HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-21-1996 PC MinutesC,il. ~O/). C!r .~. ~
c()(>€J:./
GtJPJ
MINlJTES
Planning Commission
City of Orange
February 21, 1996
Wednesday - 7:00 p.m.PRESENT:
Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT:
None STAFF
PRESENT:
Joan Wolff, Senior Planner. Commission Secretary;Stan
Soo.Hoo, Assistant City Attomey,Bob
VonSchimmelmann, Assistant City Engineer, and Sue
Devlin, Recording Secretary IN
RE: CONSENT CALENDAR 1.
APPROVAL OF MINlJTES FOR THE MEETING OF 2/5/96Moved
by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Consent Calendar.AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners
Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None
MOTION CARRIED IN
RE:CONTINUED HEARING 1.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-95 - CITY OF ORANGE A
proposed ordinance amendment modifying provisions of the Orange Municipal Code Tille 17.36 "Sign Regulations",
more specifically relating to the length of time allowed for display of banners and A-frame
signs and conditions for such display.
This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
This item was continued from the June 19,1995, August 21,1995, October 16,1995 and January 15,
1996 hearings.)
NOTE:
John Godlewski, Manager of Community Enhancement, presented the fourih revision to the Sign and
Banner Ordinance. At the January 15 meeting, the Planning Commission made some specific
recommendations concerning modifications to the Sign Ordinance. He incorporated those
recommendations into a draft ordinance that was given to the Commission 10 days ago. It shows the
modifications that were made in response to a letter from Mr. Bruce Patrick that indicated some concern on
some items, and Mr. Godlewski's response to those concerns from Mr. Patrick is listed on the last page of
the staff report. Some of the items were addressed in other areas of the code, and some of the areas
have been modified, to be consistent with what Mr. Patrick brought up as a concern. Staff agreed with
some of those and wrote them into the ordinance. There are still two or three areas that have differences
of opinion and some concerns yet to be resolved by the Commission. Primarily, those are dealing with the
A-frame signs, and how the City wishes to govern those in the
future.
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
The public hearing was re-
opened.Paul Nelson, 1411 North Batavia #120, owns American Speedy Printing and is the president of
the Orange Chamber ot Commerce. He is also a member of the Economic Development Partnership and
its Business Retention Committee. He speaks to a number of business owners and helps to determine
their needs. He would like to think that this project of developing a Sign Ordinance could be resolved to
the satisfaction of all concerned. It is the promotion issue they are dealing with at this time.
Business generates two-thirds of the City's revenue, yet requires far less in City services in return.
They have worked with City staff for quite awhile to develop a sign and banner program they could live with.
Even the discussions todate do not address the specific needs of the largest sales tax generators, the
auto dealers.The auto dealers fall under a phase 2 program if that exists. The balance of the retailers
are largely dependent upon their ability to differentiate and to attract customers via signs and
banners. He suggested that whatever is done, the proposed ordinance is reviewed in 18 months after
passage to determine its effectiveness. That effectiveness will be reviewed by looking at sales tax, and
whether or not it has actually increased. The Chamber would like to propose that banners be allowed for 180
days per year at the discretion of the business owner. The banners should be no larger than 3 feet per
store front foot. In addition, they propose that A-frames be permitted without limitation on
private property, but require permits for use on public property. The permit process should determine
suitability based on access, visibility, potential hazards, etc., but should in any case be at no charge
to the requesting business, since the signs should ultimately generate income to the City via
additional sales tax.As Mr. Patrick came forward, Chairman Bosch noted the Commission received a
memorandum from Mr.Patrick dated February 13, with two sets of photos; one showing the area on Katella
across from Home Depot relative to A-frames; and also another package included with regard to the
review of village centers and commercial areas in Irvine (Culver/Jeffrey Road) with A-
frames,
banners and outside merchandise displays.Bruce Patrick, 1733 North Modoc Street, presented his text to the Commission
because he wanted to be thorough enough and use it as a guide tor his comments. Their temporary
sign and banner committee has discussed this issue for some time and they have yet to come into an
agreement. This and the substance of the disagreement have prompted the Chamber of Commerce last week to tell him
not to speak for the Chamber of Commerce, who has some 600 members of the approximately
9,000 businesses licensed in the City of Orange. He views their disagreement so far to be a matter of opinions
based on each of their personal experience and background. He works in Orange, owns a retail
business in Orange, and the financial security is tied to the issue of signs and banners. The City of Orange's
poriion of the retail sales tax they generate is about 40% of the total City of Orange budget general
fund, or approximately 18.5 million dollars per year. A 10% change in this amount, up or down, is significant
to both the retailers and City of Orange. By not having the tool of temporary signs and banners
can make this much difference.Some people may think "business is better now", but it is still bad and is flat over
the last five years as indicated by the amount of sales tax revenue the City received. He asked
that the temporary signs and banners not be taken away from the retailers. It's not causing a problem;
it helps the entire community.Nate Wisely, 215 South Dunas Street, owns the Holiday Skating Center.
