Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/11/09City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,November 9, 2009 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Panky Romero Peter Agarwal, Todd Ament, Kelly Buffa, Stephen Faessel,Joseph Karaki,Victoria Ramirez Commissioners Absent :None Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services ManagerRaul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer Linda Johnson,Principal PlannerDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyMichele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative Della Herrick, Associate PlannerGrace Medina, Senior Secretary Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at5:00 p.m. onWednesday,November 4, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Call to Order-3:30 p.m. Attendance: 13 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Faessel Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment NOVEMBER 9, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda -3:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes (Buffa/Karaki) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of October 26, 2009. VOTE: 4-0 Chairman Romero and CommissionersBuffa,Karakiand Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Agarwal and Faessel abstained.Commissioner Ament was absent. 11/09/09 Page 2of 11 NOVEMBER 9, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 VARIANCE NO. 2009-04792Resolution No. PC2009-110 (DEV2009-00045) (Faessel) Owner: Ganahl Lumber Approved 1220 East Ball Road Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant:VOTE: 7-0 James Taft,General Manager Ganahl Lumber Chairman Romero and 1220 East Ball RoadCommissioners Agarwal, Ament, Anaheim, CA92805Buffa, Faessel, Karaki and Ramirez voted yes. Location:1220 East Ball Road The applicant proposes to construct a wall sign with a larger letter height than permitted by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Della Herrick Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare dherrick@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Della Herrick, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated November 9, 2009, along with a visual presentation. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. James Taft,applicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and was in agreement. Chairman Romero, seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faesseloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the November 9, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2009- 04792. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced thatthe resolution passedwith seven yes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Karaki and Ramirez voted yes. 11/09/09 Page 3of 11 NOVEMBER 9, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 19, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :4minutes (3:33to 3:37) 11/09/09 Page 4of 11 NOVEMBER 9, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEM NO. 3 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05445Resolution No.PC2009-117 AND VARIANCE NO. 2009-04785, REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF PUBLICResolution No. PC2009-118 CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO. 2009-00062 (Ament) (DEV2009-00004) Owner andApproved Brett Feuerstein Applicant: Euclid Shopping Center 8294 Mira Mesa Boulevard VOTE: 7-0 San Diego, CA 92126 Chairman Romero and Location:1600-1696 West Katella Avenue and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, 1818 South Euclid Street Buffa, Faessel, Karakiand Ramirez voted yes. The applicant proposes to expand an existing commercial center and construct a drive-through pharmacy with sales of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption with fewer parking spaces than required by Code. The applicant also proposes to replace eight existing freestanding signs with seven freestanding and monumentsigns. The distance between the new signs is proposed to be closer than permitted by code and the number of freestanding and monument signs is greater than permitted by code. Note: A request for a Variance to have larger sign areas Project Planner: VanessaNorwood than allowed by codewas eliminated as the plans comply vnorwood@anaheim.net with code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 32 (In-Fill Development Projects). Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated November 9, 2009,along with a visual presentation.Ms. Norwood stated she had provided the Planning Commission with a revised resolution reflecting some editorial corrections pertaining to the description of the project. Commissioner Faessel asked if the City’s Smart Street improvements on Katella Avenue impacted this property and thelocation of the signs on this property. David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner, responded that most of the City improvements were along the north side of Katella Avenue, however, some improvements were on the south side of Katella Avenue, closer to Euclid Streetfor construction of a new bus bay in front ofthe Western 11/09/09 Page 5of 11 NOVEMBER 9, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Dental Building. He also said that the City improvements on the north side of Katella Avenue did not affect this property. Commissioner Karaki asked about the elevations for the proposed CVS pharmacy building.He said he wanted to make sure the proposed design of this building was compatible with the surrounding buildings. Ms. Norwood said that the floor plans were provided to the Commission, but not theelevations. She saidthe applicant wasavailable to describe the proposed building. Commissioners Agarwal, Faessel and Ramirez each stated they had met with the applicant to discuss the project. Chairman Romero stated he had met with the applicant regarding the sign proposal. Ms. Norwood referred to the visual presentation and stated the applicant made changes to the building elevations to be more consistent with another building at the corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to clarify which elevation faced which direction. Ms. Norwood described the orientation of the elevations. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing and asked the applicant to describe the elevations. Brett Feuerstein, with Euclid Shopping Center, applicant, stated hehadreviewed the conditions of approval and hewas in agreement. John Wilhelm, architect representingCVS, discussed the proposed architectural treatments.He said the drive-through window faced the shopping center. Commissioner Karaki asked if vines wouldcover the walls facing Euclid Street and asked the architect to describe the proposed landscaping. Commissioner Buffa asked for additional clarification on the CVS building elevations and said the elevations in the visual presentation did not appear to match the site plan. Mr. Feuerstein stated that the elevation in the visual presentation did not match the latest version of the elevation plans. Ms. Norwood stated that landscaping is proposed on the west side of the building and on the side of the building facing Katella Avenue. Mr. Feuerstein said they would provide vines along those walls to protect against graffiti. Commissioner Karaki asked that vines be planted along the wallsfacing Euclid Street. 