co lor of the ledgestone at t he base of t he co lo nnade f o r Bui ldi ng 1. St aff req uested additio nal t ime to review the new information. The f ollowing report provi d es an analysis of t he colors and mate ri als submitted o n March 8, 2016. (See Figures 1 and 2 on the nex t page for the origi nal proposal an d an enlarged view of t he brick veneer.) April12, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Report -Item B Fi le: 15-266 Figure 1. Original Proposal. Option 1 ANALYSIS : Alternative Colors and Materials Figure 2. America na Concord Th e applicant's new co lor and material options (Figures 3, 4, 5, and 6) better complement t he building- particularly the b ui ldi ng color and the ledgestone -th an the origi na l submitta l (Fig ures 1 and 2). If t he cond itional use permit modification we re app roved, staff would prefer t he "Modena Cassis " brick veneer (Opti on 2); it better co mpl ements the building as it ha s a sim ilar color palette and a more natural look wi th rounded edges. See Figures 3 and 4 be low. Figure 3. A lternative Material/Color. Option 2 Figure 4. Modena Cassis Page 2 Apri l 12, 2016 Planning Com mi ssion Meeti ng Staff Report-Item B File: 15 -266 The "Tun dra Brick Riverbed " brick venee r (O ption 3) has harder co rn ers and does not ha ve as deep of a recess on the ve neer. See Figu r es 5 and 6 be low. Figure 5. Alternative Material/Co lor. Option 3 Figure 6. Tundra Brick Riverbed Unified Storefronts While staff appreciates the appl icant's res po nsiveness by choosi ng ne w co lors and materials which are an improvement from the o rigin al su bmittal, the under lyi ng iss u e remains that this st orefront wil l be the on ly tenant in Bu ildi ng 1 (an d the shoppi ng cen ter) that wi ll have a unique storefront. Th ere are 13 storefronts along this elevat ion and staff believes ha ving only one storef ro nt with th e proposed improvements wi ll look out of place (se e Figure 7 below). ' ' ~ru~~~oo~·-~~~~~A~~~---------(0 Figure 7. Bu ilding 1 Sout h El eva t ion Staff also researched similar shoppi ng cen t ers (with un iform architectural style) in adj acent communities (A rcadia, Ro semead, and Pa sadena) and found that nea rl y all of the shoppi ng ce nters of thi s scale ha ve matching storefronts w ith the exce ption of stores ha vi ng an awning or cano py with different colors . If the Pl anning Commission wants to entertai n the id ea of allowing storefront changes, staff recommen ds that eac h storefront be re quired to improve a spec ified area and use a pre-approve d material and color to ens ure architectu ral har m ony. Page 3 April12, 20 16 Planning Commission Meetin g Staff Re port-Item B File: 15-266 Sign The applicant is also re questing an additiona l sign above the entrance (see Figure 8 below), which is not an approved l ocation in the master sig n program for t he shopp i ng ce nter. St aff understands that the bu sines s owner wants to cre ate a cons istent co rporate identity by having a si gn above t he entrance, however t he shopping center has an approved ma ste r sign program. The purpose of the master sign program is to provide harmony amongst the signs on a building and throughout the center. Sign clutter woul d result if each tenant were allowed to have two si gns on the same eleva t ion. Furthermore, both t he City's Downtown Spec ific Plan and the Zo ning Code limit th e number of sig ns to o ne per storefront. Figure 8. Additi onal Sign Staff u nderstands th e desire to create a consistent corporate identity. Staff would have no objections to the improvements (with the exception of the sign) if they were o n a stand -alone buil d in g. Howeve r, the sho pping ce nter was approved w ith a uniform architectura l style, and allowing one t enant to cha nge the m aterial s o n thei r storefront would break up that uniformity and look out of pl ace. Although the alternative brick ve neer proposed by the applicant wo uld be more compatible w ith t he existing stone veneer and colors on Bu ild ing 1, staff believes that these materials would st ill be in consistent with the rest of the shoppi ng ce nter. RECOMMENDATION : Adopt the attac hed Reso lution finding t hat the project is exempt from CEQA and recommendi ng that the City Counc il deny File 15 -266, a request to modify a conditiona l use permit to make ex t erior modifications. Although t he Plann ing Commis si o n is typica ll y the final decision maker for co nditional use permits, thi s conditional use permit was ori g i nally approved by the City Counc il and t herefo re any mod ificat ions must also be approved by t he City Council. Page 4 Apri l12, 2016 Pla nni ng Commi ss i o n M ee t i ng Staff Repo rt -Item B File: 15-266 ATTACHMENTS : 1. Planning Com mi ss ion Resolution 16-24_ PC 2. Additional Elevations 3. Planning Com mi ss ion St aff Report and Attachments, March 8, 2016 Page 5 ---------~~~~~~~-- ATTACHMENT 1 m REVISED RESOLUTION • City of Temple City Resolution 16-24 PC File No . 