He recognizes the need tor businesses to profit. He also recognizes the need for a partnership with the City so
that activities don't get out of hand. He knows of a few eyesores around the City, but it seems like the
way they're trying to overhaul the City, the issue is to hurt the business community. He looked at
the draft ordinance and saw they had a 45 day allowance in the previous one, but now that has been changed
to 30. It appears they have lost 15 days for being able to use temporary signs or banners. The
temporary signs and banners are extremely important to the business community. If the signs are neat, clean and
proper, why not let the businesses advertise their wares? They can only stand to profit, as can the City.
He didn'
t understand the 120 days.Chairman Bosch clarified the draft ordinance was staff's attempt to
put together something that was discussed at the previous hearings and was not a final ordinance.
The existing ordinance only allows special promotion signage for 45 days per calendar year. Staff was discussing
30 days per quarter year,which would be 120 days. So, it's an
increase -
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
Brandon Brosovich, operates a business, Cards N Things on Tustin. They moved from Tustin and Katella
after 15 years. They put a sign on the sidewalk, which doesn~ obstruct anyone's view. They also ran ads
in the newspapers stating they had moved. Customers who came into their new store said it was because
of the sign on the sidewalk. That sign is vital to their business and he would appreciate being able to leave
it up.
Ron Dick, 143 South Olive Street, has an antique store and the A-frames are very important to
his business. Customers tell him his signs are working. He's a good contributor to the tax base of Orange
and he would like to continue being in business here in Orange. He needs to be successful and pay his
bills as
well.Ed Haase, 2736 East Chapman, has had a business in Orange fOf 24 years. He may be the only
one present who is opposed to this. He thought there were too many signs in the City of Orange now.
The signs have actually become a blight. Some of the banners are tattered. It has become a series of
lights and
signs.Barbafa DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, shops almost exclusively in the City of Orange. She asked n a
dummy were a sign? She thought one ot the problems, like with Old Towne, is that it was diriy. She
sometimes thinks of Orange as trash city. She had a problem with them using the sidewalks because of liability.
She thought they needed to eliminate the balloons flying out on the streets. Who can keep track and
enforce all the signs? She didn't understand what sections G. and K. meant in the memorandum dated
February 21, 1996. Then, on Page 2, #1 - the explanation of a "special promotion"; Page 3, #5 - one banner shall be
allowed for each street frontage of the tenant space -- is each center allowed a banner?; #8 - what about cars on
Katella?; Page 4, #18 - balloons and #19 - balloons exceeding 30 inches - are you talking about car dealerships?Business owner ot
the Green Burrito,
spoke about the success of his banner. Every month they change their banners. He believes the banners
bring in more business.Robert Jenkins, Polly's Pies on
Tustin, has been in business there since 1971. It's a small, privately owned company that owns and operates
13 Polly's Pies and 16 KFC franchises. Being a small company,they can't afford to adveriise
on t. v. Their advertising consists of coupon drops in the various newspapers in the area, as well as
the use of banners advertising their monthly specials. He didn't know if 30 days per quarter would be sufficient. He called
their marketing department and they estimated without the use of banners a 10% decrease in sales.
That means less tax dollars to the City, not to mention the possible loss of jobs because of decreased sales.
They understand the need to regulate the use of banners and signs.But to not allow them to
have this tool at their disposal would have a large and permanent impact on their business.Commissioner Pruell suggested Mr. Jenkins
talk
to Cable Vision of Orange about adveriising their restaurant.The public hearing was closed.
Mr.
Godlewski responded to the technical
details of the proposed ordinance. Items of merchandise are not allowed to be used as
signs. A mannequin is not addressed in the code. If it were on private property and standing there, there is nothing
in the code that would tell them it could be considered as a sign. If in the public right-of-way, it
would be considered an obstruction and would be subject to removal if an encroachment permit has not
been issued. Referring to the memorandum of February 21, 1996, on Page 1, Items G. and
K. - the wording was taken from the existing ordinance under Prohibited Signs. Signs temporarily supported by poles or
braces placed upon the ground are something that are not currently allowed, as opposed to being
a permanent structure. A lot of PVC pipe is used and steel poles are used and it is not allowed.
