Loading...
Minutes-PC 2009/03/30C~ty of nahei lar~non o issiort ~nutes onciav, ~Aarch 30, 2009 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services'Manager Linda Johnson, Principal Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Scott Koehm, Associate Planner Elaine Thienprasiddhi, Associate Pianner Chairman: Joseph Karaki Peter Agarwal, Kelly Buffa, Gail Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Victoria Ramirez, Panky Romero None Kimberly Wong, Ptanner Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Grace Medina, Senior Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, inside the display case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also i~ the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaperon Thursday, March 19, 2009 • Trash Collection Circulation Workshop - Rescheduled to May 11, 2009 • Call to Order - 2:30 p.m. • Attendance: 12 . _ • Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Ramirez • Public Comments • Consent Calendar • Public Hearing Items • Adjournment MARCH 30, 2009 PLAMNIPIG COMMISSIOfd MINUTES Anaheim Planning Commission Agenda - 2:30 P.M. Public Comments: None ITENI 1A Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning flflotion to approve Aflinutes Commission Meeting of March 16, 2009. These minutes have (Faessel/Eastman) been provided to the Planning Commission and are available for review at the Planning Department. Approved VOTE: 7-0 ITEM td0.1B COPIDITIONAL USE PERMIT P10. 2007-05195 Motion to Approve (Trackin4 No. CUP2009-05421) Time Extens!ion (Buffa/Eastman) Owner: BP West Coast Products, LLC 4 Centerpoint Drive La Palma, CA 90623 Approved Applicant: Fred Cohen, CJC Design 1205 North Red Gum Street, Unit A VOTE: 7-0 Anaheim, CA 92806 Location: 1700 West La Palma Avenue and 1017-1031 North Euclid Avenue: This property is located at - the southwest corner of La Palma Avenue and Euclid Street. The applicant requests approval of a retroactive one-year Projecr Planner.• extension of time to comply with conditions of approval to Elaine Thienprasiddhi c t t i t ti h d ethiennanaheim.net ons ruc a serv ce s a on, car was an convenience market. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration, which was previously-approved, has been determined to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 03/30/09 Page 2 of 17 MARCH 30, aoos PLANPIING COMMISSIOId MIMUTES ITEM IVO. 2 COMDITIOfdAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05398 Owner. Beth Emet Temple 1770 West Cerritos Avenue Anaheim, CA 92804 Applicant: Jason Kozora Omnipoint Communications and Trillium Consulting 3 MacArthur Court, Suite 1100 Santa Ana, CA 92707 Location; 1770 Vllest Cerritos Avenue: This property is located approximately 522 feet east of Old Fashion W ay. The applicant proposes to install a telecommunications facility disguised as a palm tree with a height of 50 feet where 30 feet is permitted by Code. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been prepared which evaluates the potential environmental impacts of this project in accordance with the provisions of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). OPPOSITIOId: None DISCUSSIOIV TIOflE: This item was not discussed. Withdrawn by the Applicant (No Action Required) Project Planner. Kimberly Wong kwona2(a~ anaheim. net 03/30/09 Page 3 of 17 MARCH 30, aoos PLAMNING COMMISSIOfd flAINUTES ITEM NO. 3 ZONING GODE AAAENDflAENT NO. 2009-00079 Motion to Continue to April 13, 2009 Appficant: Planning Department (Eastman/Romero) City of Anaheim 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Approved Anaheim, CA 92805 VOTE: 7-0 Location: Citvwide Request to amend Chapter 1,12 (Procedures); Chapter 14.60 ProjectPlanner. (Transportation Demand); Chapter 17.08 (Subdivisions); vanessa Norwood Ch vnorwood~anaheim.net apter 18.18 (Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay ZoneJ; Chapter 18.24 (South Anaheim Boulevard Corridor (SABC) Overlay Zone); Chapter 18.36 (Types of Uses); Chapter 18.38 (Supplemental Use Regulations); Chapter 18.42 (Parking and Loading); Chapter 18.44 (3igns); Chapter 18.46 (Landscaping and Screening); Chapter 18.56 (Nonconformities); Chapter 18.60 (Procedures); Chapter 18.62 (Administrative Reviews); Chapter 18.64 (Area Development Plans); Chapter 18.66 (Conditional Use Permits); Chapter 18.74 (Variances); Chapter 18.92 (Definitions);Chapter 18.114 (Disneyland Resort Specific Plan No.92-1); Chapter 18.118 (Anaheim Resort Specific Plan No.92-2); Chapter 18.118 (Hotel Circle Specific Plan No.93-1); pertaining to Zoning Administrator authority, drought tolerant landscaping provisions, freestanding sign provisions within the Scenic Corridor (SC) Overlay Zone and approval/appeal procedures for various zoning actions. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is exempt from the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 21080 of the Public Resources Code. This item was continued from the March 16, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. OPPOSITION: None DISCUSSIOM TIME: This item was not discussed. 