Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/04/13City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,April 13, 2009 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :ChairmanPro Tempore: Panky Romero Commissioners Peter Agarwal, Kelly Buffa, Gail Eastman, Stephen FaesselandVictoria Ramirez Commissioners Absent :Chairman Joseph Karaki Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerElaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Ted White, Senior PlannerRaul Garcia,Principal CivilEngineer Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner David See, Senior PlannerEleanor Morris, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at1:00 p.m. onWednesday,April 8, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Call to Order-2:30 p.m. Attendance: 8 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissionerBuffa Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM 1A Motion to ApproveMinutes Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of March 30, 2009. (Faessel/Agarwal) Approved VOTE: 6-0 Chairman Karaki absent 04/13/09 Page 2of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1322 Motion to Continue to (TRACKING NO. CUP2008-05356) May 27, 2009 VARIANCE NO. 2009-04776 (Eastman/Buffa) Parcel 1 Sidney E. Bickel Owner: 5585 Via Dicha #B Approved Laguna Hills, CA 92653 VOTE: 6-0 Parcel 2 First Southern Baptist Church Chairman Karaki absent Owner: 1275 East Broadway Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Phil Schwartze PRSGroup 31872 San Juan Creek Circle San Juan Capistrano, CA92675 Location: This project consists of two properties: Parcel 1 -633 South East Street: This property (Quartz Dealer Direct) is located 182 feet north of the centerline of South Street Parcel 2 -1275 East Broadway: This property (First Southern Baptist Church) is located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Fahrion Place. The applicant requests the reinstatement and amendment of a Project Planner: previously-approved conditional use permit for an automotive Ted White wholesale and retail auction facility on Parcel 1 to delete a twhite@anaheim.net condition of approval pertaining to a time limitation and to permit the business to have off-site parking at a church located on Parcel 2. The applicant also requests a variance to allow fewer parking spaces than required by code for the automotive wholesale and retail auction facility. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration, which was previously-approved, has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 04/13/09 Page 3of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Joanne Burdick-Gottlieb, 1237 East Crestbrook Place, Anaheim, stated she haslived across from the project site since 1961. Shestated she understood the item has been continued and will attend the next scheduled public hearing; however, she wanted to state the followingconcerns: the business received a previous extension of timefor one year,there have been parking problems associated with the business for more than ten years, street parking was being monitored up until a couple of years agoand the neighbors continue to have concerns about the impact of the business on the neighborhood. She further stated that while many improvements have been made to the business, the improvements arestill not to her satisfaction. OPPOSITION: Oneperson spoke in opposition to the subject request. DISCUSSION TIME :2minutes (2:33to 2:35) 04/13/09 Page 4of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05370Resolution No. PC2009-048 VARIANCE NO. 2009-04777 (Eastman) Owner: Nathaniel Williams Approved, modified Anaheim West Plaza, LLC Condition No. 9pertaining 3029 Wilshire Boulevard to the restaurant Santa Monica, CA90403 Applicant:VOTE: 6-0 Phillip Schwartze PRS GroupChairman Karaki absent 31872 San Juan Creek Circle San Juan Capistrano, CA92675 Location: 3150 West Lincoln Avenue:This propertyis located south and east of the southeast corner of Lincoln Avenue and Western Avenue. The applicant proposes a restaurant with alcohol service, a Project Planner: Elaine Thienprasiddhi banquet facility with alcohol service and fewer parking spaces ethien@anaheim.net than required by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental QualityAct (CEQA) Guidelines Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated April 13, 2009 along with a visual presentation.A modification to Condition No. 9, pertaining to the restaurant portion of the business, was read into the record as follows: “At all times, when the restaurant is open for business, it shall be maintained as a bonafiderestaurant and shall provide a menu containing an assortment of foods normally offered in such a restaurant.” Chairman Pro-Tempore Romero opened the public hearing. Philip Schwartze, 31872 San Juan Creek Circle, San Juan Capistrano, representing Mon Cheri Catering. Mr. Schwartze provided some background on this proposal. He stated the business owner, Lisa Wu,decided to purchase the restaurant after she reviewedthe conditional use permit; however, she later discovered the conditional use permit had expired 10-12 years ago though the restaurant continued to operate. After speaking with staff, Ms. Wudecided to apply for a new conditional use permit forthe same space. Mr. Schwartze stated that the proposed revisions to the site plan and the interior layout would result in substantial improvementsto the business.He stated architectural renderings of the interior layout had been provided to the Planning Commission. 