The question was asked, what is a temporary special promotion? There's another section of the code that
deals with temporary special promotions. There are special promotions and special events and are very
similar, with minor technical differences. They include things like carnivals, and they would have signs or
balloons that is there for a short duration of time. Sometimes car dealers will 3
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
come in for a special promotion. It's not considered signs, but a two or three day promotion. They are
permitted under a separate section ot the code and under very specific conditions.
Chairman Bosch said on Page 3, #5 - one banner shall be allowed for each street frontage of the tenant space.
That was a suggestion that came up at the previous hearing relative initially to those store tronts of retail
businesses that may have more than one primary entrance into the retail area on separate street frontages;
therefore, raising for discussion purposes, should they be allowed to have a separate banner on
each facade.Mr.
Godlewski responded that was what this item was intended to address. Yes, each tenant space would be
allowed to have a separate banner. If the tenant is on a corner of a long row of tenants, and he has frontage
on both streets that form that corner, then he would be allowed to have one banner for each frontage,
or two banners for his business. (Just that specific tenant.) The owner would be able to use the frontage
of each store front to calculate his banner area. If he had two store frontages, he could use two banners
equal to the length of the store frontage.Commissioner
Smith needed some clarification as to what public right-of-way was, especially in strip
mall shopping centers? She knew a public right-of-way was the sidewalk. How did that work
in a shopping center that has a parking lot out in front of it. What is the
public right-of-way there?Mr. Godlewski referred to the Target center as an example. The public
right-of-way is that property owned by the City -- the sidewalk along Tustin is the public right-
of-way. Those sidewalks internal to that are private right-of-way, and are subject to a different
set of
rules. In most cases, the landscaped setback is private property.Commissioner Smith asked
if the City currently had a process for encroachment permits?Mr. Godlewski replied yes, there was a
process for encroachment permits, but it has not been specifically tailored to be just for signs. Staff uses
encroachment permits for areas like Felix, where they have tables and chairs that come out into the
public right-of-way.
To his knowledge, they have not issued any encroachment permits for signs.Commissioner Pruett said at
their last meeting they talked about the A-frame signs and he expressed concern over the issue of encroachment
into the right-of.way, and also the concern over the issue of the concept of putting A-frame signs
down at the street corner and the business is 1/2 block away. He had asked the Chamber to come back
with a proposal on how to deal with that issue. He asked Mr. Godlewski if he were contacted at
all in terms of the A-trame issue and trying to come up with a solution?Mr. Godlewski said staff
did not discuss with the Chamber a solution to the A-frame signs. That's why on the last page staff blocked out
in outline
form what the issues were and that it was still an issue. It has not been resolved.Commissioner Smith referred to
Page 2, #3 - was it possible for someone to come in once a year to apply for a banner permit, or do they have
to come in four times a year? It looks like
a person would have to come in four times a year the way it is written.Mr. Godlewski
said they have not addressed the procedural aspects of the application for the banners. It's still up in the air
deciding what the final resolution to this is going to be. Their initial comments under #3 assume a person
would come in four times a year for banner permits and telling staff when those banners would be put up.
A rolling record would be kept of what banners have
permits on a
computer printout so the Code Enforcement Officers would have those available to them.Plannina Commission Discussion Commissioner Smith
was absent at the last hearing, but she was here for all the other hearings, which were
numerous,
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
banners. She would like to see more time with banners simply because of the effort and expense that it
takes to put them up four times a year. Mr. Patrick said the Chamber's proposal of 180 days was
unacceptable, but she was going to assume that's because he wanted more time. Chairman Bosch
understood Mr. Patrick wants the merchants to be able to determine whether they want to go with 365
days. Commissioner Smith felt 180 days would be reasonable; it's half the year. She was interested in the
discussion about the A-frame signs. She liked the idea of any that would be in the public right-
of-way that business owners could apply for encroachment permits if they wanted to take the
time, effort and expense of that. She agreed that each business have one banner and one A-frame,
but both of them need to be tied into the 180 days. She would like to see it made as easy as possible
to put up the banners. She personally wouldn~ want to come downtown four times a year because
it would take time away from a business. She would like to see the process streamlined to make it as
easy as possible for businesses. She didn~ know the thinking of the Commission in that non-
profit organizations would not be subject to the application fee, keeping in mind there are some very large non-
profits in the City, such as St. Joseph's Hospital, the YMCA and YWCA. The processing fee would
not be a burden to those organizations. (
It was in the existing ordinance.)Commissioner Romero thought he was one of the least lenient with
regards to banners and A-frames. He was willing to accept the proposal with banners, but still stood
strong with regards to the A-frames. He appreciated the two residents' comments opposing
the banners and A-frames. In regards to the mannequins and animals being used for advertising, they had
addressed that in the past, but it was not mentioned in the current draft.