15-266 905 5 Las Tunas Drive, #105, Temple City, California 91780 A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMPLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A REQUEST TO MODIFY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS AT 9055 LAS TUNAS DRIVE , #105 LOCATED IN THE CAMELLIA SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER. SECTION 1. Th e Planning Commiss io n ha s co nsid ere d all of the ev id ence subm itted into th e administrative re co rd w hi ch i ncludes but i s not l im ite d to: 1. Repo rts and prese ntatio n s of project related d ata and a nalysis prepared by the Community Development Department; and 2. Th e Te mple City Municipal Code, General Plan, Subdivision Map Act, and all ot he r app l ica bl e regul ati o n s and co d es; and 3. Public comments, both w ritten and o ral , received or subm itted at or prior to th e pub li c hearing; and 4. Te stimony and co mments submitted by the ap plicant and representatives in both written and oral fo r m at or prior to the public hea ring; and 5. All other related d ocuments re ce ived or su bm itted at or prior to the p ubl ic hearing. SECTION 2. Thi s re so lution is made with refere nce to the f o ll owing prefac ing fac t s as mo re fully set forth in the adm inistrative re co rd : 1. On Dece mber 8, 20 1 5, the appli ca nt su bmitted the application. 2. On February 9, 2016, the app l icatio n was deemed co m p lete. 3. Notice of th e Planning Comm iss io n pub l ic hearing was posted at th e Counc il Chambers. 4. Notice of th e Pl a nn ing Comm issio n pub l ic heari ng was published in a newspaper of general c irculation at least ten days p r ior to the hearing. Res olution No. 16-24_ PC File 15 -266 9055 Las Tunas Drive, #l OS Page 2 of 4 ·---------------- 5. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was mailed t o property owne rs with i n 500 feet of th e property at leas t ten days prior to the hearing. 6. On March 8, 201 6, the Planning Commission held a publi c hearing t o cons id er the application. The Planning Commis sion continued th e publi c hearing due t o th e app lican t submittin g additiona l information the day of the mee ting . The Planning Commission co ntinued th e ite m to the April 12, 20 16 Planning Comm issio n Meeting . 7. Notice of the April 12, 20 16 Pl anning Commissio n public hear ing was posted at the Co un cil Chambers. 8. Noti ce of the Planning Com mi ss io n public hea ring was mailed to property owners w ithin 50 0 f ee t of the property at leas t ten days prior to the hearing. 9. On April12, 20 16, the Planning Commiss io n held a publi c hea ring to consider th e app li cat io n. 10 . Notice of th e public hearings sat i sfi ed the noticin g requ irements set forth 1n Go ve rnment Code Sections 65090 and 6509 1. 11 . The project si t e is zone d C-2, General Commercial 12 . The project site i s designated Commercial by the General Plan. SECTION 3. Ba se d upon the informa tion above, the Planning Com missio n find s: 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, topography and circumstances; and The subj ect site contains 81,469 square feet of building area on 159,52 1 sq uare feet of lan d area. Th e reque st is to make exterior improve ments f or a commercial unit in a new shopping ce nter. Th erefo re, the proje ct meets thi s finding . 2. That the site has sufficient access to streets and highways, adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed use; and Resolution No. 16-24_ PC File 15-266 9055 Las Tunas Driv e, #lOS Page 3 of 4 The proposal is to make exterior improvements for a commercial unit in an approved sho pping ce nter. The request does not invo lve expanding the conditiona ll y permitted food and drink establishment. Th erefore, the project meets this finding . 3. That the proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon the use, enjoyment or valuation of adjacent or neighboring properties or upon the public welfare. {Ord . 92-724} The proposal to make exterior improve ments is not compatib le wi th the approved Mediterranean architectural sty le of the shopping ce nter. Although the additional brick veneer colors are more compatib le with the stone veneer on the colonnade, the issue remains that only one storefront wou ld have im provements for Bui ld in g 1 (and for this shopping center). Furthermore, the proposed additional sign above the entrance is not a des ign ated sign area for the unit spec ified in the master sign program for the shopping center and is not consistent with the City's Zoning Code. Allowing a tenant to p lace mu lti p le signs on an elevation will result in sign clutter. Therefore, the project does not meet this finding. SECTION 4. Thi s project is Categorica ll y Exem pt from env ironmenta l review pursuant to Section 15301 (Exist in g Facilities) of the Ca lifornia Environmenta l Quality Act Guidelines. SECTION 5. Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Counci l deny File 15 -266, a request to modify a conditiona l u se permit to make exterior improvements. SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Reso lution. Planning Commission Chair ------------~----~ Reso lut ion No. 16-24_ PC Fi le 15-266 9055 Las Tunas Drive, #105 Page 4 of 4 City Attorney I hereby ce rtify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Temp le City at a meeting held on th e 121h of April, 2016, by the following vote: YES : NO: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioner- Commissioner- Commissioner- Commissioner- Secretary ATTACHMENT 2 m ADDITIONAL BRICK VENEER OPTIONS ~~~ BRICK VENEER (j) COLOR: ELDORADO T1J NORA BRICK RIVERBED ORE.O . 