Loading...
Minutes-PC 2007/09/17C~ ~ • • /~4 .~ , U I /KE,M P~ cq _ l~~ ~ ~ _ ~ .~o ~ r~yy, Y~~ \NDED~ Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: City of Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes Monday, September 17, 2007 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, California Chairman: Kelly Buffa Peter Agarwal, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Joseph Karaki, Panky Romero, Pat Velasquez None Staff Present: Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Dave See, Senior Planner Della Herrick, Associate Planner Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner Kimberly Wong, Planner Jamie Lai, Principal Civil Engineer David Kennedy, Associate Engineer Elly Morris, Senior Secretary Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 13, 2007, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chambers, and also in the outside display kiosk. PubCished: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, August 23, 2007 • Call To Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:00 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 AGENDA • Recess To Public Hearing • Reconvene To Public Hearing 2:30 P.M. Attendance: 32 • Pledge Of Allegiance: Commissioner Romero • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment H:ITOOLS~PCADMIN\PCACTIONAGENDA~2007MI NUTESWC091707. DOC SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • ~ Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None Planning Commission Appointments: Appointment for Utilities Underground Subcommittee (Motion) ACTION: Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman and MOTION CARRIED, that the Anaheim Planning Commission does hereby appoint Commissioner Faessel to serve as the Planning Commission representative for the Utilities Underground Subcommittee. Consent Calendar: Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel and MOTION CARRIED, to continue Consent Calendar Items 1A through 1 C. UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED 1A.(a) CEQA SECOND ADDENDUM TO THE POINTE ANAHEIM INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE Continued to October 15, 2007 DECLARATION (PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) (b) FINAL SITE PLAN NO. 2007-00009 Consent Calendar Agent: Chris Samuelian Approval Morris Architects 2046 Armacost Avenue VOTE: 7-0 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Location: 500 West Disnev Wav Continued from the August 20, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. ProjectPlanner.• Re uest review and a roval of a final site lan to q pp p (dherrick@anaheim.net) construct a 400-unit time share within the Anaheim GardenWalk project. 09-17-07 Page 2 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • ~ 1 B. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of August 20, 2007. (Motion) Continued from the September 5, 2007 Planning Commission Meeting 1 C. Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of September 5, 2007. (Motion) • • Continued to October 1, 2007 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 Continued to October 1, 2007 Consent Calendar Approval VOTE: 7-0 09-17-07 Page 3 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Public Hearina Items: 2a. CEQA NEGATIVE DECLARATION (READVERTISED) Continued to October 15, 2b. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-00460 2007 2c. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2006-00190 2d. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 2e. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2006-05175 Motion: Eastman/Faessel 2f. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17139 VOTE: 7-0 Owner: Natalie Tran 3100 Lindacita Anaheim, CA 92804-1715 Quyen Tran 237 South Beach Anaheim, CA 92804-1815 Agent: Mertco Attn: Roy Ward 2614 Ocean Blvd. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 • Location: 237 South Beach Boulevard and 3100 West Lindacita Lane: Portion A: This irregularly-shaped 0.27-acre property has a frontage of 47 feet on the southeast side of Lindacita Lane and a maximum depth of 142 feet (3100 West Lindacita Lane). Portion B: This irregularly-shaped 1.68 acres property is a land-locked parcel with a maximum depth of 287 feet and is located north across a flood control channel from 3067 and 3079 West Orange Avenue and is located 175 feet south of the centerline of Grand Avenue (237 South Beach Boulevard). General Plan Amendment No. 2007-00470 - Request withdrawn by applicant. Reclassification No. 2006-00190 - Request reclassification of Portion B from the T(Transition) zone to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone and • to remove the Mobile Home Park Overlay zone. 09-17-07 Page 4 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Conditional Use Permit No. 2006-05175 - Request to construct a 9-unit detached single-family residential subdivision with waiver of improvement of private street for Portions A and B, and waiver of minimum lot area for Portion A. Tentative Tract Map No. 17139 - To establish a 12 numbered and 1 lettered lot, 10-unit detached single-family residential subdivision for Portions A and B. Continued from the June 11, June 25, July 9, August 20 and the September 5, 2007 Planning Commission Meetings. *Advertised to include Reclassification of Portion A from the RS-2 (Residential, Single-Family) zone to the RS-4 (Residential, Single-Family) zone, or a less intense zone. General Plan Amendment Resolution No. Reclassification Resolution No. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. • OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. • Project Planner. (kwong2@anaheim. net) 09-17-07 Page 5 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES t 3a. CE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Karaki/Eastman Q A roved PP ~PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED) 3b. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT Karaki/Eastman Approved 3c. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 4177 Karaki Approved Amendment (TRACKING NO. CUP 2007-05221) Owner: Price-James Company Added a condition of 110 N. Wacker Drive approval Chicago, IL 60606 Agent: EMI vOTES:7-0 Attn: Rod Wilson 4737 West 156th Street Lawndale, CA 90260 Location: 1303-1371 North Euclid Street: Property is approximately 6.42 acres and is located at the northwest corner of Medical Center Drive and Euclid Street. Request to amend conditions of approval to permit a freeway- . • oriented electronic readerboard sign in conjunction with an existing automotive dealership with waivers of (a) minimum lot size for an automotive dealership to permit a freeway- oriented sign (b) maximum area for the face of sign, (c) maximum permitted height of a freeway-oriented sign.* *Advertised as "within 300 feet of single-family residential". Continued from the July 23, and the September 5, 2007, Planning Commission meeting. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-106 Project Planner.~ (kwong2@anaheim. net) Kimberly Wong, Planner, presented staff report. Chairman Buffa asked staff what the code requirements would be if the applicant asked for a freestanding sign in front of their building instead of a freeway sign. Ms. Wong advised code would require a waiver it is over 70 feet; she isn't sure of the maximum height allowed and will research the issue. The applicant would also need a • waiver for minimum sign area. A reader board sign would be allowed adjacent to Euclid Street, as long as they obtain approval of the conditional use permit. 