He recommended some proposal with regards to limiting mannequins,animals, etc. He didn~ feel the state of Katella or
East Chapman is very positive wtth apes, mannequins, or animals. He referred to #13 and #14 - he felt it should be
more specific. He is still opposed to A-frames.Commissioner Pruett said the discussion was interesting.
It sounded like there wasn~ any other signs out there by which businesses can promote their activity. It's imporiant
to keep in mind this is a temporary sign ordinance; therefore, it's not something that
was intended to be a permanent activity. There are permanent signs on buildings and other adveriising
activities the businesses could enter into. This is not the only activity a business has to promote their sales
or activities at a particular location. He believed what was being proposed was very reasonable from the
standpoint they are increasing from 45 days to 120 days. It's a good point to begin to look at how they're going to
try and manage this issue. Let's move from where we are today (45 days) to an area ot 120 days. Then, If
that doesn~ make sense, the City can look at it again and open it up further. He didn't want
to jump out and make temporary signs permanent. He thought they have addressed most of
the issues and they're not controversial. An administrative procedure should be established that basically minimizes the
impact it has on a business from a standpoint of making application. But, he sees that as
an administrative issue; not something that needs to be addressed in the ordinance. He did not support the
A-frames or portable signs. The A.frame signs have turned into permanent signs for a lot of businesses.
They're not a temporary issue; they're out there every day and in many cases, are in the public
right-of-way. That creates a liability for the City. He was concerned about how the proliferation of
signs would grow to a point where the issue becomes a more serious problem for the community.
At the last meeting he indicated the concerns he had from the standpoint of the number of A-
frame signs that would be allowed for any particular parcel and some of them have several out there.
How that issue was going to be managed where there were multiple tenants on a piece of property. Also,
the issue ot the encroachment and liability that may be associated with that.Rnally, just the nature of the signs
from the standpoint of being a temporary sign vs. a permanent sign. He wanted the Chamber, Mr. Patrick,
who was representing the Chamber at that time, to come back with a proposal or suggestions indicating they
would be able to consider and work with those, but he didn~ see any that indicated
there were some solutions to those problems. Not having any solutions
to those problems. he would not be able to support the A-frame signs.Chairman Bosch thought
he had come a long way since this discussion began. It has been an enlightening one with regard
to banners. But, he still has to agree they have a permanent sign ordinance.That's the place to begin in everything
they do as a business does when they look at their first major sign investment. Definitely,
that's controlled in size and placement by ordinance. It's controlled in many instances
by restrictions placed upon tenants by landlords on a particular property. The existing sign ordinance substantially liberalized
the
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
permanent signage and overkill in a few areas. That's worked out fairly well and demonstrates where A-
frames and banners are most heavily utilized on a permanent basis that perhaps the first problem is poor
design of the permanent signs. He would first encourage the business owners to revisit their permanent
signage and see whether it's doing its job in terms of visibility, colors, size, background, lighting, etc.
within the ordinance, to see how they could better promote their businesses. He was concerned about
not seeing the signs because there are so many of them clustered together. There is so much visual
noise, the signs are canceling each other out. That's what starts to cause a problem. He was categorically
against the A-frame signs in the public right-of-way. It's not fair to the property rights or
to the investment in business or the signage investment of another business that someone around the
corner can come down and put up a private sign advertising their business on public property, which
takes away the opportunity for the businesses that are out front, often with a bigger investment or longer period
of time in the City or paying more rent or working very hard to promote their own business; it takes
away from them.A community effort is needed to identify commercial streets that aren~ on the main paths of
travel, such as directories or some other kind of sign post or district identification sign to show
that the commercial enterprise isn't limited to Chapman, Glassell, Tustin and Katella. It's on other streets as
well and everyone needs to work together to promote that in a tasteful way that is still visible and gets
people to the businesses not located on the main drag. But, to allow into the public right-of-way
a number of signs that not only would cause potential liability to the City with regard to blocking
traffic, view, block pedestrians off,and also damaging the investments made by other businesses who may have the
signs planted in front of them or adjacent to them, blocking visibility into their businesses is wrong.