1'5\ ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAME \b' COLOR: U.S. ALUMINUM CLASSIC BRONZE OR E.O. BISTRO NA 'S RES TA URANT ~ni~DL\'U ll).(PU,CTIY CA •1710 ltll @ LIGHTING FIXTURE HYDREL 4524 ACCENT LIGHTING OR E.O . JWDA-~1S ARCHITECTS 19U I:.MI~OI..t101 ~JrAtrno 1Ul~)zu..tl'l'il BRICK VENEER G) COLOR: ELDORADO TUNDRA BRICK RIVERBED OR E O. fi'i\ ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAME \6) COLOR: U .S . ALUMINUM CLASSIC BRONZE OR E.Q . BISTRO NA 'S RESTAURANT ~nt~BL\"0. TD4JILF nTY CA 91110 LIGHTING FIXTURE HYDREL 4524 ACCENT LIGHTING OR E.O. JWDA-MS ARCHITECTS 19Jll t.m.SIOtlo lJ't •lOt ao:So.cEAJ) CAtino 11_..1,._ (626) Zll-91119 ATTACHMENT 3 m PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AND~~~ ATTACHMENTS, MARCH 8, 2016 March 8, 2016 Item: 7B City of Temple City Planning Commission Staff Report FILE : 15-266 ADDRESS: 9055 La s Tuna s Drive, #lOS DESCRIPTION: A modification of a cond itional use perm it to allow exte rior i mproveme nts around the front entrance facing La s Tun as Dri ve. APPLICANT: Xiany i Kong (Bus i ness Owner) PROJECT PLANNER: Adam Gulick, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Th is project is exempt from the California Environmental Qua l ity Act (CE QA) pursuant to Section 15301 (Exis ting Faci l itie s) o f the California CEQA Guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolut ion findi ng that the project is exempt fro m CEQA and reco mmend ing that the City Counci l deny t he request to m o dify File 15 -266. SUMMARY: This appli cation's proposa l i s for exterior improvement s for an approved restaurant in the Camellia Square shop ping cente r. Th e proposed storefront improvements confl ic t with the approved arch it ectura l st yle f or t he shoppi ng ce nter. Thi s is cons idered a substantial cha nge to the approved shopping center, re quiring a modification o f the approved co nditi o na l use permit. In reviewing the application, staff ha s identified and ana lyze d the aesthetics of the requested improve ments. March 8, 2016 Planning Co mmission Meeting Staff Report -Item 7B File: 15-266, Modifica t ion of a Condit iona l Use Permit EXISTING CONDmONS: Cross Streets General Plan Designation Zoning Property Dimensions and Size Current Use & Square Footage Exist ing Entitlements Las Tu nas Drive and Rosemead Boulevard Commercial C-2, Ge neral Commercial 321 fee t on Rosemead Bou levard and 490 feet on Las Tunas Drive 3.7 Acres Shoppi ng center is sti ll under construction. Three of the buildings have an approved Certificate of Constructio n -a document acknowledging that the exterior wal l s, or shell , of a building is comp let e. Planning File 11-1178: A co nditional use permit for the Camellia Square shopping center. Plan ning Fi le 14-2 73: A mod ifi cation to the orig in al conditi onal use permit for the Camellia Square shopping center to expand the allowed square footage of food and drink establishments from 11,000 square feet to 27,34 5 square feet. Planning File 15 -266: A co nd itional use permit to establish a 7,110 squa re foot food and drink establishment at 9055 Las Tunas Drive, Un it 105 (Bistro N a). The approved hours of operation are se ven days a week from 11:0 0 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Existing Ea se ments None Street Cla ss ification and Width The main driveways to the property are from Rosemead Boulevard , which has 80 f eet of roadway, and Las Tunas Drive, w hich has 110 f eet of roadway, both of which are arteria l st r eets . Th e si te is also accesse d from Sultana Avenue, which has 30 feet of roadway. Surrounding North R-1, Single Family Re sidential Neighborhood South C-2, Gene ral Comm ercial East Gateway Commercial (GC) Di stri ct of the Downt own Speci fi c Plan West C-2, Ge nera l Commercial Page 2 Marc h 8, 2016 Planning Com m ission Meeting Staff Report -Item 78 File: 1 5-266, Mod ification of a Con ditional Use Permit PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION: 1. Proj ect Desc ription Th e applica nt is proposin g to modify the store front f or an app roved res t au rant in t he Camellia Sq uare sho p pi ng cen t er. Th e im provements includ e installi ng g ra y b rick veneer aro und t he entra nce, installing a ye ll ow/gold sign above t he entrance, and ins t alling a brown la ttice pa ne l wi t h a ci rcula r pattern above th e sig n. The applicant has in dicat ed t ha t the proposed improvement s are to be co nsiste nt with t heir co rporat e ide nti t y. See Figure 1 below for t he color ren dering of the proposed imp rovemen t s. Fi g ure 1. Proposed St o ref ron t I mprovements ANALYSIS: A co nd itional use pe rmit al lows t he City to analyze pote ntial issues pe rtai ni ng t o t he project a nd to mi nimi ze or el i m i nate t he i mpacts throug h conditions of approva l. The following i s a detailed analysis on t he critica l issues p e rtaini ng t o t he proposed u se: 1. Aes t hetics: I n 2011 , the City Cou nci l approved the sho p ping cen t er w it h Spa nish and Mediterranean arch itectu ral eleme nts. The bui ld in gs featu re rich -t o ned colors, red tile roof, deco rat ive st one veneer, meta l canopies, arched w indow open ings, and colon nade features. The