11/09/09 Page 6of 11 NOVEMBER 9, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Mr. Feuerstein provided the Commission with an elevation of the proposed CVS building and described the building elevations. Commissioner Karaki stated he wanted to make sure this building would be compatible with the CVS building planned at the corner of State College Boulevard and La Palma Avenue. Ms. Norwood stated staff would continue to work with the applicant on the design of this building and proposed landscaping. Commissioner Ramirez referred to the proposed landscaping in the parking lot and asked if that additional landscaping would bring the property close to being in compliance with the code requirements. Ms. Norwood responded that the additional landscaping would bring the property to approximately 75 percent of the code required landscaping for parking lots. Chairman Romero, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa stated she wished the applicant had limited the number of signs to two large signsin compliance with the code. However, she supported the proposal because the proposed sign program was an improvement and the applicant did not need to remove the signs. Commissioner Faessel stated this project would be a great improvement for the shopping center. Commissioner Agarwal stated he supported the project. He said he was concerned with the number of signs, but thought this would be an improvement over the existing signs. Commissioner Ament thanked the applicant for investing in the City of Anaheim. Commissioner Karaki stated that this project, including the additional landscaping discussed for the CVS building, would result in animprovement for this center. Chairman Romero referred to the transfer of the ABC license and asked why the applicant had to apply for the Public Convenience or Necessity determination. Ms. Norwood responded that staff did not require the applicant to apply for a PCN for this transfer of an ABC license. She stated the applicant chose to apply for the PCN request because heanticipated that ABC would request this determination prior to approving the license transfer. Chairman Romero opened the public hearing to ask if there were any other persons interested in speaking on this item. Chairman Romero, seeing no other persons indicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ament offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the November 9, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 32 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit 11/09/09 Page 7of 11 NOVEMBER 9, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES No. 2009-05445,Variance No. 2009-04785andthe Determination of PublicConvenience or Necessity No. 2009-00062. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith sevenyes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Karaki and Ramirez voted yes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 19, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :25minutes (3:37to 4:02) 11/09/09 Page 8of 11 NOVEMBER 9, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ITEMNO. 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2009-05458Resolution No. PC2009-119 AND VARIANCE NO. 2009-04801 (Agarwal) (DEV2009-00032) Owner:Approved Robert J. Hamra Anaheim Business Campus, LLC 394 West Cerritos Avenue VOTE: 7-0 Anaheim, CA 92805 Chairman Romero and Applicant: Oscar RamirezCommissioners Agarwal, Ament, 12052 Jennifer LaneBuffa, Faessel, Karakiand Garden Grove, CA 92840Ramirez voted yes. Location:210 West Cerritos Avenue The applicant proposes a banquet facility with alcohol service and with fewer parking spaces than required by code. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is Project Planner: Vanessa Norwood Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare vnorwood@anaheim.net additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 1 (Existing Facilities). Vanessa Norwood, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated November 9, 2009,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Faessel asked staff to confirm that this request was for an additional banquet facility in the center, not a replacement of the existing facility. Ms. Norwood stated this proposal was for an additional banquet facility. Commissioner Ramirez asked if there were any issues with the existing facility. Michele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative, stated she did not check the existing banquet facility for crime statistics. However, she had checked the overall crime statistics for this area in the evening and did not have any concerns. Chairman Romero asked if this new banquet facility would be in the same area as the existing facility. Ms. Norwood referred to the visual presentation and identified the locations of the existing and proposed banquet facilities. Chairman Romeroopened the public hearing. 11/09/09 Page 9of 11 NOVEMBER 9, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Oscar Ramirez, applicant, stated he had reviewed the conditions of approval and hewas in agreement. Commissioner Ramirez asked the applicant to describe the type of activities held in the banquet facility. Mr. Ramirez responded that family parties such asbirthday celebrationsand reunions were held in the banquet facility. Commissioner Karaki asked if the two facilities would be competing against each other. Mr. Ramirez responded that the two facilities would not compete against each other. He said this would allow them to hold additional eventson the weekends. Commissioner Faessel asked for confirmation that the banquet facility did not have kitchen facilities. Mr. Ramirez responded that was correct and that events were catered. Commissioner Faessel asked if they would be able to accommodate a large number of guests. Mr. Ramirez responded yes. Chairman Romero, seeing no other personsindicating to speak, closed the public hearing. Commissioner Agarwaloffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the November 9, 2009 staff report, determining that a Class 1 Categorical Exemptionis the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2009-05458 and Variance No. 2009-04801. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith sevenyes votes. Chairman Romero and Commissioners Agarwal, Ament, Buffa, Faessel, Karaki and Ramirez voted yes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, November 19, 2009. DISCUSSION TIME :8minutes (4:02to 4:10) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:18P.M. TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2009AT 2:30P.M. 11/09/09 Page 10of 11 NOVEMBER 9, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Respectfully submitted, Grace Medina Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on December 7, 2009. 11/09/09 Page 11of 11