04/13/09 Page 5of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Ms. Thienprasiddhi clarified that the visual simulations referred to by Mr. Schwartze were provided to the Planning Commission in the attachment with the site photographs. Mr. Schwartze stated the proposed permit would allow the restaurantarea to be incorporated into the event facility area if needed. Through this process, the proposed project is better than originally planned. The parking study indicates the hours of operation would not be an issue. Commissioner Eastman asked the applicant to clarify whether the last architectural rendering in the attachment shows a view of the banquet area from the restaurant area. Mr. Schwartze responded yes. Chairman Pro-Tempore Romero referred to Condition No. 13 and asked staff how the property would be monitored for compliance. Ms. Thienprasiddhi responded the applicant would be responsible for maintaining records. Ifstaff found there was an issue with crimes related to alcohol, the Code Enforcement Division or the Police Department would have the opportunity to request documentation from the applicant. Chairman Pro-Tempore Romero asked if there was a person specifically assigned to monitor business receipts. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, statedmonitoring of businessreceipts, as required by Condition No. 13, is not generally done on a regular basis but used as an enforcement tool. For example, if a business were to have characteristics of a night club, staff would have a quantitative standard which could be used for enforcement or issuance of citations. The City does not have the staff to monitor receipts on a regular basis. Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Amstrup whether there was a way to determine whether other businesses wereoperating with expired time limits. Mr. Amstrup responded there may be other businessesoperating with expired permits; however, staff does not know how many. He stated it was debatable whether permits with automatic expirations were legitimately enforceable without proactive action to revoke the permit. Staff has not proactively revoked those permits. Chairman Pro-Tempore Romero, seeing no one indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eastmanoffered a recommendation that the PlanningCommission adopt the resolution attached to the April 13, 2009 staff report,determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05370 and Variance No. 2009-04777with the modification to Condition No. 9 as read into the record by Ms. Thienprasiddhibased upon the information provided to the Commission and thefact that no problems have been identified in the past pertaining to this business. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney clarified that the new Conditional Use PermitNo. 2008-05370 would supersede the prior Conditional Use Permit No. 3989 which was previously granted for the banquet hall. 04/13/09 Page 6of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Eleanor Morris,Secretary announced that the resolutionpassedwith sixaye votes. Chairman Karaki was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :10 minutes (2:36 to 2:46) 04/13/09 Page 7of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05405Resolution No. PC2009-049 VARIANCE NO. 2009-04779 (Ramirez) Owner: Marc Majid Approved, in part, denying Anaheim West Plaza, LLC the request to locate the P.O. Box 5272 freestanding signs closer Beverly Hills, CA90210 than required by codeand Applicant:addinga condition of John Dodson approval requiring ADN Architects submittal of revised plans 1330 Olympic Boulevard showing the location of Santa Monica, CA 90404 freestandingsignsin Location:927 South Euclid Street:compliance with code This property is located at the northwest corner of Euclid Street and Ball Road. VOTE: 6-0 The applicant proposes to replace an existing retail building Chairman Karaki absent with a new 3-unit retail building with outdoor dining, subdivide one tenant space into three spaces, and remodel an existing neighborhood shopping center with fewer parking spaces than required by code and larger letter height of wall signs, more freestanding signs per street frontage, and a shorter distance between freestanding signs than allowed by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed project is Project Planner: David See Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare dsee@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1. David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated April 13, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff to confirm whetherthe parking spaces along Ball Road and Euclid Street are legal non-conforming spaces and would not be updated as part of the remodel. Mr. See confirmed these parking spaces are legal non-conforming and would not be modified as part of this project.Thesespaces were installedlegally at the time the center was built. To comply with the code, the plan would need to be revised to include a15 foot wide planter which would eliminate anentire row of parking. Theapplicant is entitled to keep these legal non-conforming parking spaces. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the same case applied along Ball Road. Mr. See responded yes. 04/13/09 Page 8of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Ramirez asked if a new shopping cart area would be built. Mr. See responded yes. He stated the new shopping cart storage area is identified on the site plan andthe applicant is available to respond to any questions whether any additional storage space is proposed. Commissioner Ramirez asked if certain red parking stopsare being removed as part of the remodel. Mr. See responded yes. He stated this area is a fire lane and cars cannot be parked in this lane. This area will be restriped and posted as a“no parking” area. Commissioner Eastman asked staff about the pylonsignand whether it was feasible to install this sign in a location that met Code requirements. Mr. See respondedthe sign could be located closer to the liquor store buildingand be in conformance with Code. Mr. See referred to the site plan and stated that if thesign is moved 18 feet closer to the liquor store building, the location would comply with Code requirements and there would be sufficient area to install the sign. Commissioner Eastman asked whether the liquor store is located on a separately owned parcel. Mr. See responded the liquor store is not located on a separately owned parcel. The property is under one ownershipand the liquor store is on a leased space. There are no changes proposed to the liquor store building,which is legally non-conforming. The only new construction would be to the south of the liquor store. Commissioner Ramirez asked if there was a third pylon sign along Euclid Street, between the Winchell’s sign and the existing sign that is not being removed. Mr. See showed imagesof the existing sign, the pole sign next to Winchell’s, an approximately 40- foot pole sign next to the multi-tenant sign and another pole sign along the Ball Road frontage. He stated all of theseexisting pole signs are proposed to be demolished. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the trash bin outside the liquor store building would remain. Mr. See stated the trash bins would be incorporated into the new enclosure. Commissioner Buffa asked if all the pole signs and the two roof mounted signs wouldbe removed. Mr. See said the applicant has indicated that the removal of the roof signs iscontingent upon approval of the pylon signs and the 48-inch wall letter height for the supermarket. Those existing signs are legally non-conforming and arenot conditioned forremoval. Commissioner Agarwal asked about the size of the pylonsigns as compared to the maximum sign size allowed by Code. Mr. See respondedthe proposed signs are 150 square feet and the height and size of the signs complywith code. 04/13/09 Page 9of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Chairman Pro-Tempore Romero opened the public hearing. John Dodson, ADN Architects, 1330 Olympic Boulevard, Santa Monica, representing the property owner, stated the Majids have owned the property for 50 years and intend to keep it in the family. He has worked with themfor approximately 10 years and completed a similar project on property they own in Chatsworth. Commissioner Faessel asked Mr. Dodson to describe his definition of “repaving” a parking lot. Mr. Dodson described the following improvements would occur: removal and replacement of the asphalt along the portion of the drive aisles along the building; upgrading of certain paving to truck grade paving in order to correct a drainage issue;reslurry areas where the asphaltis acceptable but patchingand repairingis required; and cuttingand repairing the asphalt associated with the installation of landscapeplanters and irrigation lines.He stated they intend to keep the speed bumps in the main drive aislebecause cars speeding through the lot havebeen an issue. He stated once the trees are planted,drivers wouldtend to slow down because it will notfeel as open. Commissioner Eastman asked whether any improvements would be made to the liquor store building. Mr. Dodson stated the master planfor the sitecalls for the construction of a new building in the future that would infill and line up with the retail building. The area has been completely reconfigured. In the future they will rework the driveway and have one building. At this point, they do not want to invest money into the freestandingliquorstore. Commissioner Eastman asked if there would be improvements later as the building on the corner stands out and is in disrepair. Mr. Dodson said he understood. They will not be doing any work to the donutstore either or the El Pollo Loco restaurantwhich is relatively new. Commissioner Eastman asked if the applicant had considered moving the pylon sign closer to the liquor store. Mr. Dodson indicated that Richard Christie could answer questions relatingto signs. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the concrete flatwork at the front of the retail businesses would be completely redone, or only certain areas.She also asked if the doors would bereplaced. Mr. Dodson said they are removing and replacing all ofthe flatwork. The market was recently remodeled. They are required to make these improvements in order to conformwith the disabled access requirements. The landings to the doors do not meet code and they have some slopes that exceed them. It will be new, two-toned concrete and sand finished. Doors are being replaced to meet handicapped standards. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the landlord would be addressing some of the visual clutter. Mr. Dodson responded they will address as much as they can on the exterior of the building. 04/13/09 Page 10of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Richard Christie, Promotional Signs Inc., 25421 Wagon Wheel, Laguna Hills,clarified that the sign letters on the building are actually 24 inches and the logos can be 32 inches. They are not proposing that the letters be 32 inches, only the identification cabinets. He was asked to make signswhich conformto the architectural changes, identify all the tenants,and remove the clutter. Years ago, all the pole signs and building signs were installed legally; however, they are non-conforming.They are trying to develop a master plan showing what they would like to do.He described the location and size of the new signs.They are requesting the maximum width so that they can have identification and eliminate clutter. Commissioner Buffaasked ifthe second pole sign on the south side of the driveway close to the new retail building would also need tobe set back away from EuclidStreet. Mr. Christiesaid he believed they were required to have the same setback for new signs withthe widening of the street. Mr. See clarified the sign was not subject to the same setback requirements, only to the seven foot setback because of line of sight considerations, not fifteen feet. Street widening would not be required. The right-of-way adjacent to this property isa53-foothalf width based on the width for Euclid Streetanticipated in the Anaheim General Plan. Commissioner Buffa suggested the sign be placed in the planter bed, closer to Euclid Street where it would have good visibilityand not be blocked by the building. Mr. Christie said there were extensive landscaping issuesandtrees or buildings wouldblock the sign. Commissioner Buffa said she understood the explanation of the trees blocking the signs, but was not sure if she agreed that the building would blockvisibility of the sign. If they placed the proposed pole sign where they were proposing it by the liquor store, someday, the existing building may be demolished and replaced with another building. She stated that presumably, the space between the right-of-way and the building is going to be landscaped with trees and that would block the pole sign. Mr. Christie said it would depend on the types of trees planted. Commissioner Eastmanasked if a sign close to the corner ofthe south side of the building adjacent to the El Pollo Loco restaurant would address the issue. Sheasked if the applicant controls that corner. Mr. Christie said he believed El Pollo Loco is on its own parcel;however,there is a mutual working relationship with the center owner. Commissioner Eastman asked if there was an area where the sign could be located and be visible to traffic onBall Road. This would benefit the market as much, if not more, than having two signs too close to each other on Euclid Street. Mr. Christie pointed out the ideal placement for the sign. He would consider another placement location; however, he would have to meet with the owner because he has not seen the final details of the building as of yet, even though they were in the plans. 04/13/09 Page 11of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Eastman, said normally, they would see a sign similar to what is proposedlocated near a corner, identifyingthe major tenant. She would like that to be considered before she could support the variance request. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer clarified that there is a bike laneplanned for Euclid Street; therefore, the ultimate setback would be 60-feet from the centerline. The street is planned to be widened in the future. David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner. Euclid Street and Ball Road were widened at the corner from 53 feet to 60 feetto install a second left turn late. There would not be any widening requirements in front of the El Pollo Loco restaurant and the new buildingand the 15 foot setback is based on the 60 feet. To the north, the street will have to be widened at some point in time to accommodate a bicycle lane and a raised median on Euclid Street. Mr. See added that the seven feet line of sight requirement applies only when a sign column close to a driveway blocks visibility from the driveway.If the sign column is moved away from the driveway, it is not subject to the seven foot line of sight requirement. Chairman Pro-Tempore Romero closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faesselstated a concernwith the various setbacksexplained by Public Works.He asked what the property owner’s representative had to say regarding the alternative location for the second 25-foot tall sign at the south end of the new retail building. He asked if that was a viable location. Commissioner Buffa requested clarification that no additional right-of-way widening is required on Euclid Street adjacent