03/30/09 Page 4 of 17 flAARCH 30, aoos PLAfdNIfdG COMMISSION MINUTES ITEfiA NO. 4 RECLASSIFICATION NO. 2008-00221 CONDITIOPIAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-05362 TEPITATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17289 Owner: RRM Properties, Ltd P.O. Box 3600 Corona, CA 92882 Applicant: Ted Frattone Hunsaker and Associates 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 Location: The property is located generally south of the State Route 91 Riverside Freeway, approximately 3,600 feet southeast of the intersection of Santa Ana Canyon Road and Gypsum Canyon Road and approximately 1,000 ft east-southeast of the SR-91 and SR-241 interchange. The applicant proposes to reclassify the property from the Multiple-Family Residential (RM-3) zone to the Single-Family Residential (RS-4) zone and construct 56 single-family residential dwelling units. The applicant also proposes to subdivide the property into 56 single-family detached residential lots and 12 lettered lots. Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Resolution Plo. PC2009-043 Resolution Plo. PC2009-044 Resolution Mo. PC2009-045 (Eastman) RCL Approved C'UP Approved, modifled Condition No. 57 TTM Approved, added new condition pertaining to modifying the maximum height of residential units shown on the map. VOTE: 7-p Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehm(~anaheim.net __ Scott Koehm, Associate Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 30, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Mr. Koehm also read into the record an additional condition of approval as follows: "The map shall be amended to indicate that the maximum height for the residential units shall be 25 feet, unless another approval of maximum height is subsequently granted." Mr. Koehm also provided the following information in response to questions submitted by the Commission prior to the meeting: • Reclassification findings - These findings are set forth in Title 18 and read as follows: "The title may be amended by changing the boundaries of zones or districts to implement the General Plan to enha~ce and preserve the general welfare by following procedures in the Chapter." The proposed RS-4 zone impleme~ts the low medium density designation on the property. 03/30/09 Page 5 of 17 flflARCH 30, 2009 PLAF1NIfdG COMAnISSIOP! MIIdUTES • Current Status of Mountain Park - Construction of the Mountain Park project is on hold and not anticipated to be developed for at least five years. This project would be constructed concurrently with or after Mountain Park is developed because of grading, access to the site and infrastructure. • Lettered Lots - These lots are part of the tentative tract map and are typically used to designate open space lots and private streets. • Compatibility with the Mountain Park project - Housing plans have not been submitted with these project actions, however, the development standards for this project are consistent with the standards adopted for the adjacent Mountain Park single-family neighborhood. • Condition No. 1 in the Reclassification Resolution - This condition requires the applicant to indemnify the City in the event that there is litigation on the project and the environmental determination. • Landscape exhibits - These exhibits provide cross-sections showing typical fuel modification design for the slopes. • Condition of Approval No. 58 of the Tentative Tract Map - This condition requires the applicant to obtain approval from the City Engineer if any development is proposed on this site prior to the development of the Mountain Park project. This is because the environmental documentation for this project did not anticipate this project being constructed prior to the Mountain Park development. Additional environmental documentation would also need to be completed. • Fuel Modification Areas - These areas provide a buffer zone between homes and the adjacent open space area. These are areas where combustible landscape material has been modified and replaced with drought tolerant, low fuel volume plants to create more fire defensible space around residences. Commissioner Buffa asked about the number for the new condition for the tentative tract map Mr. Koehm responded that the new condition pertaining to height would be added as Condition No. 27 and the following conditions would be renumbered. Commissioner Buffa asked about the status of the fuel modification easement and asked what type of assurance there is that the State will grant this easement. Mr. Koehm said that the applicant has been working with the State to obtain this easement. Attachment No. 6 to the staff report includes an email from the California Department of Parks and Recreation, confirming that the State and the applicant are in the final stages of working on the easement agreement. Commissioner Buffa asked for clarification on the rear yard setback for two story structures. Mr. Koehm responded that the setback would be 15 feet. He said the applicant has indicated that only two-story homes are proposed in this development, however, housing plans have not been submitted yet. Commissioner Buffa asked staff to confirm that the project will comply with this setback requirement Mr. Koehm responded yes. 03/30/09 Page 6 of 17 MARCH 30, aoos " PLANIdIMG COMMISSION BflINUTES Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Ted Frattone, 3 Hughes, Irvine, with Hunsaker and Associates, representing the applicant, introduced the project team and provided a visual presentation. He described the project and said access to the site would be provided from the Mountain Park development. He said the design of the project would be consistent and compatible with the adjacent Mountain Park project. He also described the proposed fuel modification easement area which would cover