City and t he property owner did not anticipate that busi nesses would reques t to make exterior improvements to thei r unit, as a majority of new bus i nesses in shopping cente rs ge nerally i nstal l a sign and cons t ruct i nt eri o r improvements. Pag e 3 March 8, 2016 Plann i ng Commi ssion Meeting Staff Rep ort -Item 78 File: 15-266, M o dificat ion of a Conditional Use Permit Wh en the app licant submitted the application to es tabl ish t he food and drink es tabl ishme nt la st yea r, staff expressed co nce rn s with the proposed ext erior improve ments not matching the architectu ra l sty le of the shoppi ng center. Thei r app lic ation incl uded brick veneer for the f ull height of the wa ll facing La s Tuna s Dr ive, a large red hang ing lantern, a large wi ndow displayi ng art, a fau x door adjace nt to the ma in en trance, a la rge six foot by six foot decorati ve t ile, etc. Although the exterior improve ments have bee n scaled back significantly, staff believes that the proposed exte rior improvements are still not compatib le w ith t he cen t er 's archi t ec t ural sty le incl ud ing the ap prove d co lo rs and materia ls of the shopping ce nter. The proposed gray brick veneer is a different color and material than what is used o n t he base of th e colonnade directly i n front of t he uni t. If each tena nt in the shopping ce nter were to ins tall t heir own mat eria ls (i.e ., stone ve neer) and co lors, the shop ping ce nter would start to lose its archit ect ural st yle and it wou ld turn into a potpourri of materials and co lors . Fu rthermore, ha vin g only o ne tenant with a st o refront i mprovement that incl udes different materials and signs w ill lo ok out of p lace wi th the rest of the tenants in the shopping cente r. A ma ste r sign prog ram crea t es a sta nd ard appea rance (e.g., indi vidual channe l letters) and locati o n (e.g., centered above the entrances) for all o f th e units in a shoppi ng cente r. Th e purpose of a master sign program for a shopping ce nter is to provide ha rmony amongst the signs o n the bu i ld ings and throughout the ce nter. Th e propose d ext eri o r improvements also request to have an additional sig n above th e entra nce. The sign above t he entrance is used at thei r ot her locations, w hich is part of t heir corporate identity. The applican t has indicated t ha t they will also in stall a sig n on the metal ca nopy, w hich is the uni t 's approved location per t he ma ster sig n program. St aff un derstands that the applicant is t ryi ng to be co nsistent with th eir corporat e id entity, b ut hav in g two signs for a bu siness along the same eleva ti o n is repe ti ti ve and would result i n a cluttere d -espec ially w hen other tena nts request the same permission. See Figure 2 on t he next page fo r the proposed and approve d sign locations. Figure 2. Proposed Sign Page 4 March 8, 2016 Pla n ni ng Commission Meeting Staff Report -I tem 7 B Fi le: 1 5-266, M odificat ion of a Cond i t iona l Use Pe rm i t FINDINGS: The findings required in Section 9-1F -ll of the Temple City Municipal Code for a conditional us e permit are contained in the atta ched resolution (Attachment 1). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Thi s project is exempt for the Ca liforn ia Environmental Qua lity Act (CEQA ) pursuant to Se cti o n 1530 1 (Existing Fac ilities) of the CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Exemption has been prepared and is attached (Attachment 4). RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached Resolu ti on finding that the project is exempt from CEQA and recommend i ng that the Ci t y Counc il deny File 15-266, a request to modify a conditional use permit to make exterior modifications. ATTACHMENTS : 1. Planning Commiss ion Resolution 16-24 _ PC 2. Reduced Plans and El evat io ns 3. Aerial and Site Photographs 4 . Land Use Map 5. Notice of Exemption Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1 m RESOLUTION Ill City of Temple City Resolution 16-24 PC File No. 15-266 9055 Las Tu nas Drive, #105, Temp le City, California 91780 A RESOLUTION OF THE TEMPLE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL DENY A REQUEST TO MODIFY A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS AT 9055 LAS TUNAS DRIVE, #105 LOCATED IN THE CAMELLIA SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER. SECTION 1. Th e Planning Commi ss io n has considered a ll of the evidence submitted into the adm i ni strative record w hi ch includes but is not limited to: 1. Repo rts and pre se ntations of project related data and an alysis prepared by the Community De ve lopment Department; and 2. Th e Temple City Municipal Code, Genera l Pl an, Subdivision Map Act, and a ll othe r applicab le regulations and co des; and 3. Publi c comments, both w ritten an d ora l, rece ived o r subm itted at or prior t o the public hearing; and 4. Te stimony and co mments submitted by the app l icant and rep rese ntatives in both written and oral form at o r prior to the public hea rin g; a nd 5. All o th e r related documen t s re ce ived o r submitted at or prior to the public h ea ring . SECTION 2. This re so lution is made with refer ence to the fo ll owing prefacing facts as more full y se t forth in th e adm in ist rative reco rd : 1. On De ce mber 8, 2015, the applicant submitted the app lication. 