09-17-07 Page 6 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Eastman asked how large could a reader board be on Euclid Street. Ms. Wong advised there is no sign criteria for a reader board sign; code requirements would apply for a general sign on a street. Commissioner Faessel asked the City Attorney to provide the allowable number of freeway oriented signs verses allowable number of building mounted signs. Ms. Wong asked if he meant the number of freeway signs along the SR-91. Commissioner Faessel asked if a building mounted sign is conditioned, would it preclude a freeway oriented sign. Ms. Wong advised heights and minimum 10-acre site requirements are only applicable for freestanding signs. Alternative 4 meets minimum sign guidelines for the sign affixed to the north and east elevations. They would just need to obtain approval of a conditional use permit. Commissioner Faessel clarified if alternative 4 is allowed, it would preclude freeway oriented sign. Ms. Wong said yes, from the standards of the minimum lot size. They also meet • maximum size of 150 square feet for a wall sign. Commissioner Agarwal asked if an alternative was discussed with the applicant. Ms. Wong stated the applicant proposed altemative 4, but prefers to seek approval for the freeway oriented sign. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Marvin Marcell, with Miller Toyota of Anaheim, 1331 North Euclid. He offered to allow the neighbors to come up first because they had other commitments. Eleanor Vernon, Emerald Court, 1731 West Medical Center Drive, Anaheim. Stated in April of this year, loud noises from the Toyota dealer began waking her up between 4:15 and 6:15 Tuesday through Saturday mornings. She noticed a large van with blinking red lights beyond the block wall that separates the property. She called the dealer and was told the van delivers car parts for the day's orders. She asked if they could be delivered at a later time, but she was told the delivery followed a pattern and route established by the company responsible for delivering the parts. She lives on the third floor, in the end unit on the south east corner of the building directly adjacent to the southwest corner of the Toyota dealer where the parts are delivered. She clarified that she isn't concerned about noise from the dealer during the daytime hours. She is • concerned about the noise that regularly wakes elderly and ailing residents who live immediately next door. 09-17-07 Page 7 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • She submitted an addenda from a finro week period in August which recorded actual time and duration of early morning noise and an incomplete list of signatures for a number of residents who also feel early morning disturbance is offensive and unwarranted. They would like to see this problem corrected in a timely manner. Commissioner Eastman clarified the proposal is for a new sign and does not propose any change to the operation of the dealership. Since the owner and their representatives are present, she hopes they can take the delivery location, or time of the delivery under advisement so that the noise distubances can be rectified. Dr. Malcolm Stoler stated he is still medically active and was asked to speak on the medical aspects of the noise disturbances. He and wife are residents of Emerald Court. Sources of inedical literature uniformly say a good night's sleep is very important, particularly seniors and there are 230 seniors who reside in the facility. Lack of sleep can cause heart disease, stroke, and diabetes. He called Miller Toyota and he said they were on his side and they are doing everything they can. The delivery people are not Toyota employees. He feels it would be helpful if the ordinance could forbid excessive noise from being generated prior to 7 a.m. He'd like to see the City Council impose restrictions on them. Chairman Buffa asked what the City Noise Ordinance says about early morning noise that wakes neighbors. • Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, stated generally there are provisions that place restrictions on activities before a certain hour of the day or after certain hours in the evening. There are also provisions relating to decibel levels. He doesn't know of any general standard about excessive noise because it is a vague standard. He referred to Ms. Wong to elaborate on it. Ms. Wong stated their condition of approval states delivery of vehicles and parts shall not occur prior to 7 a.m. and deliveries should occur befinreen 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. Chairman Buffa clarified it was befinreen 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. Ms. Wong stated that is in compliance with code for noise. Chairman Buffa advised Miller Toyota to restrict deliveries to those hours. She asked what neighbors should do to address it with the City if it continues, because it is a violation of their conditional use permit. Dave See, Senior Planner advised residents are encouraged to contact the Code Enforcement Division to report noise disturbances. There is a condition of approval under CUP 4177 that prohibits the closing of the roll-up doors between 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. and another condition states no deliveries shall occur after 9 p.m. and before 7 • a.m. 09-17-07 Page 8 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Chairman Buffa advised residents to contact the City of Anaheim Code Enforcement if they hear noise during those prohibited times and she hopes the Miller representatives who are here today will resolve the problem. Mr. Marcell, Miller Toyota, stated they concur with Madam Chair's comments about Code Enforcement. They learned about the problem three weeks ago. Toyota Corporation delivers cars and parts when their own staff isn't even there. They want to be a good neighbor and are putting up signage indicating no deliveries before 7 a.m., even though it is a statement of poor will toward the supplier. They will lock the gates and not accept deliveries until staff is there to receive them. He wanted it to be noted that they have major disagreement with staff's recommendation on the signage request. Miller feels their experience demonstrates hardship as well as their predecessor's experience who went out of business at that location. They feel lack of identity had a great deal to do with their departure. It is an unusually situated plot and is difficult to see. They assessed the stealth opportunity for the sign to be more than just a sign. They have pursued the possibility of housing a cell tower with Sprint and AT&T Wireless, and T-Mobile. They are pursuing an opportunity to create one cell tower that could serve their purposes and not require additional visual clutter in the City. Another issue is the code violations. Toyota had a major tent sale with a couple of tents which are now gone, along with 2 x 3 banners. They also had a couple of canopies to shade customers, but they were advised it was in violation of • code, so they had the canopies removed. The gorilla balloon was removed 3 months ago. With the exception of the noise, they have clarified all their violations and are in full compliance. There is general agreement that they have a signage problem and they need to address it. They've looked at three different approaches to signage. He asked Rod Wilson to share information to the Commission. Rod Wilson, owner of VMI, 1331 North Euclid. They were asked to do flagging of the freestanding sign and to investigate how a wall sign would look and to revisit the original design. They improved the original design and came up with finro or three other designs. They set a crane up next to the building with a flag to see if they could put something on the building that would be visible. Code prohibits roof signs but he put the flag above the roof line to verify the height and they still had the same problem because of the setback. In alternative 4, they lowered the flag down to the word Miller on the dealership closest to the freeway. Because of staff's request, they designed a reader board sign with identification on the corner of the dealership then did a photo survey from the freeway. It showed that going east you have to turn and look at a 90 degree angle which is too dangerous. Going west, because of the setback and small size of the sign, it would be an excessive expense because you can't visibly see the messages. The building signage is out of the normal field of vision while driving on the freeway because the building is setback a long distance. They also flagged the freestanding sign to see if there could be a decrease in height. They dropped it down to 70 feet and the photo survey shows that if it is less than 70 feet, the bottom word and bottom of the • reader board would be obscured by the landscaping and freeway sound wall, especially heading east. He submitted pictures showing all findings. 