five acres adjacent to the project site on property owned by the State of California. He said only three of these acres would be thinned for fuel modification. He further stated RRM currently has an approximate seven acre access easement from this property, through Chino Hills State Park to Coal Canyon Road. RRM is working with the State to exchange the existing access easement for the fuel modification easement area adjacent to this property. Commissioner Faessel asked whether this project would be incorporating the new fire prevention regulations, including inside fire sprinklers. Mc Frattone, responded that a Fire Prevention Plan has been prepared for the project and all structures will include automatic fire sprinkler systems inside. He said the plans would be prepared in compliance with the new 7A Fire code requirements unless through a Fire Prevention Plan process, the requirements are reduced with the implementation of other mitigation. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa asked about Condition No. 57 and said the list of items required to reduce water includes some items that would be more applicable to a commercial development. Mr. Koehm said the measure is the same measure approved for the Mountain Park development and this measure would be revised to delete the items that would be appiicable to commercial developments. Commission Buffa asked why Condition No. 24 was highlighted. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, stated the highlighting on Condition No. 24 will be removed. Commissioner Romero asked about the feasibility of implementing Condition No. 58. -- Mr. Koehm responded this condition was placed on the tentative tract map in the event that the applicant wanted to request development of this property prior to the Mountain Park project proceeding. He said it was unlikely that development would proceed on this tract prior to the development of the Mountain Park project due to cost Chairman Karaki stated the applicant was shaking his head no, indicating he did not want to proceed in advance of Mountain Park. Commissioner Eastman stated she was happy that the land swap and access issue had been worked out. 03/30/09 Page 7 of 17 MARCH 30, 2009 PLANPIING COMMISSIOfd MINUTES Commissioner Faessel stated that he was glad that The Irvine Company and the applicant have come to terms with access to both parties satisfaction. Commissioner Agarwal stated he was glad things worked out for this development and was looking forward to the development of this project. Chairman Karaki commended the applicant on presenting this project. He also stated a concem about the frequency of fires in the hillside area and said he hoped the applicant would address fire concerns and implement fire precautions and measures, including an escape route, with this project. Commissioner Eastman offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions attached to the March 30, 2009 staff report, approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approving Reclassification No. 2008-00221, Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05362 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17289, with the additional conditional of approval as read into record by Mr. Koehm. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolutions passed with seven aye votes. OPPOSITIOPI: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal rights for the Tentative Tract Map ending Thursday, April 9, 2009, and the 22-day appeal rights for the Reclassification and Conditional Use Permit ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 21, 2009. DISCUSSION TIflAE: 36 minutes (2:34 to 3:06) 03/30/09 Page 8 of 17 MARCH 30, aoos PLAiVNIfdG COAflMISSION MINUTES ITEAA NO. 5 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP P10. 2008-188 VARIANCE MO. 2009-04773 Owner: Anaheim Redevelopment Agency 201 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 1003 Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Truxaw & Associates 265 South Anita Drive, Suite 111 Orange, CA 92868 Location: 929 PJorth Ivv Lane: This property has a frontage of 100 feet on the south side of Fir Avenue and 100 feet on the north side of Ivy Lane, approximately 150 feet southwest of the intersection of Fir Avenue and Ivy Lane. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into four single- family residential parcels with a variance of required lot width, lot depth and exterior sound attenuation requirements adjacent to the Interstate 5 Freeway. Environmental Determination: A Negative Declaration has been prepared to serve as the appropriate environmental documentation for this project in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Resolution PJo. PC2009-46 Resolution No. PC2009-47 (Agarwal) Approved TPAA Approved, modified Condition fdo. 5. Added new conditions pertaining to a maintenance covenant, and a private sewer easement VAR Approved VOTE: 6-1 Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman, Faessel and Romero voted yes; Commissioner Ramirez voted no Project Planner: Kimberly Wong kwono2 oC~anaheim.net Kimberly Wong, Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 30, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Ms. Wong also provided the foflowing information in response to questions submitted by the Commission prior to the meeting: Construction of a 25-foot tall wall would potentialiy have shadelshadow impacts because it would be equivalent to the height of a two-story building. It would also potentially be cost- prohibitive to construct a wall at this height. Coordination with the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans) would also be needed because the wall is on CalTrans property. One of the required findings for approval of a subdivision map addresses whether there would be an impact to fish and wildlife. Since this property was previously developed with homes and does not include any sensitive habitats, staff does not believe there would be any negative impacts to fish and wildlife. 