2. On February 9, 2016, the app lica tion was deemed complete. 3. On Marc h 8, 201 6, the Planning Comm iss ion held a public hea ring to consider the app li ca ti o n. 4 . Notice of t he Pl a nn ing Commission public hearing was posted at t he Co unci l Chambers. Res o luti on No. 16-24_ PC Fi le 15-266 9055 Las Tunas Drive, #lOS Page 2 of 3 5. Notice of the Plann ing Commission publ ic hearing was published in a newspaper of genera l circul ation at least ten days prior to the hearing. 6. Notice of the Planning Commission public hearing wa s mailed to property owne rs within 500 feet of the property at least ten days prior to the hea rin g . 7. Noti ce of the public hearing sat isfied th e noticing requirements set forth 1n Government Code Sec ti o ns 65 090 and 65091. 8. The project site is zoned C-2, General Commercial 9. The project site is designated Commercial by the General Plan . SECTION 3. Based upon th e informatio n above, the Planning Commis sion finds: 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size, shape, topography and circumstances; and Th e subj ect site co ntain s 81,469 sq u are feet of building area on 15 9,521 square fee t of la nd a rea . The request is to make exterior improveme nts f or a commercia l unit in a new shoppin g cente r. Therefore, the project meets this findin g . 2 . That the site has sufficient access to streets and highways, adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and quality of traffic generated by the proposed use; and The proposal is to make exterior imp ro vements for a commerc ial untt tn an approved shopp ing cen t er. Th e req uest does not in volve expanding the cond iti ona ll y permitted food and drink estab lishment. Therefore, the project meets this fi ndin g. 3 . That the proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon the use , enjoyment or valuation of adjacent or neighboring properties or upon the public welfare. (Ord. 92-724) The proposal to m ake ext erior i mprove ments is not compatible with the approve d Mediterranean ar chitectura l style of the shopping center. The proposed gra y co lor of the brick vene e r is not harmoniou s w ith the stone veneer on the columns of the Re so lution No. 16-24_ PC File 15-266 9055 Las Tunas Dri ve, #lO S Page 3 of 3 colonnade in front of the unit. Furthermore, the proposed sign i s not in the designated sign area for the unit specified in th e master sign program for the shopping center. Therefore, the project does not meet this finding. SECTION 4. Thi s project is Categorica ll y Exe mpt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the Californ ia Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. SECTION 5. According ly, the Planning Commi ss ion recommend s that the City Cou ncil deny Fi le 15 -26 6, a request to modify a co nditiona l use permit to make exte r io r modifica tion s. SECTION 6 . Th e Secretary sha ll certify to the ado ption of this Re so lution. Planning Commiss i on Chair City Attorney I hereby cert ify that the foregoing Reso l ution was ado pted by th e Planning Commission of the City of Temple City at a meeting h eld on the 81h of Ma rc h, 2016, by the follow ing vote: YES : NO: ABSEN T: ABSTAIN : Commissioner- Co mmissio ne r- Commissioner- Commissioner- Se c reta ry ________________________ A_T_T_A_C_H_M __ E_N_T __ 2 ~ REDUCED PLANS AND COLOR RENDERING ill PROJECT TIEAM Ol't!ER -~-Plt';:fiC, • .,.,.zs.:ma ARC-HITE(;T, ~~..--.~.~"0 _ .. ., ,..,_~at-, .... ~~.»~._ Pl!lOJECT SUMMARY 5c.OPE Of 1'\?RK L t!IWIT~t~~!OO.WI&~~ •LC!tTJ6 .............. 'fCD.M"'I~I'\WT.-t"~M~ ·~-GD.JolooNS-~'o'DUlt ,_ ~llfQ5fal~~ ·.O.U.~'UT'c)o:~·lM'tCI' ...... tfCU.~ ~L.IIft SHEIIT SCHEDUU! ARC-HI TEe; 1VRAL M 51T(P\.AN ,._, P.,Nr\tuVA'flOioi!VD~'nOIII VJ[CINIT'l{ MAll" ~, t ' --:- 1-r ·,.,.,.· JOB SITE ,. • .-" ·--t: __ { BISTRO NA'S RESTAURANT T.l. ~ 9055 lLA.§ 1I1I.JNA§ IDR #105 JPA.§AJDJENA CA. 9ll07 ·-· 4 oo~#~ · I ~ ~ I ~ -r- I ~ I L___ -5 C) ~ .'l ~ ~ ~ ~ ii1!l il ! ''I -• I il' i l l I ) SITE PLAN I . . I~ ~:-~ .... .~" --1 :· ~ A-1 - _ ..... ..: L TE_N_ANT--IM_PA_O_VE_ME_NT ___ _J ID NA'S I: I I ljl JWDA-MS Architects R..OOAPLAN ELEVATlON AND SECllON ::.r:::-.~ ...,., .. , ... ~-- f1\ 518" THIN BRICK VENEER W COLOR; PACIFIC CLAY CONCORO OR E.Q. r;;n ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAME 1.6/ COLOR; U.S. ALUMINUM BI STRO NA'S RESTAURANT $770 ROSOttAD lil..VO. n::;:..uou.CJTY.CA91110 CLASSIC BRONZE OR E .Q . @ LIGHTING F IXTURE HY OREL 4524 ACCENT LIGHTING OR E.Q. JWDA-MS ARCHITECTS 19lllMb~IONI>Il•IOI ltOSDtE.AD. CA 91770 IU. (626)211-9199 ATTACHMENT 3 m AERIAL AND SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ~~~ V IEW OF STOREFRONT FROM LAS TU NAS DRIVE CLOSE UP VIEW OF UNIT ENTRANCE V IEW FROM SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SHOPP ING CENTER ATTACHMENT 4 m LAND USE MAP ~~~ I-..... .... ._~,.