Loading...
PC - Item 3C - Design Review 17-02 3940 Rosemead Boulevard Staff ReportROSEMEAD PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO: THE HONORABLE CHAIR AND PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING DIVISION DATE: JULY 17, 2017 SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW 17-02 3940 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD Summary Chinese Consumer. Yellow Pages has submitted an application for a Design Review to re -face an existing free standing sign with a new double -sided LED display that would flash a new slide every ten seconds. The project site is located at 3940 Rosemead Boulevard, in the Central Business District with Design Overlay (CBD/D-0) zone. The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing building. Design Review procedures shall be followed for all, improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fapade, or landscaping in a Design Overlay Zone. Environmental Determination Section 15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines exempts projects consisting of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. Design Review 17-02 proposes to install a small sign facility structure. Accordingly, Design Review 17- 02 is classified as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15303(a) of California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Staff Recommendation Based on the analysis and findings contained in this report, it is recommended that the Planning Commission DENY Design Review 17-03 and ADOPT Resolution No. 17-15 with findings (Exhibit "A"). Property History and Description The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Rosemead Boulevard and Steele Street. The site consists of one parcel of land totaling approximately 40,050 square feet. According to Planning Division records, on May 15, 2000, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 00-82 for exterior improvements to the subject Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Page 2 of 13 site. The exterior improvements included new signage, paint, and landscaping. On October 21, 2013, the Planning Commission approved a Modification 13-05 to modify Design Review 00-82 for exterior renovations to the main office building. Front Elevation and Freestanding Sign (Existing) Site and Surrounding Land Uses The project site is designated in the General Plan as Commercial and on the zoning map it is designated Central Business District with a Design Overlay (CBD/D-O) zone. The site is surrounded by the following land uses: North General Plan: Commercial Zoning: Central Business District with a Design Overlay (CBD -D-0) Land Use: Commercial South General Plan: High Density Residential and Low Density Residential Zoning: Medium Multiple Residential (R-3) and Single Family Residential (R-1) Land Use: Residential East General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: Single Family Residential (R-1) Land Use: Residential West General Plan: Commercial Zoning: Central Business District with a Design Overlay (CBD/D-O) Land Use: Commercial Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Page 3 of 13 Administrative Analysis Prior to the formal submittal of Design Review 17-02, staff spoke to the applicant's representative (B.K. Signs Incorporated) numerous times over-the-counter. Staff had expressed to B.K. Signs Incorporated that the proposed project may not meet the required findings under Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC) Section 17.28.O2O(C), because the proposed double -sided LED sign does not meet the requirements of RMC 17.116.O3O(B)(2) and 17.116.O5O(F). However, B.K. Signs Incorporated insisted that the applicant wanted to submit a formal application. As illustrated in Exhibit "B", the applicant is proposing to re -face an existing free standing sign with a new double -sided LED display. The applicant is proposing four slides with the intent to add additional slides in the future since the LED display is programmable. The slides will consist of on-site displays of the applicant's products and services. In addition, the applicant submitted a narrative and two studies pertaining to digital signage and traffic safety which is included in Exhibit "B". The proposed project would not increase the floor area of the existing building, reduce any parking spots, or remove landscaping: Staff has several concerns relating to the proposed double -sided LED Sign, related to the illumination and flashing components of the sign. Per RMC Section 17.116.03O(B), illumination signs shall be located, and light sources shielded, to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. The proposed double - sided LED sign would not be shielded to prevent glare or annoyance to the public or neighboring properties. As illustrated below, the south property line of the subject site abuts an existing two-story apartment complex. The proposed double -sided LED display would be visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. Since the proposed double -sided LED sign is not shielded and will flash a new slide every ten seconds, light will spill but onto the Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Pape 4 of 13 surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex. In addition, because the proposed double -sided LED display is adjacent to the public -right- of-way, the unshielded light will also negatively impact pedestrians walking on the public -right-of-way. Furthermore, per RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2) and 17.116.050(F), no blinking or flashing signs shall be permitted in any zone, except for time and temperature signs. While the proposed double -sided LED sign does not flash in a traditional sense, the proposed double -sided LED sign does display a different slide every ten seconds and is not shielded to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. The proposed double -sided LED display will affect the health, safety, and welfare of the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex and pedestrians utilizing the public -right -of way. Correlation Between LED Signs and Traffic Hazards Initially, staff was concerned about the double -sided LED display and how it would affect traffic traveling along Rosemead Boulevard. However, after review from the City Engineer and two of the City's Traffic Consultants, it was determined that the studies pertaining to LED signs and vehicular traffic are inconclusive, as there is no direct correlation between LED signs and an increase in traffic hazards. The proposed plans were also routed to CAL TRANS. However, they did not have any comments because the proposed sign is on private property. Municipal Code Requirements Design Review procedures shall be followed for all improvements requiring a building permit or visible changes in form, texture, color, exterior fagade, or landscaping in a Design Overlay Zone. Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.28.020(C), provides the criteria by which the Planning Commission may approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove an application: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. The subject site is located within an established commercial corridor with an apartment complex abutting the south property line. The plans for the proposed double -sided LED sign indicate that proper consideration has not been taken in regards to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents living in the neighboring apartment complex. The proposed double -sided LED sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. The proposed double -sided LED sign is not shielded, therefore light will spill out onto surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex to the south of the subject site. In addition, the proposed double -sided Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Paae 5 of 13 LED sign would be at a variance from the surrounding site developments because there are no double- sided LED signs or other electronic or flashing signs within the vicinity. The proposed double -sided LED sign would stand out because it would be a lit screen rather than a front -lighted or internally -lighted display sign; in addition the sign would flash a new slide every ten seconds and attract attention because it is unshielded and brighter than any other sign along the commercial corridor. B. The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas. Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. While the applicant is only proposing to re -face an existing freestanding sign, the plans for the proposed double -sided LED sign will have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartment complex abutting the south property line. The proposed double -sided LED sign would be visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. Since the proposed double -sided LED sign is not shielded and will flash a new slide every ten seconds, light would spill out onto the surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex. G. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. No existing site developments or signs in this neighborhood use LED lighting. Further, the proposed double -sided LED sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the neighboring apartment complex. The proposed double -sided LED sign is also not shielded, and therefore light will spill out onto surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex to the south of the subject site. 1n addition, the sign would flash a new slide every ten seconds and attract attention because itis unshielded and brighter than any other sign in the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, the proposed double -sided LED sign would cause the environment to materially depreciate in value because the unshielded light will impact the rentalvalue of the apartment complex and neighboring properties, and will cause material depreciation in the value of such properties. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Page 6 of 13 of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style. Staff's Recommendation: This finding is supported by evidence in the record. The subject property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan, or land reserved for public or educational use. There are currently no proposed developments on land in the general area. There is no public or educational use adjacent to the subject site, and the subject site is not adjacent to any parcels within a precise plan. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed double -sided LED sign are not in conformity with the standards of the Rosemead Municipal Code (RMC). Per RMC Section 17.116.030(B), illumination signs shall be located, and light sources shielded to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. The proposed double -sided LED sign would not be shielded to prevent glare or annoyance to pedestrians walking on the public -right-of-way or the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex. In addition, per RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2) and 17,116.050(F), no blinking or flashing signs shall be permitted in any zone, except for time and temperature signs. The intent of RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2) and 17.116.050(F) is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. While the proposed double -sided LED sign does not flash in a traditional sense, the proposed double -sided LED sign does display a different slide every ten seconds. In addition, since the proposed double -sided LED sign would not be shielded, the health, safety, and welfare of the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex would be affected. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. Staff's Recommendation: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed double -sided LED sign indicate that proper consideration has not been given to the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. While studies pertaining to LED signs and vehicular traffic are inconclusive and there is no direct correlation between LED signs and an increase in traffic hazards, the proposed double -sided LED sign would affect the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets because it would flash a new slide every ten seconds and it is unshielded Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Page 7 of 13 and would be brighter than any other sign in the vicinity. The proposed double - sided LED sign would create a negative impact to the adjacent residents residing in the apartment complex and pedestrians utilizing the public -right -of way. Public Notice Process This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process, which includes a 300 -foot radius public hearing notice to 46 property owners, publication in the Rosemead Reader on July 6, 2017, and postings of the notice at the six public locations and on the subject site. Prepared by: Submitted by: Drv—/�— *-QL Annie Lao Lily T. Valenzuela Assistant Planner Interim Community Development Director EXHIBITS: A. Planning Commission Resolution 17-15 B. Site Plan, Floor Plan; and Elevations (Dated July 3, 2017) C. Assessor Parcel Map (APN: 8594-008-039) Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Pace 8 of 13 EXHIBIT "A" PC RESOLUTION 17-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DENYING DESIGN REVIEW 17-02, A REQUEST TO RE -FACE AN EXISTING FREE STANDING SIGN WITH A NEW LED DISPLAY THAT WOULD FLASH A NEW SLIDE EVERY TEN SECONDS. THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT 3940 ROSEMEAD BOULEVARD (APN: 8594- 008-039), IN A CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT WITH DESIGN OVERLAY (CBD/D-O) ZONE. WHEREAS, on February 21, 2017, Chinese Consumer Yellow Pages submitted a Design Review application requesting approval to re -face an existing free standing sign with a new LED display that would flash a new slide every ten seconds located at 3940 Rosemead Boulevard; WHEREAS, 3940 Rosemead Boulevard is located in the Central Business District with Design Overlay (CBD/D-0) zoning district; WHEREAS, Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal. Code (RMC) provides the criteria for a Design Review; WHEREAS, Sections 65800 & 65900 of the California Government Code and Section 17.28.020(C) of the Rosemead Municipal Code authorize the Planning Commission to approve, conditionally approve, or deny Design Review applications; WHEREAS, on July 6, 2017, 46 notices were sent to property owners within a 300 -foot radius from the subject property, the notice was published in the Rosemead Reader, and notices were posted in six public locations and on site, specifying the availability of the application, and the date, time, and location of the public hearing for Design Review 17-02; WHEREAS, on July 17, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed and advertised public hearing to receive oral and written testimony relative to Design Review 17-02; and WHEREAS, the Rosemead Planning Commission has sufficiently considered all testimony presented to them in order to make the following determination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead as follows: Planning Commission Meeting July 97, 2017 Page 9 of 13 SECTION 1. The Planning Commission HEREBY DETERMINES that Design Review 17-02 is classified as a Class 3 Categorical Exemption, pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines. Section 15303(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines exempts projects consisting of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. SECTION 2. The Planning Commission HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that facts do exist to justify denying Design Review 17-02, in accordance with Section 17.28.020(C) of the RMC as follows: A. The plans indicate proper consideration for the relationship between the proposed building and site developments that exist or have been approved for the general neighborhood. FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. The subject site is located within an established commercial corridor with an apartment complex abutting the south property linea The plans for the proposed double -sided LED sign indicate that proper consideration has not been taken in regards to the health, safety, and welfare of the residents living in the neighboring apartment complex. The proposed double -sided LED sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. The proposed double -sided LED sign is not shielded, therefore light will spill out onto surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex to the south of the subject site. In addition, the proposed double - sided LED sign would be at a variance from the surrounding site developments because there are no LED signs or other electronic or flashing signs within the vicinity. The proposed LED sign would stand out because it would be a lit screen rather than a front lighted or internally -lighted display sign; in addition the sign would flash a new slide every ten seconds and attract attention because it is unshielded and brighter than any other sign along the commercial corridor. B. The plan for the proposed structure and site development indicates the manner in which the proposed development and surrounding properties are protected against noise, vibrations, and other factors which may have an adverse effect on the environment, and the manner of screening mechanical equipment, trash, storage and loading areas: FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. While the applicant is only proposing tore -face an existing freestanding sign, the plans for the proposed double -sided LED sign will have an adverse effect on the adjacent apartment complex abutting the south property line. The proposed double -sided LED sign would be visible from the windows of the north elevation of the apartment complex. Since the proposed double -sided LED sign is not shielded and will flash anew slide every ten Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Page 10 of 13 seconds, light would spill out onto the surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex. C. The proposed building or site development is not, in its exterior design and appearance, so at variance with the