09-17-07 Page 9 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Marcell stated they are seeking resolution to a major problem. The business cannot be easily seen from the freeway. They have facts to support that residents from their geographic market area go to other cities to buy or service their vehicles. They have learned and have over 1,000 documented cases stating it is because people can't find the dealership. In addition to being 30 feet below grade, there is a sound wall and landscaping that prohibits view of the dealership. They would like any meaningful relief. As for the wall sign, you won't see it unless you stop the car, turn to the side and look through the trees. He doesn't feel this is a precedent setting variance request for three reasons. First, it is an active partnership befinreen the City and the preceding owner, Mr. Hitchcock who decided to occupy a vacant retail building. They thought it was a good solution for the City and Toyota. Secondly, because they are 30 feet below grade, he doesn't think it is a situation that will apply to other properties. Finally, the property is a gateway to the city and with regard to the reader board, it is a way of letting people know they are entering Anaheim. They are the first business seen from the north as you enter the City. The City of Ventura has a reader board sign under construction that is used for advertising, as well as for the State's Emergency Services Program to communicate and signal to drivers in the event of emergency. John Muse, an engineer retained by Miller Toyota stated there is no level of illumination problems under any of the alternatives. Alternatives 1, 2 or 3 are much more visible and due to the depth, alternative 4 is not visible to people on the freeway. • Commissioner Eastman stated she is disappointed that all the alternatives include a reader board because at the last meeting Commission expressed that they didn't want a reader board. She'd be in favor of an iconic sign without the distraction of the reader board. She asked if anything other than a reader board was ever considered and if not, why do they feel they need a reader board sign because most people know Toyota sells automobiles. Mr. Marcell stated they felt there was some joint interest on behalf of the City because that is a beacon point as a gateway for the City. They also felt they could use the sign for emergency situations. They would be happy with a freestanding sign that didn't have a reader board, but they have a serious problem with identity and people knowing where they are and they thought the reader board would alleviate the problem. If Commission approves a non-reader board sign, they will move quickly to make it happen. Commissioner Eastman stated if they are not so intent on getting the reader board, they would just prefer that the sign be lowered in heighta bit more. Mr. Marcell stated at 65 feet, it is barely above the freeway because of the 30-foot grade. A height of 65-75 feet is necessary to be seen from the freeway. Commission's packet shows what it looks like at the 70 foot level. The square footage would also be smaller because it is showing a logo and name. • Chairman Buffa asked him if he considered a sign on a tall pole in the front of the building that would be higher than the roof of the building. In effect it would gain some 09-17-07 Page 10 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • height above his current roof line and be more visible, but instead of being oriented to the freeway it would be closer to the front of the building and therefore not be considered a freeway oriented sign. Mr. Marcell stated they considered that option but the dilemma is they could only have a maximum 30 foot high sign. With a 30 foot grade difference, a sound wall, landscaping, and freeway off ramp, drivers would not be able to see the sign. The 30 foot grade difference causes an extreme hardship. Commissioner Romero asked staff if the 30 feet below grade was taken into consideration. Does the 30 foot maximum take into account that it can be able to be read from the freeway. Mr. See clarified that Commissioner Romero is asking if the height is determined from the property from which it placed or from where it is seen. He advised that the height standard is applied on the grade of the subject property. Waivers are considered on a case-by-case basis and staff takes hardship situations like grade into consideration. In this case, staff still does not support the waiver. Commissioner Velasquez asked if it is a hardship because they don't have freeway signage or just a sign that isn't visible. She feels the applicant stated his case about the hardship that business has gone through and the issue is one of signage visibility. ~ Should it be on the property or is it upon the Commission to get freeway signage? Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. She advised Mr. Marcell that Commission is sympathetic with his problem and they are inclined to help him solve the problem, but just haven't found the right solution yet. Like Commissioner Eastman, she is not comfortable with the reader board and that there is a difference between people being able to find him and people knowing what they're selling. Advertising is something else and the City doesn't need to grant waivers to allow for readerboard advertising. One alternative is to continue the item and look at other choices. Commissioner Agarwal asked staff if there is a limit on the height of the sign if it is not attached to the building. Ms. Wong stated the maximum height of a freestanding monument sign is 8 feet. Commissioner Agarwal advised he has not been presented with enough alternatives to make an informed decision. He is in favor of continuing the item. He is torn befinreen the benefits of a reader board sign versus a 70 foot high sign. Commissioner Karaki stated last time he was in favor of approving the 65 foot sign as it was proposed. The main constraint pertains to the orientation of the site in that it is not parallel to the freeway and the visibility is limited. Even with a 75 foot high sign, you • would not see it heading east or west on the 91. The 30 foot grade below freeway also causes visibility issues. He is in favor of a 75 foot high sign. He stated Garden Grove, Buena Park, and Riverside have auto dealerhips on the freeway, but the applicant in 09-17-07 Page 11 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • this case abut a freeway off ramp and not the freeway itself. He doesn't have a problem giving this dealer a freeway sign because he does not abut