-..... ATTACHMENT 5 m NOTICE OF EXEMPTION ~~~ To: SUBJECT: City of Templ e City NOTICE OF EXEMPTION X County Cle rk, Co u nty of Los Angeles 12400 Eas t I m peria l Highway, Room 120 1 Norwalk, CA 90650 Office of Plann ing and Research 1400 Tenth Street. Room 121 Sac rame nto , California 95814 FlUNG OF NOTICE OF EXEMPTION IN COMPLIANCE WITH Section 15062 of the Public Resources Code Project Location : 9055 Las Tunas Drive, #105, (5387 -013 -031), in the City of Temple City, County of Los Angeles Project: 15-266. A modification of a conditional use permit to allow exterior improvements for an approved food an d drink establishmen t (Bis tro Na 's) in the Came llia Square shopping cen ter. Applicant Bistro Na's LLC. 3158 E. Plains Court, Brea , Ca l ifornia 98281 EXEMPT STATUS : Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268) Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)) Eme rgency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4 ); 15269(b)(c)) X Categorical Exemp t ion. Section 15301, (Class 1, Existi ng Facilities) St atutory Exempt ion. Section Reas on(s) why Project is exempt: The p roject is exempt under a Class 1 Categorica l Exemption of the CEQA Guidel i nes because it is a reques t for exterior improvement s to an existi ng commercial unit. The project does not involve an expans i o n of the conditionally permitted food and d rin k establishment. Lead Agency/Contact Person : Adam Gulick, Associate Planner at (626) 656-7316 9701 Las Tu nas Drive, Temple City, CA 91780 Monday -Friday: 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Date: --------Sign ature: Adam Gulick, Associa t e Planner Date Received fo r fil i ng and posting: 9701 LAS TU N AS DRIVE , TEMPLE CITY, CA 9178 0 T: 626.285.2171 F : 626.285.8192 W WW .TEMPLECITY.U S PLANNING COMMISSION TEMPLE CITY, CALIFORNIA REGULAR MEETING APRIL 12 ,20 16-7 :3 0 P .M. ATTACHMENT C 1. CALL TO ORDER -Chairman O 'Leary 2. ROL L CAL L -Commiss ioner Cordes , Leung , Marston , Haddad , O 'Leary PRESENT: Commissioner-Leung , Marston , Haddad , O 'Leary ABSENT: Commissioner-Cordes ALSO PRESENT: Community Development Director Forbes, Planning Manager Reimers , City Attorney Murphy , Associate Planner Gulick , Associate Planner Liu , and Plann i ng Secretary Venters Commissione r Leung made a motion to excuse Comm issioner Cordes for due cause , seconded by V ice-Chai rman Haddad and unanimously carried by t he following vo t es : AYES : ABSTAIN : NOES : ABSENT: Commissioner-Leu ng , Marston , Haddad , O 'Leary Commissioner-None Commissioner-None Commissioner-Cordes 3 . PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 4 . PRESENT AT IONS 5. PUBLIC COMMEN T S ON IT EMS NO T LISTED ON T HE AGENDA Jerry Jambazian , business owner, asked the Pla n nin g Commiss ion if design guidelines exist for rear ya rds . Plann i ng Manager Reimers stated that design standards include a rear yard setback of 15 feet, permeability requirements , and no setback requirement for accessory structures . 6. CONSENT CALENDAR Recommendat ion : Approve Item A per recommendations . A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Planning Commission Minutes April 12 , 2016 Page 2 of 8 The Planning Commission is requested to review and approve : 1) Minutes of the Planning Commission Meeting of March 8 , 2016 . 2) Minutes of the Planning Comm ission Meeting of March 29 , 2016 . Vice-Chairman Haddad made a motion to approve the consent ca lendar. Seconded by Commissioner Marston and was approved unan imously by the fo ll owing votes : AYES : ABSTAIN : NOES : ABSENT: 7 . PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner-Leung , Marston, Haddad, O'Leary Commissioner-None Commissioner-None Commissioner-Cordes A. A req uest fo r the approval of a conditional use permit and tentative parce l map to allow a four-un it commercial condominium subdivision for the Camellia Square shopping center located at 5570 Rosemead Boulevard . The project also includes lot line adjustments and a partial street vacation at the end of Myda Avenue to al ign the property line with the wall of the shopping center. The proposa l is a four -unit com me rcial subd ivis ion for the Came lli a Square shopp i ng center . The applicant intends to separate the ownership for the four detached commerc ia l buildings to allow the title of each bu ilding to be transferred separately and in dividually. The open areas and the parking lots , including 127 spaces on the surface and 267 spaces in the subterranean garage , w ill be commonly owned and shared . The property is located in the C-2 zone , and is designated as General Commercial by the City 's General Plan. Associate Planner Liu gave a brief summary of the staff report . Cha i rman O'Leary opened the public hearing. Randy Wang , developer/property owner, stated that he and his partner would like to independently own parcels on the property . Stated that he will abide by the conditions of approval. Vice-Chairman Haddad asked Mr. Shen why the wall was built off of the property line . Bi ll Shen . Civ i l Engineer, stated that t he wall was built in accordance to the existing sidewal k al ignment. Plann ing Commission Minutes April 12 , 2016 Page 3 of 8 Commissioner Leung asked Mr. Wang how the proposed subdivision was going to be divided . Randy Wang, developer/property owner, stated that bu il d ing 1 and 1A will consist of one parcel and build i ngs 2 , 3 , and 4 will consist of another parcel. Wayne Edington . resident , asked the Planning Commission if the wa ll would be moved and if the wall was built to code . He also expressed concern regarding various issues that have