03/30/09 Page 9 of 17 AflARCH 30, 2009 PLANNING COMMIISSIOM II~INUTES O Staff is supportive of the variance pertaining to minimum lot width because other properties in the community have similar lot widths and the density of the project is consistent with the General Plan and the neighborhood. Prior to the widening of the freeway, there were parcels that had frontage along Catalpa Avenue with rear yards adjacent to the freeway. The Environmental Impact Report certified in connection with the I-5 Freeway widening project stated the rear yards of these properties had a noise level of 66 dBA at that time. • Staff has not reviewed any construction plans for the new homes. The developer has indicated that the design of the homes would not require any additional variance requests. Ms. Wong also read into the record a modification to the Tentative Parcel Map resolution, Condition No. 5 and additional conditions of approval pertaining to a maintenance covenant and a private sewer easement as follows: Modification to Condition No. 5- An improvement certificate shall be placed on the final map to relocate all irrigation related improvements currently within the boundary of proposed Parcel 2 as directed by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits for future building or site development plans. • Additional Condition - A maintenance covenant shall be submitted to the Public Works Department, Development Services division and approved by the City Attorney's Office. The covenant shall include provisions for the maintenance of private sewer facilities and a maintenance exhibit. The covenant shall be recorded concurrently with the final map. Additional Condition - Final Parcel Map No. 2008-188 shall include a private sewer easement over Parcel 2 to serve Rarcels 1, 3 and 4, and over Parcel 4 to serve Parcels 1 and 3. Commissioner Faessel asked staff to describe the decibel level for properties adjacent to the I-5 freeway prior to the widening of the freeway. Ms. Wong responded the EIR for the I-5 Freeway widening stated the properties adjacent to the freeway had an exterior noise level of 66 dBA. °- Commissioner Faessel asked staff to clarify why the additional condition related to the sewer easement was needed. Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer responded that the condition was worded as such because the prospective developer did not agree to pay the fair share impact fee to increase the 6-inch sewer line on Fir and Ivy. They prefer to do their own connection and connect to the existing 10-inch sewer line. The previous 5 home~s connected to a 10-inch sewer line that CalTrans slurried, backfilled or blocked during the widening, making it unavailable. The developer has two options: connection to the two existing 6-inch lines and would have to pay their fair share for the upsize and improvements; or, they could go with a private sewer easement. Cornmissioner Eastman asked how the private sewer easement would work. 03/30/09 Page 10 of 17 nAARCH 3Q 2009 PLAPJPtlNG COnAMISSIOPI NIIIdUTES Mr. Garcia responded the easement would provide for a sewer pipe to be installed between the four parcels which would connect to the sewer pipe on Fir Avenue. Commissioner Eastman asked where the pipe would be located. Mc Garcia responded the pipe would be located between Parcels 2 and 4. Parcels 1 and 3 would connect to that sewer line and that sewer line would connect to the northwest and connect to the 10- inch line. Essentially, all three properties will connect where all parcel lines cross at the middle of the project and they would run south over to the west. The sewer easement would be between Parcel 2 and 4 and along the southerly boundary of Parcel 2, at the edge. Commissioner Agarwal asked why the code required a 150-foot lot depth adjacent to a freeway. Ms. Wong responded this development standard is only for lots adjacent to a freeway, not all properties in the single-family residential zone have a minimum lot depth requirement. There are special provisions in the code for properties adjacent to an arterial highway which requires a minimum lot depth of 120 feet and adjacent to a freeway requires a lot depth of 150 feet. The purpose of this development standard is to require an increased distance from a major circulation point and to minimize the side and rear yard noise levels. Commissioner Agarwal asked whether the sound study took into account the 65 or 150 foot depth. Ms. Wong responded that the sound study measured the sound at points where the potential rear yard would be. They measured the current noise level and what it would be in the future, based on projected freeway traffic counts. Commissioner Agarwal asked if the sound level would be higher once the houses are constructed. Ms. Wong responded the actual sound level in the rear yards would depend upon the design and configuratian of the homes. Commissioner Romero asked how much natural attenuation happens between 65-and 150 feet and if a study was conducted. Ms. Wong indicated a study was not conducted and that the sound engineer would be available for questions during the public hearing. Commissioner Ramirez asked for clarification where 25 feet would be measured if the developer is envisioning two-story homes. Ms. Wong stated the developer is envisioning two-story homes a~d per the sound study, the 7 feet would need to be added to the sound wall. Commissioner Ramirez stated she visited the site and the freeway sound is loud. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. 03/30/09 Page 11 of 17 flflARCH 30, 2009 PLkFINIPIG COMfVIISSION MINUTES Jeff Leeper, Colony Developers, LLC, 314 Iris Avenue, Corona Del Mar, applicant, stated the intent of this proposal is to replace the previous homes with new, affordable homes. Commissioner Ramirez asked the applicant if the sound level requirements could be met if fewer homes were constructed. Mr. Leeper responded no. Commissioner Faessel asked the applicant if the units are proposed to be affordable. Mr. Leeper responded the proposed price range would be more affordable than market rate homes, but they do not plan on entering into an agreement for affordable housing with the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Eastman asked if the proposed homes would be similar to others built by Colony Developers. Mr. ~eeper responded the homes would be identical to the homes constructed on Broadway and Santa Ana Street, with the exception that the living rooms would be approximately 160 square feet larger in these homes. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Faessel recognized the need to add housing, but stated it was unfortunate this parcel could not be used for park space since the parcel is owned by the Redevelopment Agency with the goal of deriving a public benefit. He thought the developer had done a good job in managing what was given to him. Commissioner Eastman agreed that the City could use more park space. Knowing the developer's track record, she stated that the developer had done a good job and this project would be of benefit to the neighborhood. Commissioner Romero stated he was aware of the need for housing, but was concerned about the excessive noise levels on this site. He believed it came down to a quality of life issue. Commissioner Buffa stated she thought this proposal an appropriate use of the land. She stated this project will provide a choice for four families. While there may be a tradeoff in noise in the backyard for not having neighbors upstairs. The advantage for these families is that they are aware of what they are getting when they purchase the house as opposed to families who have lived in the neighborhood longer and have had the freeway creep to them. Chairman Karaki stated he hoped that future homes would be equipped with solar energy panels and promote modern technology to compensate for the location of the homes. Commissioner Agarwal offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the resolutions attached to the March 30, 2009 staff report, determining that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate envirortmental documentation for this request, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 2008- 188 with a modification to Condition No. 5 and the addition of conditions of approval pertaining to a 03/30/09 Page 12 of 17 IVIARCH 30, aoos PLANfdING COMIMISSION IVIIidUTES maintenance covenant and a private sewer easement, and approving Variance No. 2009-04773 as read into record by Ms. Wong. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the resolution passed with six aye votes and one no vote. Chairman Karaki and Commissioners Agarwal, Buffa, Eastman, Faessel and Romero voted yes and Commissioner Ramirez voted no. OPPOSITION: None Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 10-day appeal°rights for the Tentative Parcel Map e~ding Thursday, April 9, 2009 and the 22-day appeal rights for the Variance ending at 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 21, 2009. DISCUSSIOM TIME: 29 minutes (3:06 to 3:35) 03/30/09 Page 13 of 17 flAARCH 30, 2009 PLAPINING COMMISSIOfd MIPJUTES ITEnA NO. 6 ZONIPIG CODE AMENDMENT fVO. 2009-00078 Applicant: Christiane Dussa DMJM 999 Towne and Country Orange, CA 92868 Location: Citywide The applicant proposes an amendment to Title 18 of the Anaheim Municipal Code to allow properties larger than five acres to display up to four flags or banners, including a flag for non-fraternal organizations. Environmental Determination: The proposed action is categorically exempt from the requirement to prepare additional environmental documentation per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Class 4(Minor Alterations to Land). Motion to Continue to April 27, 2009 (Faessel/Buffa) Approved VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: Kimberly Wong kwonq2Ca~anaheim. net Kimberly Wong, Planner, provided a summary of the staff report dated March 30, 2009 along with a visual presentation. Commissioner Eastman stated that one of the existing flags on the property on Harbor Boulevard showed a company logo. If the application is denied, will they have to remove the large flag pole or will they move the pole closer to the building? Ms. Wong clarified the applicanYs intent is specifically for the Anaheim Boulevard property for the new office building, not the business' property on Harbor Boulevard. Commissioner Eastman asked if the applicant wanted to have two flag poles with United States flags and maintain the current flag with the company logo. Ms. Wong responded yes. Commissioner Eastman said she had seen flags with a corporate logo at other properties in the city. Commissioner Faessel referred to the slide in the presentation showing the flag pole requirements and asked if another business in the city like Extron would be to permitted to display a flag with a corporate logo, would that violate the code. Ms. Wong responded yes. Commissioner Agarwal asked if there was a distinction between a flag with a corporate logo and a stationary sign on a property. 