A-frames back on the properiy is at some point impossible to police. His line of concern has moved a
bit further back after seeing the conditions on Katella. He felt at first as long as they were out of the
public right-of-way, it's on private property, why are they making a lot of noise about
that potential impact. Suddenly, they have a visual proof of why and it is because they are blotting every1hing out
with the signs, including the value of the permanent signage behind. It is a blight. When you get back furiher into
the interior of the site, it may be too much regulation to say the signs are not allowed at all -- size,
again, becomes a problem. There will be A-frames that are larger than the buildings in order to
see them from the street. He thought businesses have it tough, even in the best of economic times. Location
and visibility issues never change. He's not sure what the better way is on on-site A-frames; he
was hopeful for something a bit more creative there as well. He's not quite willing to give up on the idea of some
place back of the front of the properiy they might have some thing allowed. And maybe the problem with
the Katella example is simply that they are so big;they're so tall. They've gotten huge
vs. something more reasonable there. But, definitely not in the public right-of-way. Except
they talked about encroachment permits and the concept of a Watson's Drugstore, Felix Cafe where the
encroachment permit applied for and reviewed by the City with regard to safety for pedestrians and traffic and clearances isn't just
for a sign; it's for the use. Whether it's a temporary display for a special event for goods out
in front of the store, along with the sign age that might go with that, or a more
lengthy encroachment permit for cafe seating with some signage that might go along with that. He didn't have a problem with
that as a package. It comes together as a package, it's submitted, hopefully there is a design or
plan that is put forth to show how public safety would be maintained and the rights
of adjacent commercial properiy owners will be protected, but then the signage would have to be directly in front of
the business, and subject to linkage to other commercial display for a temporary period of time on the public sidewalk
or for a longer period of time in special districts. He would be willing to look at that, but in no other instances.
On the banners, he came a long way on time on that.He understood they
were talking two different languages. There is the language of the existing ordinance, which said a maximum of
45 days per year. When people sayan increase to 120 days, 150 days, or 180 days, that's a
long time, but business people are coming from another direction. There was no enforcement for five years and they were
allowed to have the banners up 365 days a year. He was sensitive to that. He felt it
diminishes the value of the permanent signage and blinds business to the opportunity to creatively use
that permanent signage and the other on-site advertising available to them in the windows, designed
into the permanent signage and their awnings, or overhangs. by utilization of the special events allowances in
the code currently to really push their businesses. He doesn't see the banners changing. He didn't know what the
new pie for the month was at Polly's Pies because there was always a sign out there. It'
s a permanent fixture and it disappears. From a business viewpoint, how many new customers does a special bring in
if you can't tell it apari from month-to-month because that banner is always up
there? Everyone has enough common sense to know that there is a point of saturation.Banners should be
utilized
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
If some feel 120 days is not enough time to hang banners and some feel 180 days is too long, what's
wrong w~h 150 days? It's an arbitrary decision right now, other than it is not a permanent sign. To assist in
that, freedom needs to be given to the business owner to decide when those special events are. Why
not let the business owners have that flexibility In the permit they might readily apply for if they have their
special events and days in mind by coming down once a year and making the application for a single fee to
cover the cost of adminisfering it. Regarding the square footage of signs, the draft ordinance calls for one
square foot; the Chamber of Commerce mentioned three square feet per frontage foot of tenant space.
After considering it, he thought he was willing to live with 1 1/2 square feet per frontage foot. He thought
three was excessive, again they were conflicting with the permanent signs. Part of the recommendation
to the City Council would include that the moratorium continue for a reasonable period of time to allow
amoriization of existing investments in temporary signs and perhaps that would be six months. Per Mr.
Nelson's suggestion, a year beyond that, rather than having an interim ordinance which is difficult to
enforce, put the ordinance into effect with a review period one year after implementation, which would be
a year after the expiration of the moratorium. That means, the six month moratorium continues on and
then you jump into the new ordinance, which might allow people to put up their temporary signs right away
so in effect, nothing changes for a year, starting with the passage of the ordinance.
Commissioner Smith liked the idea of the 1 1/2 square foot per frontage for size of banners. She didn't
think the one square foot was big enough. She liked the 150 days for length of time and the merchant
can decide on what days. She didn~ like the restriction to 30 days per quarter. It was too choppy to have
to determine 30 days each quarier. She personally depended on the signs to tell her where things are.
She also liked the idea of the moratorium and reviewing the ordinance one year after its implementation.