risen during the course of development. Commissioner Leung stated that the wall will rema in in the same position and that the wall would be ins pected to determine if it was built to code . Jerry Jambazian . business owner , asked Planning Manager Reimers to clarify how common park in g areas are used in separately owned commercial parcels. Planning Manager Reimers stated that airspace is divided and the land is commonly owned by different owners . The parking lot is being used by different owners so that portion of the land needs to be held as common land . Bill Shen . Civil Engineer, explained that the wall is a precast wall with rebar and reinforce ment. City Attorney Murphy stated that land owned by the City is being vacated and given to the developer and the developer is giving land to the residences to the nort h so the property line is consistent with the alignment of the fence . Chairman O'Leary closed the public hearing. Vice -Chairman Haddad made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve File 13-18 , adopt the reso lution , and find that the project is categorically exempt. Seconded by Commissioner Marston and carried by the following roll call vote : AYES : ABSTAIN : NOES : ABSENT : Commissioner-Leung , Marston , Haddad , O'Leary Commissioner-None Commissioner-None Commissioner-Cordes B. A continued request for a modification of a conditional use permit to allow exterior modifications for an approved food and drink establishment (Bistro Na 's) in the Camellia Square shopping center located at 9055 Las Tunas Drive , Un it 105. The Planning Commission Minutes April 12 , 20 16 Page 4 of 8 request includes exterior improvements around the front entrance facing Las Tunas Drive . At the request of staff, this item was continued from the March 8 , 2016 Planning Comm ission Meeting . The applicant is proposing to mod ify the storefront for an approved restaurant i n the Camellia Square shopp ing center . Staffs request to continue the item was due to the designe r submitting two additional color/material schemes the day of the meeting . The property is located in the C-2 zone , and is designated as General Commercial by the City 's General Plan. City Attorney Murphy explained that staff recommending denial due to the master sign program . One site should not be allowed exterior modifications that is not consistent with the maste r sign program . Associa te Planne r Gulick gave a brief summary of the staff report. C hairman O 'Leary opened the public heari ng. Stanley Tsai. project designer, is aware that cities have design guidelines , however bus inesses should be allowed to include their corporate look . Christina Mayeda , project designer , stated that restaurants should be allowed to have different looks to be ident if ied . Je rry Jambazian , business owner , stated that he supports staffs recommendation . Jim Clift, resident, asked Planning Manager Reimers if the subd ivided build ings are required to conform to the master design program and why a business was allowed to mod ify the windows . Planning Manager Reimers stated that the window en largement was found to be in substantial compl iance with the original approval. City Attorney Murphy stated that the existing cond iti ons apply to the entire project. Chairman O'Leary closed the public hearing . Commissioner Leung made a motion to recommend that the City Council deny File 15-266 , adopt the resolution , and find that the project is categorically exempt. Seconded by Comm iss ioner Marston and carried by the following roll call vote : AYES : ABSTAIN : NOES : Comm issione r -Leung , Marston , Haddad , O 'Leary Comm issioner-None Comm issioner-None Planning Commission Minutes April 12, 2016 Page 5 of 8 ABSENT: Commissioner-Cordes C. Series 1 Code Amendments of Title 9 (Zoning Regulations}, Chapter 1 (Zoning Code) and Chapter 2 (S ubdivision Regulations) A request to improve and clarify Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Title 9 (Zoning Regulations) of the Temple City Municipal Code . The Planning Division is in the midst of a General Plan Update , which will result in a new Zon ing Code . The recommended amendments are consistent with the direction already established in the Zoning Code . Planning Manager Reimers gave a brief summary of the staff report . Commissioner Marston asked Planning Manager Reimers the following questions : 1) if there is a square foot limit on three car garages , 2) clarification regarding rear patio walls , 3) if an interior water heater would only apply to newly built residen ces , and 4) how balconies are included in the FAR. Planning Manager Reimers stated that the minimum square footage for a three car garage is 30x20 square feet; additional square footage would be included in the FAR , staff felt that a 12 foot maximum height for rear patios is reasonable as ceiling heights are typically 10 feet, confirmed that indoor water heaters would apply to newly built residences and remodels where the wall is adjacent to the remodel area , and that balconies exceeding 25 feet would be included in the FAR. Vice-Chairman Haddad was not in favor of staffs recommendation to require water heaters to be inside residences . He asked Planning Manager Reimers how invo luntary demolition is determined and if