the freeway and is situated at an oblique angle. Anaheim should support their auto dealers. He stated we lost the dealers on the 57 freeway due to lack of visibility. He is in favor of granting the sign. Commissioner Faessel is also sensitive to the financial success of the business; however, it is not Commission's primary responsibility to consider economic factors. He can see the case for a tall sign, whether it is 65 -75 feet needs to be determined. He is concerned about a readerboard with a 400 square foot LED display on both sides, well beyond what code allows. He feels Commission should support a sign that improves the financial potential, but he is concerned about the mass of the reader board. He concurs with Commissioner Eastman. Mr. Marcell stated part of Commission's consideration is to take into account properties and land that is unique and may require different treatment because of it. If they could not get support for a reader board, then they would still move forward with a freeway sign. Identity is the most important thing. Chairman Buffa asked Commission to look at the visuals in the packet. She feels a non-reader board sign could be designed adjacent to the freeway that provide adequate identification for the applicant. Commission seems to concur that that a non readerboard could be supported, but they had to find a justification for it. • Commissioner Eastman advised she'd like to see a justification for the sign to accommodate future cell tower locations so communication companies could be co- located with the sign. Her concern is that the sign is at a height that would accommodate future cell tower use. It would help Miller and Commission provide some stealthing for future towers. Commissioner Karaki thought the minimum for cell towers was 70 - 75 feet. Commissioner Eastman stated that would be a reason to support the 70-75 foot height, as long as there is not a reader board attached. Mr. Marcell stated they would comply should the Commission grant the pole sign. Commissioner Eastman stated she is supportive of obtaining stealth towers and identity at the freeway. Commissioner Faessel concurred with Commissioner Eastman, and agrees with the 70 foot sign height, it puts him well above the freeway level. Size could be moderated, and if he gets height he won't need the sign board to be so large. If the 70 foot height is the optimum height for cell carriers, it is their collective best interest to incorporate that in the structure. He supports a 70 foot high iconic sign rather than the proposed reader • board. 09-17-07 Page 12 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Velasquez asked staff if they had any suggestions if the Commission considers the freeway sign with no reader board. Chairman Buffa stated there is a general consensus on the Commission. She feels everyone is comfortable with the fact that they need a freestanding, freeway oriented sign and the waiver can be granted and there is reasonable justification. She also feels most are comfortable with the 70 foot height to accommodate cell sites. Seeing as how Miller is going to redesign the sign, she asked Mr. Marcell if he still needs a waiver for the area of the sign because code limits it to 125 square feet of sign face. Mr. Marcell stated they would have to design it and see what kind of impact it would have. They want to be good corporate citizens and they will make it work if they can. The setback is considerable, especially on the west side, but they will try to make it work. Ms. Wong asked Commission to refer to the project summary attached to the staff report which provides size areas for each of the alternative. The size areas include the Miller, Toyota Anaheim, and Scion logo and reader board. If you eliminate the size of the reader board sign, it still exceeds the maximum 125 square feet requirement of code. If a waiver is not approved or the item is continued, they would have to modify the plan to be in compliance with code. Staff suggests 2 alternatives. If Commission can require that they meet the minimum design standards of the area, but they get the • approval of the minimum lot size area and maximum permitted height of sign and staff can work with them to comply with code, or it can be continued for four weeks to the October 15th hearing. Code requires them to obtain an administrative approval if a telecommunication facility is proposed in the future, because it would be stealth mounted and architecturally integrated within a structure. It would not come back to Commission unless a waiver is requested. Commissioner Faessel stated Commission seems to agree on the height and he doesn't want to see this applicant come back for a third time to discuss this. He asked if they could offer a specific size, not to exceed a certain square footage so applicant could proceed. Commissioner Agarwal stated if they have a 70 foot high sign, 125 feet is very small and wouldn't be in scale with the height. He supports a sign in befinreen 125 and 600 square feet. He suggests agreeing to a size today. Chairman Buffa stated the project can be approved with certain parameters, the applicant can redesign and bring it back as a reports and recommendations item. Commissioner Agarwal concurred with that. Commissioner Karaki asked Mr. Marcell if half of the proposed area will be acceptable • for him. 09-17-07 Page 13 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Marcell stated he thinks it would be acceptable. The Toyota Anaheim and Scion occupies 300-400 square feet not including the reader board portion, so they could work with it. Commissioner Agarwal stated he is willing to work a 300 square foot maximum sign area. Commissioner Eastman stated she doesn't want to tell them the exact number of square feet because it needs to be architecturally balanced. It will make it harder if they give him too many restrictions. They want the sign to make a great statement. Commissioner Romero stated there was a balance at 125 square feet so it needs to be recalculated for the 70 foot height. Chairman Buffa agrees with Commissioner Eastman that they don't need to limit square footage, but Commission is very clear, it needs to shrink by about half or a little better than half. She summarized that there are three waivers being requested. Commission is willing to grant a waiver for a freeway oriented, freestanding sign and a waiver on height to allow it to be 70 feet tall with provision that it be designed in such a way to accommodate future cellular sites. Commission is also willing to grant a waiver for the square footage of the sign so they can create something well designed and visible from the freeway. For the neighbor's sake, Commission doesn't want moving or flashing • lights and to turn it on at dusk and off at midnight. They'd like to add a condition to the draft resolution that the ~nal design of the sign come back as a reports and recommendations item. Mr. See advised staff can provide a resolution for approval because the Commission's packet only included a resolution for denial. Recommended conditions can be incorporated into the attached resolution approving the dealership in its entirety. Commissioner Karaki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve the CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Karaki offered to approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 4177 and add one condition to have applicant return with new architectural review as a reports and recommendation item. Mr. See asked if Commission wanted a height limitation and no reader board included in the conditions of approval. Commissioner Karaki advised they'd like 75 feet and no reader board. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary announced the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. • 09-17-07 Page 14 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • OPPOSITION: 2 people spoke in opposition Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 9, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 16 minutes (2:34-3:50) • • 09-17-07 Page 15 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 4a E A NE ATI LARAT N . C Q G VE DEC 10 (PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) 4b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3726 (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05245) Owner: Vineyard Christian Church 5340 East La Palma Avenue Anaheim, CA 92807 Agent: Rob Chandler Fairmont Private Schools 1575 West Mable Street Anaheim, CA 92802 Romero/Velasquez Romero Location: 5310 East La Palma Avenue: Property is approximately 23.08 acres, having a frontage of 1,238 feet on the south side of La Palma Avenue and is located 2,370 feet west of the centerline of Imperial Highway Request to amend a previously approved Conditional Use Permit • to convert a choir studio into new junior high classrooms, administration offices, and other related uses. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-107 Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, presented staff report. Approved Approved Amendment VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner.• (ethien@anaheim. net) Rob Chandler, representing Fairmont Private Schools advised he was present to answer questions. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. Commissioner Velasquez stated during the preliminary plan review session earlier today someone asked if any construction has already started on the building. Commissioner Agarwal stated he got clarification from staff and applicant and is satisfied with the answer. Chairman Buffa advised that the applicant had a prior permit to do other work. Commissioner Romero offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to • approve CEQA Negative Declaration. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Romero offered a resolution to approve amendment to CUP 3726. 09-17-07 Page 16 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Elly Morris, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Agarwal thanked Mr. Chandler for providing such a good school in Anaheim. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 9, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 4 minutes (3:51-3:55) u s 09-17-07 Page 17 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES . • ~ ~ 5a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 Velasquez/Faessel I Approved 5b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. CUP2007-05246 Velasquez Approved Owner: Hearn Revocable Living Trust VOTE: 7-0 One Post Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Agent: Paul Klukas Planning Systems 1530 Faraday Avenue #100 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Location: 1000 North Edward Court: Property is approximately 4.1 acres, having a frontage of 44 feet at the terminus of Edward Court, and is located 335 feet south of the centerline of White Star Avenue. Request to permit an indoor go-kart facility. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-108 Project Planner. (ethien@ana heim. net) Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Karaki asked who was currently occupying the building. Mr. See stated it is vacant. It used to be a hockey facility. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Paul Klukas, consultant with Planning Systems 1530 Faraday Avenue #100, Carlsbad, 92008. They accept staff report and conditions of approval. Chairman Buffa asked staff how large the site is. Paul Klukas stated it is 4.1 acres. Commissioner Karaki asked Mr. Klukas when they expect to open. Mr. Klukas advised they will submit tenant improvements as soon as they are drawn up and anticipate they'll open in a few months. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. Commissioner Velasquez offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel to approve CEQA Categorical Exemption. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. 09-17-07 Page 18 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Velasquez offered a resolution to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05246. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced that the resolution passed with seven yes votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 9, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (3:56-4:01) ~ • 09-17-07 Page 19 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • • ~ 6a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION-CLASS 1 FaesseUVe~asquez ~ Approved 6b. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3693 Faessel Approved Amendment (TRACKING NO. CUP2007-05247) Owner: Calvary Chapel Open Door VOTE: 7-0 1011 North Harbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92801 Agent: Roger Stahlhut 1011 North Marbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92801 Location: 1011 North Harbor Boulevard: Property is approximately 0.76-acre, having a frontage of 180 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard and is located 250 feet north of the centerline of La Palma Avenue. Request to amend conditions of approval and exhibits to permit the interior expansion of a church. Project Planner. Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-109 (dherrick@anaheim.net) Della Herrick, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Buffa opened the public hearing. Pastor Roger Stahlhut, Calvary Chapel Open Door, asked for approval as stated. Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman to approve a CEQA Categorical Exemption. Motion passed with 7 ayes votes. Commissioner Faessel offered a resolution to approve an amendment to Conditional Use Permit No. 3693. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary, announced resolution passed with seven yes votes. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 9, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 5 minutes (4:02-4:07) 09-17-07 Page 20 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • 7a. CEQA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 7b. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2007-00209 7c. WAIVER OF CODE REQUIREMENT 7d. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2007-05241 Eastman/Velasquez Eastman Eastman/Velasquez Eastman Approved Granted, unconditionally Approved Approved Owner: Karcher Partners 1200 North Harbor Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92801-2420 Kimberly Wong, Planner, presented the staff report. meeting. Agent: DMJM Design 999 Town And Cou ntry Road Orange, CA 92868 Location: 1325 North Anaheim Boulevard: Property is approximately 5.4-acres, located at the southwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and the Riverside Freeway (SR-91) and having frontages of 577 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 475 feet on the south side of the Riverside Freeway. Reclassification No. 2007-00209 - Request to reclassify property • from the General Commercial (C-G) and Transition (T) zones to the Industrial (I) zone. Conditional Use Permit No. 2007-05241 - Request to construct a 3-story office building with waivers of (a) minimum landscape setback abutting an arterial highway, and (b) minimum landscape setback abutting a freeway right-of-way. Reclassification Resolution No. PC2007-110 Conditional Use Permit Resolution No. PC2007-111 RCL Modified resolution at today's CUP Added three conditions of approval. VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: (kwong2~anaheim. net) Chairman Buffa advised Caltrans faxed a letter to the City that raised two significant issues. In one of the comments stated they should have the right to approve the methodology used to derive the a.m. and p.m. peak hour traffic levels. She asked if the City used the standard traffic analysis methodology? David Kennedy, Public Works, advised they used the standard methodology that they typically use for traffic forecast. They used a CTA certified traffic model for long range planning to determine the distribution of project trips. The trip distribution they used came right from that traffic model. ! Chairman Buffa stated Caltrans made another comment that suggests there are impacts that are not being mitigated and that there is no mitigation discussed. 