Chairman Bosch suggested no A-frames in the public right-of-way for a point of discussion,
unless it was tied to a property obtained encroachment permit that involves display of goods or seating
that meets the requirements of the encroachment permit. But that there not be allowed any
independent A-frame signs in the public right-of-way. Then, what happens
when you get onto private property?Commissioner Pruett's concern would be the issue of encroachment for special
events. He didn't know if 180 days of sidewalk sales for a particular business would be appropriate either. That'
s got to be tied back into some part. He didn't know if there were special promotion type
requirements, but he felt they were getting into another area that probably has to be dealt with. He was
looking for a way to construct something that really meets the needs of the business community and at
the same time protect the other issues related to the City and community. He suggested to the Chamber
that as staff takes this issue back, the Chamber and staff work together in terms of finding those issues where
they are apart, to seek a solution on them. He would like to see a recommendation to the
City Council that the Chamber can support and the City can deal with to address the issues. The A-
frame issue still needs to be addressed;
he's got a problem with it.Commissioner Smith wanted Chairman Bosch to give her
another example with the A-frame sign being tied into the encroachment permit. If someone applied
for an encroachment permit so they could have restaurant tables in the public right-of-way or their
merchandise, that's visible. That tells you what service is there. She wondered why one would want a sign
there also when you could already see the tables for dining. Is there another example where a
sign might be valuable to the service that was encroaching?Chairman Bosch said it seems that virtually every
sidewalk or parking lot sale that he has seen is accompanied by temporary signs in the area
of the merchandise, not allowing the presumption that it's related to the business directly behind it. It's identifying
this activity as a special activity in the parking lot,and saying what the specials
are or what is going on (merchandise and sidewalk sales).Commissioner Smith proposed another thought
just for staff's benefit. They only talk about sidewalk signs being A-frames. She saw a clever sign -- a metal
base with a pole coming up (like an old fashioned metal frame). She saw this on North Glassell in front
of a clothing store. It was
light,
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
The Planning Commission had consensus on the proposed modifications to the staff memorandum ot
February 21,1996. They went through each page and item to make sure they were in agreement. The
Commission thought the definition of "Special Promotion" (Page 2) could be misleading. Staff could
correct the definition and tailor it to signs, rather than to assume there would be an outdoor display of
merchandise (that's covered in another separate section of the ordinance). The time limit (#2) shall not
exceed 150 days per calendar year for special promotions. Under Application Required, (#3) it would be
changed to coincide with #2 with the merchants making one application: it's the application for the sign,
not for the number of times. Under B. #4, in the spirit of definition, it should be modified so the language
is not confused. On Page 3, #5, it was the consensus that one banner be allowed for each street frontage
so if the tenant space had two street frontages, they may have two banners. #14 - delete Portable signs or
and begin sentence with "Banners...
Size
shall be 1 1/2 square feet. Page 4 was okay.Back
to A-frames: The principal concern on A-frames is handled by the existing ordinance language
with regard to Page 3, #13 -- no public right-of-way shall be used for locating any sign or display. That
would tie back in the existing encroachment permit discussion, which is another part of the ordinance.
A-frames on private property: still pending. There was no consensus on that issue.
Regarding implementation, the Commission recommended the moratorium being allowed to continue for a period of
time and then putting the ordinance into effect. Then, review it one year after its
implementation. The Commission would like to see a plan of how they might make a credible evaluation as to the effectiveness
of
the new ordinance.Staff requested 30 days to make the revisions to the draft ordinance and to work with
the Chamber of Commerce to make
a final presentation.Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to
continue Ordinance Amendment 1-95 - "Sign Regulations" to the April
1,
1996
meeting.AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch,
Pruett, Romero, Smith
None MOTION CARRIED IN
RE:NEW HEARINGS 1. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2134-95 -
OUSD SCHOOL PRIDE The applicant is proposing to convert an industrial space to a community recreational facility
and to operate bingo games for fund raising purposes. The application for a conditional use permit is
to allow the operation of bingo games and the shared use of parking. The site is located at 548
West Katella Avenue.This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301(a).Chris Carnes, Associate Planner, presented the stall repori as there was opposition to
this item. The application is to allow a bingo operation in an industrial complex on Katella Avenue. The
tenant space is towards the rear of the Metro Couri development. The applicant is specifically requesting to
run a bingo operation one night a week (Thursday) 6:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. The profits from the
bingo operation are contributed to the Orange Unified School District and the bingo operation is conducted
by School Pride,which is run out of Orange High School. The request for shared parking is to allow the
operation of bingo in the evenings while using parking spaces normally used during the day for industrial uses.