water conservation efforts had been considere d . Planning Manager Reimers stated that invo luntary demolition are defined as acts of God, and there are no water conservatio n efforts as the City 's standards are higher than other jurisdictions. Commissio ner Leung , expressed concern regarding overregulating the Temple City Municipal Code . Chairma n O'Leary also felt that water heaters should not be required indoors. He felt that the subject of water heaters should be revisited . City Attorney Murphy stated that the motion would be to adopt the resolution with the exception of water heaters . Planning Commission M inutes April 12 , 2016 Page 6 of 8 Chairman O 'Leary opened the public hearing. No one came forth at this time . Chairman O 'Leary closed the publ ic hearing . Vice-Chairman Haddad made a motion to recommend that the City Council approve File 16-46, adopt the resolution as amended , and find that the project is categorically exempt. Seconded by Commissioner Marston and carried by the following roll call vote : AYES : ABSTAIN: NOES : ABSENT: Commissioner-Leung , Marston , Haddad , O 'Leary Commissioner-None Commissioner-None Commissioner-Cordes 8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS-None 9. NEW BUSINESS A. APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE TO THE STATE ROUTE 710 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS Planning Manager Reimers called to nominate representative to the State Route 710 Stakeholder Outreach Advisory Committee meetings . Vice -Chairman Haddad volunteered to become the City's representative to the committee . Commissioner Leung made a motion to recommend V ice-Chairman Haddad to be the new representative to the state route 710 stakeholder outreach advisory comm ittee . Seconded by Commissioner Marston and carried by the following roll call vote : AYES : ABSTAIN : NOES : ABSENT : Commissioner-Leung , Marston , Haddad , O'Leary Commissioner-None Commissioner-None Commissioner-Cordes 10. COMMUNICATIONS-None 11. UPDATE FROM THE PLANNING MANAGER Plann ing Manager Reimers announced the following : The Planning Commission meeting scheduled April 26 has been cancelled , a community meeting regard ing a proposed mixed use project at 5935 Temple City Boulevard will take place April 21 at Plann in g Commission Minutes April 12 , 2016 Page 7 of 8 the Los Angeles County Library adjacent to City Hall , and the approved cellular site located at 5319 Halifax Road has been appealed to the City Council and will be heard April 19 . 12. COMMISSION ITEMS SEPARATE FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTORS REGULAR AGENDA A. COMMISSIONER CORDES-Absent B. COMMISSIONER LEUNG-Asked Planning Manager Reimers when the Camellia Square will open . Planning Manager Reimers stated that the Camellia Square is scheduled to open by May 1, 2016 . C. COMMISSIONER MARSTON -Announced that she is going to Sacramento on April 26 , 2016. D. VICE-CHAIRMAN HADDAD-Asked Planning Manager Reimers if the City Council hears the Planning Commissions arguments regarding appealed cases . Plann ing Manager Re imers stated that the appeal will be heard on legalities and the staff report will focus on the same purview of the Planning Commission . E. CHAIRMAN O'LEARY-Announced that his daughter was married April1 . 13. ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA Jerry Jambazian . business owner , asked if the curbs and gutters will be repaired with concrete as opposed to asphalt. Planning Manager Reimers referred Mr. Jambazian to speak to Community Development Director Forbes regarding Public Works inquiries . Planning Commission Minutes April 12 , 2016 Page 8 of 8 14. ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission Regular Meeting was adjourned at 9 :13p.m. Chairman Secretary M2C.-1111'.,.. _ _ ...... ~-.ail--.... a»> ... PROJECT SUMMARY ~~~,~~"""(,I;Mflllol:tfiCIOi •DI$. ... ~f ceuo.-!Aoftof~--III<'!IN'I. VICl!NITY MAJl> ,-:-. " BISTRO NA'S RESTAURANT T.I. • I· 9055 1I....AS TIJNAS DR #liOO JP>A§ADJENA CA. 9UG7 II I \ \ I L ' t! i .J' I l ; ill I I )> _, _, )> 0 I ~ m z _, 0 D D I I I l . __ I """'~-'G!I ftJ -~ ..oc.tltti'H"IAIO~"~ IV~I£II'OIIItlll6r.o....v.npo ~· . . , l ! ' I il ; ijl I 1 11\ 518• THIN BRICK VEN EER \.!) COLOR: PACIFIC CLAY CONCORD OR E.O . M\ ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAME \61 COLOR: U.S. ALUMINUM CLASSIC BRONZE OR E.O. B ISTRO NA'S RESTAURANT ~.,. aosD4EAO 81.\'0 TDIPU C1TY, CA PI 7.:1 LIGHTlNG FIXTURE HYDREL 4524 ACCENT LI GHTING OR E.Q. JW DA-~IS ARCH ITECTS "ll EMlSSK)IfttDa. 1101 IIOSDG:.AD. CAtano T1J.; (Q6) ZU-tlf9 BRICK VENEER G) COLOR: ELDORADO TUNORA BRICK RIVERBED OR E.O. ~ ALUM INUM STOREFRONT FRAME \61 COLOR U.S . ALUMINUM CLASS IC BRONZE OR E.O. BISTRO NA 'S RESTAURANT fnQaoso.tf..ADISl.\'D TDtPl.t C11Y. CA 91710 LIG iffiNG FIXTURE HYOREL 4524 ACCENT LIGiffiNG OR E.O. JWDA-~IS ARCHITECTS t9J2EMIS~DLIIOI aostwr..\0. CA 91770 11l.. (06)ll5-fl99 ---- BRICK V ENEER G) COLOR: ELDORADO TUNDRA BRICK RIVERBED ORE.Q . (1)\ ALUMINUM STOREFRONT FRAME 16/ COLOR: U.S. ALUMINUM CLASSIC BRONZE OR E.Q . BI STRO NA 'S RESTAURANT !710 ROM::M£AO .W..\'0. TL\.tPU.On', CA 91710 @ LIGHTING FIXTURE HYDREL 4524 ACCENT LIGHTING OR E.O. JWDA-MS A RCIIITECTS 19)2 E MlSSJON Dk. 1 101 ROSI:MtAO. CA 91 no n:t. (6l6)liJ.9199