09-17-07 Page 21 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. K nne tate the V/ C volume to ca acit ratios the address in the letter are e dy s d ( p y) y based on a level of service of C which is used as a threshold to determine if they have to widen a street. Usually it is the intersection that controls it. They use the County's criteria, level service E to determine if they really need to widen a road. Under that criteria, these street segments are acceptable and there are no impacts. Chairman Buffa stated the record can reflect that they don't need to prepare an EIR as requested by Caltrans. The City is using the methodology that we think is appropriate. She opened the public hearing. Carl Karcher, 112 Menil Place, Palm Desert, California. Stated his dad had his first restaurant, Carl's Drive-in BBQ Restaurant on Harbor and Carl Karcher Way. After 12 years the landlord decided not to renew the lease so he could go into the restaurant business himself. Mr. Karcher then moved across the street. He gave brief history of the business that have been on that property throughout the years. CKE who incorporated the distribution center grew out of it in the last 20 years and has moved to Ontario. The building has been demolished and they have a lease with CKE to build a new 90,000 square foot, 3-story tilt-up office building. They could have leased out the old building with no changes and can't understand why the new product is unsatisfactory to staff. He asked for approval as soon as possible. • Christiane Dussa, with DMJM Design, architect for new building. They are very cognizant of the visual importance and building location on the freeway, as well as the other buildings in the neighborhood. They feel it would fit well into the neighborhood. The site is developed under an earlier GPA that they started to proceed with in light of the second phase and that is why they have the requirement for setback waivers. Current approach is to reclassify to Industrial Zone to allow the office building to be constructed. With the development of the office building on the 5.4 acre site, they believe they have substantially upgraded the site. They have substantially reduced impervious surfaces, about 90-95% is actually paved. In addition, they have dramatically increased the landscaping to 25% of the overall site area which will help minimize the visual impact of required parking associated with the building. Design of landscaping will support the distinction of the side and creation of a focal point on the corner of 91 and Anaheim Boulevard. The landscaping on Anaheim Boulevard along the Karcher side will tie into existing landscaping improvements south of the Karcher property. It will ultimately follow the recommendations found in the Community's Design Element. It will also create a pleasing focal point on the corner and dramatically improve Anaheim Boulevard as one enters the City. As for the building, the idea is to emphasize the character based on its construction method and not use add-on's to aesthetically improve it. They believe that a building distinguishing itself through the honest acceptance of being a tilt-up, and playing with the options within this type of construction will serve the design, its timelessness and neighborhood very well. They tried to keep in mind the future development of the western half of the site to be • developed against a timeless backdrop instead of describing a neo-classical design style as recommended by the consultant for the Redevelopment Agency which is non- existent in the neighborhood and would be awkward to provide that type of architecture. 09-17-07 Page 22 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • They believe a classic modern style with straight, clear, honest lines will integrate well into the neighborhood. At the same time, this style allows a design that serves the iconic site as a point of interest. Specifically, the proportions of the building are strongly horizontal, 246 feet long, 126 feet wide, by 49 feet high and with mechanical screening at a height of 55 feet. It was pre-defined in a feasibility study that led to a lease agreement which became the basis of the design description. The location along the freeway in conjunction with the strong horizontal massing demands that the building be perceived more dynamically, rather than creating vertical design elements which become secondary. The windows are set back to accentuate the horizontal line with a shading element. The usage of the individual floors will be determined by the user's requirements and a TI architect will be involved. She elaborated on the design and materials used for the interior and exterior of the building. Tom Austin, represents the Pres Company, 4300 Van Karman, Newport Beach. They've helped the Karcher's develop this site. He requested approval of the project and they are willing to work with staff to resolve any issues. Mike Darger, Director of Facilities for CKE, 401 West Carl Karcher Way. He asks for approval as soon as possible. Ryan Chamberlain, Department of Transportation of Caltrans, District 12. He requested that no action be taken on the Mitigated Negative Declaration at this time. They would • like to have a meeting with the City Traffic experts and their staff to work through questions outlined in their letter. Caltrans has some outstanding questions that can be resolved. He stated someone asked if the Department has any approval on this project, the answer is they don't if an encroachment permit is not required, but they would like to work in good faith with the City to get questions resolved. Commissioner Karaki asked if any encroachment permits are needed. Mr. Kennedy stated there are no need for encroachment permits as far as traffic is concerned. Commissioner Karaki asked if they don't then why do they give approval. Mr. Chamberlain stated the CEQA process is for every body to get involved, disclose it, and raise any outstanding issues and questions they have on the project. Caltrans has questions on the traffic analysis that was done and would like to take a look at the response because they haven't seen it yet. They'd like to have their experts understand some of the analysis that was done. As for the encroachment permit, it includes construction activity that takes place on their right-of-way or if there will be a new traffic signal installed. Whenever a project is adjacent to their right-of-way, they assume that there may or may not be an encroachment permit at a later stage so they ask that they have an opportunity to sit down with Traffic to see response to comments so they can • move forward with the project. Commissioner Karaki asked how long it would take. 09-17-07 Page 23 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Mr. Chamberlain said it could be done within the next week or two to see the res onses P and understand where