There are a total of 388 parking spaces in the Metro Court development and a study conducted by
the applicant and staff found that in the evenings when bingo is being conducted, the parking demand for
the applicants as well as those uses open in the evening, will be 109 spaces. The applicant has
submitted per the Municipal Code for their operations license to the Business License Division of the City,
and the Police Depariment has preliminarily approved that license. The proposed bingo operation is not
located near any other bingo operation in the City. The City has three approved bingo operations -- one at
the Senior Citizens Center in Old Towne, the City Council approved Young Americans up at the Sports Park
by the Orange Mall, and then the Rio bingo operation at La Veta and Tustin. Stall has
recommended
nine
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
conditions of approval, but they request that condition 9 be deleted. The original intent of the condition
was to allow the applicant flexibility in using the space on nights other than Thursday nights, and not have
to come down and talk to staff about what type of assembly or community service use would go in there;
however, the City Attorney's office reviewed that condition and the wording of it may be too broad to allow
other type of uses that are permitted in the CR zone - such as a dance club or some type of night club.Those
types of uses are permitted in the CR zone.The
public hearing was opened.Aoolicant
Jim
Frize, 131 EI Dorado Lane, Anaheim, represented School Pride. He thanked staff for putting the report
together and helping him walk through the process. He pointed out they were asking for Wednesday
night rather than Thursday night. Also, the bingo games at Rio have closed down; they no longer
exist. School Pride was founded in 1985, with the sole purpose of raising funds for Orange Unified School
District. One hundred percent of the proceeds from bingo go to OUSD. Through the 1995 year approximately
one million dollars has been given back to the schools. In eight years of operation, they have
not had any complaints from neighbors, police, the City or school district. Their games are divided into
two separate areas -- a smoking and non-smoking section. Their non-smoking room will be available
for community service groups. They have been asked by the Orange Assistance League and the Girl
Scouts to use the room. Approximately two-thirds of the players are residents of Orange. Security at
the games consists of two off-duty police officers. There is a bus stop out in front of the building tor
people to use. They are a non-profit organization. From each school there are different groups who
work at the bingo games. The money is divided up and given to the people who work those
pariicular nights. School Pride has elected officers and it'
s all volunteers.Commissioner Pruett understood Mr. Frize to say the Girl Scouts and Assistance League
wanted to use the facility. By deleting condition 9. would
that be possible?Ms. Wolff said they could reword condition 9 to not have it be so broad
in its interpretation.Mr. Soo-Hoo thought they needed to focus on the activity. Unforiunately, the proposal
to this point has been assessed primarily to bingo and these other accessory uses have not been looked
at. If the uses are already allowed in the CR zone, perhaps
there is no issue.Ms. Wolff responded the CR zone allows a very broad range of uses. It allows some
offices, a number of retail uses. enteriainment and restaurant type of uses. What is being presented
now was not presented earlier from her understanding ot other community groups using that room. If staff were to
look at any of the uses that were allowed in the CR zone that would allow dance halls, billiards,
and other things that would need to be reviewed through a site plan review proposal or in conjunction
with other things that might happen with them. A way to look at this, is any use that is permitted in the zone
could go into that space without really being called out
specifically in the CUP.
Those soeakina in favor Bob Bennyhoff. 10642 Morada Drive. Orange Park Acres, strongly
endorsed and recommended approval of this project. School Pride is a very active organization and they have done a lot
of good. They work very closely with the site councils and booster groups. The money that goes to
the public school system at the present time -- there isn't too much of it. A lot of things are done by School
Pride that would otherwise
not be done.Dan Harold lives in Anaheim Hills and his children go to Canyon High School. He is on the
15 year plan there because he has four kids. He has been involved with Canyon Bingo for about
five years. OUSD School Pride was originally called Canyon Bingo. The restraints of the OUSD budget has
created a real hardship on parents. The additional funding available to special programs at the schools
has olfset much of that cost. OUSD School Pride helps to raise the money that is necessary
for
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
Norma Hockings Smith, resident of Orange, started working for Canyon Bingo four years ago. The monies
she has earned has gone towards Duster Buster Day (major clean up of Villa Park High School), buying
science equipment, computers, working with the school site councils and now finishing a program for a
cafeteria. She urged the Commission's help in approving the bingo operation at this site.