to the El Pollo Loco restaurant and the new building so this would not be an issue in determining an alternativelocation for a pole sign. Commissioner Eastman stated this was her understanding. Chairman Pro-Tempore Romero opened the public hearing. Mr. Christie said it was a viable location. Mr. Christie asked staff if the pole sign couldbe located within the setback area. Mr. See said the sign would need to be locatedout of the ultimate right-of-way as mentioned by Mr. Kennedy, and out of the line of sight area. If the sign is movedaway from the driveway, it can be closer to the property line. Commissioner Faessel asked if the property owner’s representative would be satisfied with the locationdescribed by staff. Mr. Dodson said it would be a much better location.He said he would work with staff to determine the ideal location. 04/13/09 Page 12of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Commissioner Eastman stated the location of this pylon sign was her only concern with the project. The proposed changes would be a beneficial enhancement to this vital corner and she supported the project. Chairman Pro-Tempore Romero, seeing no one indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney reiterated that staff was recommending approval of fewer parking spaces than allowed by code and a taller sign letter height than allowed by Code and denial of the request for two signs to be located closer than required by Code; consistent with the concerns raised by the Commission and response given by the applicant that there is no need for the Variance given the fact that there is the ability to site the sign at a distance greater than 300 feet. He suggested a condition of approval be added that requires the site plan to be modified or revised by the applicant and brought back for Planning staff review and approval since the present site plan may reflect the location that is less than the required distance. Chairman Pro-Tempore, Romero agreed. Commissioner Buffa suggested the new condition require the applicant to only submit to staff a plan showing the location of the second pole signin conformance with Code requirements. Commissioner Ramirezoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the April 13, 2009 staff report,determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05405 and granting, in part, Variance No. 2009-04779, with the approval of Variance A permitting fewer parking spaces than allowed by Code and Variance C allowing a taller sign letter height than allowed by Code and denial of Variance B to allow two signs to be located at a closer distance than allowed by Code, with a new condition requiring the applicant to submit a plan to staff showing the location of the second pole sign in conformance with Code requirements as suggested by Commissioner Buffa. Eleanor Morris, Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith sixaye votes. Chairman Karaki was absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, May 5, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :47minutes (2:47to 3:34) 04/13/09 Page 13of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 5 ZONING CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2009-00079Motion to Continue to April 27, 2009 Applicant: Planning Department (Agarwal/Faessel) City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Approved Location:Citywide VOTE: 6-0 Request to amend Chapter 1.12 (Procedures); Chapter 14.60 Chairman Karaki absent (Transportation Demand); Chapter 17.08 (Subdivisions); Chapter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone); Chapter 18.24 (South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone); Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses); Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations); Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading); Chapter 18.44 (Signs); Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening); Chapter 18.56 (Nonconformities); Chapter 18.60 (Procedures); Chapter 18.62 (Administrative Reviews); Chapter 18.64 (Area Development Plans); Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits); Chapter 18.74 (Variances); Chapter 18.92 (Definitions);Chapter 18.114(Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No.92-1); Chapter 18.116(Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No.92-2); Chapter 18.118(Hotel Circle Specific Plan No.93-1); pertaining to Zoning Administrator authority, drought tolerant landscaping provisions, freestanding sign provisions within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone and approval/appeal procedures for various zoning Project Planner: actions. Vanessa Norwood vnorwood@anaheim.net EnvironmentalDetermination: The proposed action is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code. This item was continued from the March 16, 2009 and March 30, 2009 Planning Commission meetings. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME :This item was not discussed. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 3:35P.M. TO MONDAY, APRIL 27, 2009AT2:30P.M. 04/13/09 Page 14of 15 APRIL 13, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Respectfully submitted, Grace Medina Senior Secretary Received and approved by the PlanningCommission on April 27, 2009. 04/13/09 Page 15of 15