03/30/09 Page 14 of 17 MARCH 30, 2009 PLAfVNIfdG COMNIISSIOM flAINUTES Ms. Wong read into the record the sign code definition for a freestanding sign as follows: "...a single or double faced sign mounted on a single pole as distinguished from a single or double faced sign supported by no more than two pylons". Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney added that the definition of "sign" is very expansive and may include a declaration, decoration, graphic announcement, inflatable device, illumination, etc. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Theresa Fodon, 1807 Harle Avenue, stated she was a 40-year resident of Anaheim. She asked when the code had changed to prohibit a business to display a flag with a corporate logo. Ms. Wong said she would need to research what the code stated previously; however, because this is a new development, all grandfathering status was non-existent. Chairman Karaki closed the public hearing. Commissioner Buffa stated she would not support the code amendment as proposed since it would not limit the number of company flags displayed. Commissioner Romero agreed that allowing a flag with a business logo would be a more appropriate change to the code than having four flags. Commissioner Eastman asked if in a large parcel, would a fourth flag pple be allowed? Ms. Wong responded the proposed code amendment would permit a fourth flag pole based on property size. Commissioner Eastman asked whether multi;ple flags on properties, which are not advertising ba~ners, are allowed. Ms. Wong responded that these types of flags are referred to as "feather flags". They are often located in public rights-of-way and are prohibited. The Code allows businesses to obtain a Special Event Permit to have banners affixed only to a building wall. Commissioner Faessel stated he concurred with Commissioner Buffa that the Commission needs to look at this issue and that he did not support the amendment as proposed. Commissioner Buffa stated an additional objection is that the amendment would require the tallest flag pole to be twice the height as the next tallest pole which is not appropriate. Chairman Karaki stated he was not in favor of four flags. He did not believe that having a corporate flag would be advertising. He believed flying the corporate flag next to the American flag reflected the company's pride. He would like to see the code amended to allow one of the three flags to be a corporate flag instead of adding a fourth flag pole. Chairman Karaki offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Eastman, to amend the code to allow a flag with a business name and/or logo to be flown on one of the three permitted flag poles. 03/30/09 Page 15 of 17 MARCH 30, aoos PLAPIPIING CONIMISSIOfd MINUTES Commissioner Faessel stated that a height variation should be included in the amendment. Commissioner Buffa asked if the motion should be amended to allow corporate flags to be flown on properties with a minimum size. Chairman Karaki agreed that there should be a minimum property size, but did not have sufficient information to decide the size at this time. Commissioner Romero asked if the Planning Commission needed to take action on this item at this meeting. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, responded that the Planning Commission could continue the item to a subsequent Planning Commission meeting. He understood the Planning Commission would like to see a revised ordinance maintaining three permitted flag poles, but allowing one of the permitted flags to display a company name and/or logo and not requiring the doubling of height between the tallest and next tallest flag pole. He also understood there was still some discussion about whether there should be a minimum property size for flying a company flag and/or logo. He also stated the applicant was not present at the meeting and a continuance would allow them to participate in the full hearing. Commissioner Faessel stated based upon staff`s understanding of the Commission's discussion, would recommend that the item be continued to the next meeting. Chairman Karaki withdrew his motion. Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa, to continue the item to the April 27, 2009 Planning Commission meeting. Grace Medina, Senior Secretary announced that the motion passed with seven aye votes. OPPOSITION: None - - DISCUSSION TIflAE: 22 minutes (3:35 to 3:57) Q3/30/09 Page 16 of 97 MARCH 30, aoos PLANNIfdG COMMISSIOPI MIPIUTES MEETIfdG ADJOURNED AT 4:00 P.M. TO MOPIDAY, APRIL 13, 2009 AT 2:30 P.M. RespectFully submitted, ~~ ~~ Grace Medina Senior Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on April 13, 2009. 03/30/09 Page 17 of 17