the City Traffic Engineers are coming from and where they got some of their assumptions. He stated they do have some background on some of the questions and why they were brought up and he knows they can be answered. He asked Commission to postpone any decision on any environmental document until they have an opportunity to see it. Chairman Buffa asked when was the Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated for review. Ms. Wong stated the review period was for 20 days and began August 17th and ended September 5~h. As a courtesy, the City gave Caltrans an additional 10 days, for a 30- day review period, to help them out and that ended on Saturday, September 15. Chairman Buffa advised the City extended a courtesy to Caltrans and they did provide a comment letter. Commission will take his request for a continuance under consideration. Mr. Karcher pointed out the property will be fenced in so the ground floor won't be very prominent. He thinks it is an attractive building and it is a huge improvement. • Chairman Buffa closed the public hearing. She stated she suspects that the Commission shares staff's concern about the architecture, but wanted their feelings on the three other items: the change in zone, setback waiver adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard, and setback adjacent to the freeway. Commissioner Velasquez is in favor of approving the reclassification, setbacks and CUP that they are requesting but not the design of the buildings. This is much larger than the buildings around them. She'd like to see more design and landscaping to enhance the building. Commissioner Faessel stated he is perfectly satisfied with the three issues she brought up, but not the building design. Commissioner Eastman stated she is supportive of the three things too. Commissioner Karaki stated for public record, he met the applicant in his office last Wednesday and he is in support of the project as it is proposed. They can discuss the design. Commissioner Agarwal stated he is also in favor of the project with the exception of the architecture of the building. • Commissioner Romero stated the building is not a project that he would be in favor of seeing as how it is the gateway into the City and an area that is being redeveloped. 09-17-07 Page 24 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Chairman Buffa stated the Commission as a whole is strongly supportive of the project for the change of zone, landscape setbacks adjacent to both Anaheim Boulevard and freeway. They also unanimously have concerns about the architectural style. She asked if staff had what they needed to make it happen if Commission approves the project with the requirement for the architecture to be brought back. Mr. See stated a continuance would be faster to process compared to a reports and recommendations review at a later date. The applicant would have to work with staff to revise plans, it would have to be agendized and a new staff report would have to be written and it could take longer than a continuance. Should the Commission decide to approve it today, staff would prepare a resolution and include conditions for elevation plan review and any other issues requested by the Commission. Chairman Buffa stated fundamentally the issue is, if the Commission wants changes in the architecture, how quickly could those be generated and brought back. She'd like Commission to provide design direction. She stated it may be the way in which the building is rendered, but it is difficult to understand what they are trying to accomplish. She doesn't think it is appropriate for a governmental agency to tell them what their building should look like, it is their choice, but it is a kaleidoscope of color, unlike anything she has ever seen. Commissioner Eastman concurs with Chairman Buffa; it is confusing to the eye. . Pictures provided of other area buildings show they are simple but very clean and present a non-confusing look to the eye. One of the sketches they submitted shows added elements that are not costly, but give more interest and depth to the building. Chairman Buffa stated the elevations that were provided in the packet appear very flat and she didn't understand the projections and horizontal banding. Commissioner Eastman stated she doesn't see anything that was described to Commission. She doesn't see it on the rendering and is hesitant to accept it. She knows Commission can't demand design elements, but that is part of the approval process. They want a building that looks good now and in 20 -30 years from now. They want to make sure it is a building that others will want to utilize if it is vacated by the applicant. Commissioner Karaki stated when he met with the applicant last week, he emphasized this issue. He referred to one of the exhibits and stated the upper elevation shown is one that they could somewhat achieve and it is what they are looking for because it gives variety in the elevation. He mentioned that the 91 Freeway area has a lot of unattractive buildings and they will someday be redeveloped and this gives them an example to follow. He stated the building needs to bear Mr. Karcher's name and stand out. He suggested selecting the elevation that was prepared by the consultant. ~ Commissioner Faessel admitted he isn't an architect but knows local history. In looking at the current rendering and thinking back to the icon that is the Carl's star, the star is known nationally and is known as the Carl's Junior organization. The proposed building 09-17-07 Page 25 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • doesn't seem iconic of Karcher Enterprises and it's legacy. There are other large box buildings, like the Disney building, but they've made it iconic through the use of reflective materials and glass. The McDonalds building in Illinois is much more iconic than the Karcher building proposes to be and he'd like to suggest that Carl's predated McDonalds by a number of decades and feels the architect isn't doing Carl's justification here. It needs simple improvements that will make the building more attractive. Commissioner Faessel is supportive of all the other issues but thinks the building needs to be more attractive. Commissioner Romero agreed with Commissioner Faessel and Commissioner Karaki, it needs to be more iconic. Chairman Buffa asked applicant if they are interested in pursuing changes to the architectural design and if so, how long will it take. Mr. Austin stated they can achieve the design at the top with elements of color and different materials. They could probably return in a week with information for staff. Commissioner Karaki asked if they needed to come back for a consent calendar review. Ms. Wong stated with the expediting of this timeline, the applicant is looking to pull building permits immediately after the appeal period ends. It is better to continue until ~ October 15th. It would be a continuance of a public hearing item rather than a reports and recommendations item at a later date. Commissioner Faessel stated if Commission offers a continuance, he wants the Karcher family to realize, as supportive as Commission is of the project in general, it appears they'll need to take a four week delay. Commission would move forward with it if they could, but given the concerns that they all share about the architecture, it leaves them little choice. Commissioner Velasquez asked how much longer the process will be. Ms. Wong stated staff has outstanding response comments from Caltrans that need to be worked out. Commissioner Velasquez suggested continuing the item. Commissioner Faessel commented that the Anaheim Public Utility is funding green building components at a