appearance of other existing buildings or site developments in the neighborhood as to cause the nature of the local environment to materially depreciate in appearance and value. FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by the evidence in the record. No existing site developments or signs in this neighborhood use LED lighting. Further, the proposed double -sided LED sign is visible from the windows of the north elevation of the neighboring apartment complex. The proposed double -sided LED sign is also not shielded, and therefore light will spill out onto surrounding properties and negatively impact the residents of the apartment complex to the south of the subject site. In addition, the sign would flash a new slide every ten seconds and attract attention because it is unshielded and brighter than any other sign in the surrounding neighborhood. As a result, the proposed double -sided LED sign would cause the environment to materially depreciate in value because the unshielded light will impact the rental value of the apartment complex and neighboring properties, and will cause material depreciation in the value of such properties. D. The proposed building or structure is in harmony with the proposed developments on land in the general area, especially those instances where buildings are within or adjacent to land shown on the General Plan as being part of the Civic Center or in public or educational use, or are within or immediately adjacent to land included within any precise plan which indicates building shape, size, or style. FINDING: This finding is supported by evidence in the record. The subject property is not part of the Civic Center Plan, precise plan, or land reserved for public or educational use. There are currently no proposed developments on land in the general area. There is no public or educational use adjacent to the subject site, and the subject site is not adjacent to any parcels within a precise plan. E. The proposed development is in conformity with the standards of this Code and other applicable ordinances in so far as the location and appearance of the buildings and structures are involved; and FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed double -sided LED sign are not in conformity with the standards of the RMC. Per RMC Section 17.116,030(8), illumination signs shall be located, and light sources shielded to prevent glare, annoyance, or hazard to the public or neighboring properties. The proposed double -sided LED sign would not be shielded to prevent glare or annoyance to pedestrians walking on the public -right-of-way or the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex. In addition, per RMC Sections 17.116.030(B)(2) and 17.116.050(F), no blinking or flashing signs shall be permitted in any zone, except for time and temperature signs. The intent of RMC sections 17.116.030(8)(2) and Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Page 11 of 13 17.116.050(F) is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the City and its residents. While the proposed double -sided LED sign does not flash in a traditional sense, the proposed double -sided LED sign does display a different slide every ten seconds. In addition, since the proposed double -sided LED sign would not be shielded, the health, safety, and welfare of the residents residing in the neighboring apartment complex would be affected. F. The site plan and the design of the buildings, parking areas, signs, landscaping, luminaries, and other site features indicates that proper consideration has been given to both the functional aspects of the site development, such as automobile and pedestrian circulation, and the visual effect of the development from the view of public streets. FINDING: This finding cannot be supported by evidence in the record. The plans for the proposed double -sided LED sign indicate that proper consideration has not been given to the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets. While studies pertaining to LED signs and vehicular traffic are inconclusive, as there is no direct correlation between LED signs and an increase in traffic hazards, the proposed double -sided LED sign would affect the visual effect of the development when viewed from the public streets because it would flash a new slide every ten seconds and it is unshielded and would be brighter than any other sign in the vicinity. The proposed double -sided LED sign would create a negative impact to the adjacent residents residing in the apartment complex and pedestrians utilizing the public -right -of way. SECTION 3. The Planning Commission HEREBY DENIES approval of Design Review 17-02 for a proposed re -face of an existing free standing sign with a new double -sided LED display that would display a new slide every ten seconds. SECTION 4. This action shall become final and effective ten days after this decision by the Planning Commission, unless within such time a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk for consideration by the Rosemead City Council as provided in Rosemead Municipal Code, Section 17.160,040 — Appeals of Decisions. SECTION 5. This resolution is the result of an action taken by the Planning Commission on July 17, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Planning Commission Meeting July 17, 2017 Paoe 12 of 13 SECTION 6. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall transmit copies of same to the applicant and the Rosemead City Clerk. PASSED, DENIED, and ADOPTED this 17th day of July, 2017. Chair CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rosemead at its regular meeting, held on the 17th day of July, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Lily T. Valenzuela, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kane Thuyen, Planning Commission Attorney Burke; Williams & Sorensen, LLP Planning Commission Meeting My 17, 2017 Page 13 of 13 8594 2001 N LLI ---- j r , m f m AVE N AYE BK ' 6 5390 w f r EXHIBIT "C" TBACT �Bm® A' }O 041 O (D I O I NO IIIj zO3¢ O l @1@ O3i ,5 I @10 8288 ]B I6 �® °ro.® MBIla - I I4 j :.GUESS ST io SUBJECT SITE