Loading...
Minutes-PC 2010/12/06City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday,December 6, 2010 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present :Chairman: Stephen Faessel Todd Ament, Joseph Karaki,Harry Persaud, Victoria Ramirez Commissioners Absent :Peter Agarwal and John Seymour Staff Present : CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Mark Gordon, Assistant City AttorneyRaul Garcia,Principal CivilEngineer David See, Senior PlannerDavid Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Kevin Clausen, Planning AideGrace Medina, SeniorSecretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at4:30 p.m. onWednesday,December 1, 2010, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Call to Order–5:00 p.m. Audience Attendance: 7 Pledge of AllegiancebyCommissioner Persaud Public Comments Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items Adjournment DECEMBER 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda –5:00 P.M. Public Comments: None Minutes ITEM NO. 1AMotionto approve minutes (Ament) Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Approved Commission Meeting of October 11, 2010. VOTE: 3-0 Chairman Faesseland Commissioners Amentand Ramirez voted yes. Commissioners Karakiand Persaudabstained. CommissionersAgarwal and Seymour wereabsent. 12/06/10 Page 2of 12 DECEMBER 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Public Hearing Items: ITEM NO. 2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2010-05529 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04838 Resolution No. 2010-122 PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR NECESSITY NO.2010-00072Resolution No. 2010-123 (DEV2010-00162) (Persaud) Owner: Walter Lin Approved Lin Estate, Inc. 2061 Valor Drive Corona, CA 92882 VOTE: 5-0 Applicant/ Tom Scorer Chairman Faessel and Agent: Fresh &Easy Market Commissioners Ament, Karaki, 2120 Park Place, Suite 200 PersaudandRamirez voted El Segundo, CA 90245 yes.Commissioners Agarwal and Seymour were absent. Tom McAtee Nadel Architects 3333 EastCamelback Road, Suite 200 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Location:440 South Anaheim Hills Road Project Planner: The applicant proposes to establish a grocery store to Dave See include the sale of beer and wine for off-premises dsee@anaheim.net consumption (Fresh & Easy Market). The applicant also proposes to install two wall signs with letter and logo heights larger than permitted by 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 1 (Existing Facilities) and Class 11 (Accessory Structures). David See, Senior Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated December 6, 2010,along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Ramirez referred to the staff report and asked for clarification regarding a Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) request being required if the crime rate is more than 20% above city average. Mr. See responded a Public Convenience or Necessity is required if either the crime rate is above the city-wide average or there is an overconcentrationof ABC licenses within the applicable Census Tract. A PCN is being requested in this case because there is anoverconcentrationof licenses. 12/06/10 Page 3of 12 DECEMBER 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Karaki indicated he thought they previously approved a Fresh & Easy Market on Santa Ana Canyon Road and Fairmont. Chairman Faessel indicated he believes this is the third Fresh & Easy Market that has recently come before them, and recommended that the signage be consistent for all of the stores. Mr. See responded that is correct, there was a store at the Santa Ana Canyon and Fairmont location but it was never established, and the mostrecent Fresh & Easy Market was approved earlier this year in June,for the location atEuclid and Broadway. Commissioner Persaud stated there may be a potential need for revisiting the signing ordinances as there have been a lot of Variance requests regarding the letter height limitations. And, it has just come to his attention by CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager,that they are currently doing an analysis and are planning to bring it before the Planning Commission early next year. He stated he is looking forward to the forthcoming analysis and/or workshop on the matter. Chairman Faessel stated if there are a chain of storesin the communitythat he would recommend not having to review all sign variancesfor every store, andhereiterated if there is a way to have consistency itwould be helpful. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. Ted Howard,Insignia Sign Company,stated heis present to answer any questions. Commissioner Persaud asked when the store would be open. Mr. Howard responded he is unaware as he is present to answer any questions pertaining to signage. Commissioner Ramirez asked staff how alcohol sales are handled for self-checkout aisles. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, responded he is not sure of their store policy, but in other stores it has been his experience that when alcohol items are scanned that an employee willhavedo a manual checkbefore the transaction can be completed. Chairman Faessel asked Mr. Howard if the subject signage is consistent with the signage for the market atBroadway & Euclid. Mr. Howard responded yes, it is the same signage that was approved for the market atBroadway & Euclid. Greg James,Nadel Architects,stated he is present to answer any questions. Hereferred to the question asked about alcohol sales and stated he doesn’t run the operation for the market, but it is typical that when alcohol items are scanned at a self-checkout aisle that the machine will pauseuntil a code is entered by an employee. The employee will also check the person’s ID and enter the code into the machinein orderto finishthe transaction. 12/06/10 Page 4of 12 DECEMBER 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item, seeing no other persons indicating to speak, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Persaud offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the December 6, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 1 and Class 11 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Conditional Use Permit No. 2010-05529, Variance No. 2010-04838 and Public Convenience or Necessity No. 2010-00072 (DEV2010-00162). Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith five yes votes.Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Ament, Karaki, PersaudandRamirez votedyes.Commissioners Agarwal and Seymour were absent. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 16, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :14minutes (5:03to 5:17) 12/06/10 Page 5of 12 DECEMBER 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES ITEM NO. 3 VARIANCE NO. 2010-04836Resolution No. 2010-124 (DEV2010-00170) (Ament) Owner:Approved Fiesta Properties 8141 EastKaiser Avenue, Suite 203 VOTE: 3-2 Anaheim, CA 92808 Chairman Faessel and Applicant: Miguel IbarraCommissioners Ament andKaraki RKAA Architectsvoted yes.Commissioners Persaud 18662 Mac Arthur Boulevard, Suite 512and Ramirez voted no. Irvine, CA92612Commissioners Agarwal and Seymour were absent. Location:1221 South Anaheim Boulevard The applicant proposes to modify a legal non- A prior motion was made to conforming roof sign and construct two wall signs with approve the variance in part to letter heights larger than permitted by Code. allow the proposed wall signs, and to deny the variance in part not Environmental Determination: The proposed action is permitting improvements to the Categorically Exempt from the requirement to prepare existing roof sign. additional environmental documentation per California (Ramirez) Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines -Class 11 (Accessory Structures). VOTE: 2-3 CommissionersRamirez and Persaud voted yes. Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Ament and Karaki voted no.Commissioners Agarwal and Seymour were absent. MOTION FAILED TO CARRY Project Planner: KevinClausen kclausen@anaheim.net Kevin Clausen, Planning Aide, provided a summary of the staff report dated December 6, 2010,along with a visual presentation.He added that two letters of opposition weresubmitted and provided to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. Commissioner Ramirez asked why staff is recommending that the roof sign be maintained, and is aware that the property is set back from the street but they are already granting the applicant a variance on the letterheights for the other sign that is on the same elevation. The current roof sign is very large, and a monument sign would be sufficient. 12/06/10 Page 6of 12 DECEMBER 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Mr. Clausen responded the alternative for the applicant would be to do a modification that doesn’t require a building permit, and technically they could keep the same sign but not do anything that requires electrical or a building permit. The subject request is to add electricity to the sign to make it illuminated. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the request wasn’t granted what will the applicantdecideto do. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, responded that question would need to be addressed to the applicant. Commissioner Persaud asked are all the signs on the building intended to be both English and Spanish, or only Spanish. Mr. Clausen responded it is currently proposed in Spanish, as their target demographic is the Hispanicmarket. Commissioner Persaud stated it would make good business sense to try to attract as many customers as possible, and to cater to both audiences. Chairman Faessel asked staff if the Planning Department hasa policy regarding the language(s) used on signs. Mr. Amstrup responded no. Chairman Faessel stated since there is no policy it is up to the applicant to choose whatever language he wishes. But, indicated he likes when he sees both English and another language together on a sign. And, indicated if there is an interest maybe it could be a topic of discussion in