significant level. As part of that green building component they fast track the permit processing. Even though additional costs are involved, he'd like to see the developer incorporate green building components, especially if there is going to be a continuance. • Mr. Karcher stated they may lose their loan if project isn't approved by September 30. If they delay it until October, they may not get the loan. They can change colors if need be. He didn't realize so many people would ob~ect to it. 09-17-07 Page 26 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES • Commissioner Eastman asked if the lender re uires them to be in construction or 'ust 4 1 have approval. Mr. Karcher stated they have to have approval of zoning change by the end of this month and building permits by December 1, 2007. Commissioner Eastman asked staff if that time frame could be accommodated if they approved it today, then brought architecture back as a reports and recommendations item. Mr. See stated it is conceivable to move forward and bring elevation plans on October 15th. It could be further delayed if the Commission doesn't find the new plans acceptable or if there are structural changes that require more engineering, but staff would be committed to an expedited review. Staff will also work with them to enhance the building with cosmetic changes and minimize the need for re-engineering following the Commission's direction. Chairman Buffa asked Mr. Kennedy if the City of Anaheim will be in a bad position with Caltrans if Commission continues the item. Mr. Kennedy believes that the City's responses should be able to address the concerns ~ that Caltrans submitted without re-doing a traffic study. He doesn't think there will be any issues as far as the State is concerned. Jamie Lai, Public Works, stated last Friday they had a conversation with the applicant regarding the pulling of the building permit. They currently have grading plans in plan check and their pad needs to be certified prior to issuance of a building permit. They are aware of that timing, so their pad needs to be certified by the end of November, so they can pull their permit to secure funding. Chairman Buffa reiterated that City staff believes Caltrans concerns can be addressed without revising the traffic study. Applicant is asking for a decision on zone change and waivers for setback and they are willing to work with City staff on the architecture and come back. It seems like it is the applicanYs preference to have an action today. Commissioner Velasquez thinks it is important to clarify to the applicant that it is more than just changing colors. Commissioner Karaki stated the main structure will remain the same, they need to dress the building up from the outside. The middle band will be eliminated because the first level then the finro stories above it, so it won't be a major thing to enhance the building. Commissioner Velasquez stated she wants to make sure it is very clear. S Commissioner Karaki stated he'd like to talk to the architect to assure there is a complete understanding. 09-17-07 Page 27 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ Ms. Dussa stated the il in i m I t I n in r 'tt f r bu d g s co p e e y e g ee ed and has been submi ed o building permits. Commissioner Karaki asked her how much work do they have to do to accommodate the changes they are asking for. Ms. Dussa stated assuming that it is an exterior application, she doesn't think there are any implications to the structure and they can come back with complete elevations that can reflect a different approach within the next finro weeks. Commissioner Karaki stated they can keep their main entrance in the middle so they don't have to change floor plans. Ms. Dussa stated their main entrance is not centered on the building because of the requirements of TI layout. Commissioner Karaki said whatever facilitates their work to come back and do it accordingly, as long as they follow the same guidelines that the other architect sketched out for them. Commissioner Velasquez stated with that she is comfortable with moving today so they ~ don't have to continue the item. Chairman Buffa asked for direction from staff on what actions they need to take today to approve the change of zone and landscape setback waivers, and add a condition to the resolution that says they want the architecture to come back as an R&R item. Mr See said there are several options to consider. One would be to bring back final plans to the October 15th meeting. The other is a 2-week continuance to October 1 but plans would be needed by Thursday. Chairman Buffa stated that isn't one of the choices. Chairman Buffa asked to be walked through what actions the Commission needs to take. Mark Gordon, City Attorney advised there are three required actions. First would be the approval of the environmental documentation based on upon the approval of a mitigated negative declaration with Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 146. Second, is the approval of the resolution for the reclassification. There is a proposed resolution that follows the staff report that has modification as read into the record by David See. That would be a resolution of the Anaheim Planning Commission that a petition for Reclassification no. 2007-00209 be granted unconditionally. Third, a resolution of the Anaheim Planning • Commission approving Conditional Use Permit no. 2007-05241 subject to the conditions of approval stated in attachment number 1 to item number 7. Draft conditions of 09-17-07 Page 28 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ approval of Conditional Use Permit 2007-05241 with the additions of the three conditions as read into the record by David See. As pointed out by staff, the conditional use permit would include the waiver of code requirements as described in the staff report and it would be incorporated into the resolution approving the CUP. Those waivers would involve waiver of minimum landscape setback adjacent to Anaheim Boulevard. Twenty feet is required, 15 feet is proposed. The waiver of minimum landscape setback adjacent to the Riverside Freeway SR-91, 15 feet of landscape adjacent to the SR-91 is required and the applicant proposes landscape setbacks ranging from 10 - 59 feet. Chairman Buffa offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Velasquez to approve the mitigated negative declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Plan No. 146. Motion passed with 6 ayes votes. Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution to approve the Reclassification 2007-00209 as read into the record by the City Attorney. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary announced the resolution passed with 7 yes votes. Commissioner Eastman offered a resolution approving CUP No. 2007-05241 subject items read into the record by David See and include waivers read into the record by the ~ City Attorney. Elly Morris, Senior Secretary announced the resolution passed with 7 yes votes. OPPOSITION: A person representing Caltrans spoke with concerns/questions pertaining to the traffic analysis. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, October 9, 2007. DISCUSSION TIME: 1 hour and 20 minutes (4:08-5:28) • 09-17-07 Page 29 SEPTEMBER 17, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~ ~ ~ MEETING ADJOURNED AT 5:30 P.M. TO MONDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2007 AT 1:00 P.M. FOR PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW. Respectfully submitted: ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ Simonne Fannin P/T Senior Office Specialist Received and approved by the Planning Commission on , 2007. 09-17-07 Page 30