the future. He clarified with staff should they not offer the variance on the large roof sign then they may keep the sign that they have just without any additional upgrades that would require a building permit. Mr. Clausen responded that is correct. Commissioner Karaki asked Chairman Faessel to clarify his point regarding the language(s) on signs. Chairman Faessel responded there is not a policy regarding language(s) on a sign, and if there is any interest that maybe it could be discussed sometime in the future. Commissioner Karaki stated he may disagree with that but didn’t prefer to discuss the topic any further at this time. Commissioner Ament stated on certain signage it is important to have in English for directional purposes, etc., but isn’t a necessity to have in English for their marketing purposes. Chairman Faesselopened the public hearing. 12/06/10 Page 7of 12 DECEMBER 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Miguel Ibarra, applicant, stated hehad reviewed the conditions of approval andwas in agreement with the staff report. Commissioner Ramirez stated she doesn’t agree with two signs on the elevation, and asked the applicant should the Commission agree with her and not support the roof sign, what would be their next step. Mr. Ibarra responded the store is located at an odd location on the site, and the traffic along Ball Road and Anaheim Boulevard moves fairlyfast, and if you don’t know the store is there it is pretty easy to miss. Therefore, they are trying to keep it the same as the prior store.Fiesta had a sign that was working and it made their business thrive, and they would like to havethe same prosperity. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the increased letter size on both elevations would be sufficient. Mr. Ibarra responded there are many trees on the property which interferes with theviewing. Daniel Donovichresponded he is the director of store development for El Super, and stated the majority of their customers shop at night, and if the sign is not illuminated how are the customers suppose to see the sign at night. Commissioner Ramirez asked if sign needs to be that largeand on theroof. Mr. Donovich respondedthe letters are proportional to the size of the sign, that particular sign is their trademark logo. Further discussion took place amongst the applicant and Commissioners Ramirez clarifying questions regarding the proposed signs. Commissioner Karaki asked staff if they are modifying the outer frame of the sign. Mr. Clausen responded that the size of the sign is not changing. Commissioner Karaki stated then they don’t need a variance. Mr. Clausen responded they need a variance because it requires a building permitto modify the nonconforming sign. Commissioner Karaki indicated it’s his understanding that they don’tneed a variance if they are working within the frame of the particular sign. Mr. Amstrup clarified because it is a legal non-conforming sign even if they don’t change the exterior dimensions,the fact that they requiredan electrical permit requires that the continued use of the sign be considered as a variance, which is why the subject variance is before the Commission today. Mr. Clausen explained that it requires an electrical permit,not to bring new electric to the sign as that already exists but to permit and inspect the actual connection. 12/06/10 Page 8of 12 DECEMBER 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Commissioner Ament expressed his interest in having signs that youcould understand, being English orEnglish and another language. Chairman Faessel concurred with Commissioner Ament. Chairman Faessel asked if anyone was present to speak on the item. Marcella Alvarez, stated she owns a four-plex at 1325 S. Anaheim Boulevardin Anaheimand has grown up in the area. Sheindicated she is very familiar with the area and the subject business is busy at all times, and it doesn’t seem to lack customers. She expressed her concerns in having excess signsand stated she agrees with the concerns raised today, and expressed her interestin having the signs in English or English and Spanish. Chairman Faessel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ramirez asked if the subject request is for one or two variances. Mr. Clausen responded it is one variance with two parts, one variance is for the wall signs with letter and logo heightwaivers, and the second portion is for themodification of the non-conformingroof sign. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated one resolution was prepared to cover the application, however, if you choose in offering the resolution for consideration you can modify itby describing the changes so it is understood before it is considered. Further discussion took place amongst Commissioners and staff regarding clarification when a building and/or electrical permit would be necessary. Commissioners Ramirez stated by granting the variance for the letter size they are helping them address some of their concerns about visibility for customers; but expressed concern regarding the existing roof sign. Commissioner Persaud expressed concernregarding the clutter created by illuminatedroof-top signs. Commissioner Karaki stated the sign islegal non-conforming and it is a fact that it could remain as is for another 50 years, or they have to fix it. Therefore, he expressed that what the applicant is proposing is better than it is currently, and expressed his interest in the language on the sign being both English and Spanish. Commissioner Persaud further expressed his disinterest in an illuminated roof-top sign. Commissioner Karaki reiterated he would rather approve the proposed request than keep the sign as is. Chairman Faessel re-opened the public hearing. 12/06/10 Page 9of 12 DECEMBER 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES Mr. Donovichstated the neighborhood knows where they are but they are also trying to attract new customers and in order to get those customers the sign needs to be lit because the building is blocked by everything else surrounding it. Commissioner Persaud asked if a survey has been conductedof their market area. Mr. Donovichresponded they are currently working on a survey, and they recently purchased the company. Further discussion took place amongst Commissioners Persaud, Ramirez and Mr. Donovich regarding the visibility of the store andthe signs, and the necessity of the proposed signs. Commissioner Karaki asked for clarification regarding the electrical work on the sign. Mr. Donovich responded the electrical is proposed inside the sign and needs to be attached from the junction box to the sign. Commissioner Karaki asked what the purpose was of having the electrical before. Robin Bell, ADS, 2950 Palisades, Corona,stated four months ago Fiesta Food had their sign,and Food Basket had their sign since 1957, and it has always beenilluminated. Commissioner Karaki clarified that it was illuminated previously, there is a junction box and it was on a timer. Mr. Bell responded yes, and explained that they are just changing the letters and that the whole sign is not being illuminated just the individual letters. Chairman Faessel stated if that is the case then he would like another clarification on why it is before the Commission today. Mr. Amstrup responded any action that requires a building permit, and when the channelletters are being changed from one word to another word, the new electrical components in each of those channelletters and the actual structural of the letters themselves which attach to the face, require both building and electrical permits; and he provided some additional examples of where requirements would occur and would not occur. Commissioner Persaud asked if the illuminated roof sign follows the city direction regarding allowing them to occur. Mr. Amstrup responded yes, which is why it is before the Commission today. The sign ordinance was amended specifically to prohibit these sorts of signs, which occurred in 1997. The city has been relying on obsolesce and removal at the time they become obsolete to facilitate the reduction. Chairman Faessel closed the public hearing. Commissioner Ramirez offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the December 6, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 11 Categorical Exemption is 12/06/10 Page 10of 12 DECEMBER 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES the appropriate environmental documentationfor this request and approving Variance No. 2010- 04836 (DEV2010-00170),in part, with a modification to delete the continuation of a legal non- conforming roof sign. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution failed to carry with two yesvotes. Commissioners Ramirez and Persaud voted yes. Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Ament and Karaki voted no. Commissioners Agarwal and Seymour were absent. Commissioner Amentoffered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution attached to the December 6, 2010 staff report, determining that a Class 11 Categorical Exemption is the appropriate environmental documentation for this request and approving Variance No. 2010- 04836(DEV2010-00170). Grace Medina,Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passedwith three yes votes. Chairman Faessel and Commissioners Ament and Karaki voted yes. Commissioners Persaud and Ramirez voted no. Commissioners Agarwal and Seymour were absent. OPPOSITION: 1 personspoke and 2 letters were received in opposition to the subject request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-dayappeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 16, 2010. DISCUSSION TIME :55minutes (5:17to 6:12) 12/06/10 Page 11of 12 DECEMBER 6, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSIONMINUTES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:14P.M. TO WEDNESDAY,JANUARY 19, 2011AT 5:00P.M. (The scheduled meetings of December 20, 2010 and January 3, 2011 have been cancelled as no cases were filed for the meetings.) Respectfully submitted, Eleanor Morris Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on March 14, 2011. 12/06/10 Page 12of 12