Those soeakina in oooosition
Barbara DeNiro, 1118 East Adams, hated to be the bad guy because she got shot down on every one of
the bingo projects. She was president of Orange High School's PTA in 1978/79. She noticed they didn't
mention any West Orange organizations, Orange or EI Modena High Schools. She read her presentation
into the record and gave each of the Commissioners a copy of same. She had a few questions regarding
other bingo games in Orange and on what nights are they played? She was confused because it was
listed under Canyon Bingo yet the staff report is under OUSD School Pride. She wanted to know the age
limit of pariicipants and workers. She asked what the law was regulating smoking in the work place and if
food would be served in connection with this operation? She disagreed with the bingo operation and felt
it was a form of gambling, giving young people a mixed message.
Rebuttal
Mr. Frize said Orange High School has been asked numerous times to pariicipate. When they set up the
organization, they wanted to get bingo for School Pride and have it at Orange High School. The people
around the high school would not allow them to have it there. So, they had to get approval in the City of
Anaheim and have it at Canyon High School. They have always had bingo on Wednesday nights. On the
last page of the staff report, their application, originally they filed the application under Canyon Bingo.
Canyon Bingo has not been in the City of Orange (doing business) for 36 months. Orange School Pride
has been with Canyon Bingo since the day they opened. So their name was changed to OUSD School
Pride. No one under the age of 18 can play bingo. When the non-smoking law went into effect, they
went from approximately 300 people down to 130 people. There will be separate air conditioning systems
for smoking and non-
smoking rooms.The public hearing
was closed.Commissioner Smith had no question about supporting this project with bingo at
this location.Commissioner Romero felt Ms. DeNiro's comments really boils down to one area of mixed
messages -gambling with raising money for school and our children. He had to agree with her in the one regard that
It is a mixed message. It's not something that is positive. Yet, on the other hand, they must take a look
at what the tunction is providing. Bingo gambling is not something he would endorse, but to raise money
for the schools and certain functions It is a necessary evil in this
regard.Commissioner Pruett didn't have a problem with this and thought they had to look at the people who
were involved and the nature of the commitment. When looking at that, there is a great deal of value in it. This
is a very constructive organization. When his daughters were going to Canyon High School, he was
aware of this organization and he was involved in some of the benefits that took place from the standpoint
of Grad Night and other activities. He knows other schools in the district were also able to take advantage
of that and also had great benefit from
it.Chairman Bosch didn~ have a problem supporting it either. He saw a couple of benefits. He wished
there was a way to provide the funding that is needed other than by bingo. The hard work is being done by
the parents who are involved in making the community work in an activity that has proven to be tairly
problem-free over the many years that it has been in existence. He's delighted that bingo is no longer on a
school campus in terms of freeing up mixed signals or whatever influence people might be concerned
about.And, that is operating independently in an area that is appropriate for that. He didn't see from the
strict planning terms a negative impact upon the neighborhood, parking or circulation or on the
intended utilization of the property for which the application has been made. Regardless of what is said at
this hearing, the Commission is superseded by state law on the smoking
issue.
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
It was noted this project was categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA review.
Moved by Commissioner Smith, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to
approve Conditional Use Permit 2134.95 - OUSD School Pride, with conditions 1-8, and modifying
condition 9: "The tenant space shall be used for assembly purposes only in accordance with the use
provisions of the CR zone and only on weekends, holidays and after 6:00 p.m. on weekdays."
AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith
None MOTION CARRIED
2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2139-95, VARIANCE 2008-95 - STEVE
LORITZ The applicant is proposing construction of an accessory second housing unit on property located at
6909 East Oak Lane. Also requested is a variance to allow the accessory second unit and the total area of
all accessory structures to exceed the maximum square footage allowed by
code.NOTE:This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act per State CEQA Guidelines Section
15303.There was no opposition and the public hearing was
opened.
Aoolicant Steve Loritz, 6909 East Oak Lane, didn't have any comments but was happy to answer any
questions about his
project.Commissioner Romero had questions as to the number of stables. Will they be his personal horses or
will he rent the stables
out?Mr. Loritz said there would be four stables. He has two horses; the other two stables will be vacant. He
did not intend to rent them out. The stable on the west end of the property will be torn
down.Commissioner Romero's concern was the parking. If Mr. Loritz rented out the two empty stables,
the street doesn't really accommodate on-
street parking.Mr. Loritz said this wouldn't be a problem as he was not going to be renting the stables. There
is parking inside the cul-de-sac
and in
the yard.Public Comments Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, discussed this project
at their Board of Directors meeting two weeks ago. They would like more information from Mr. Loritz. They
don't have any problems with this project, but noticed in the application he didn't intend to have people
stay in the guest house longer than one week. They also know he intends to tear down the house and
build a larger house approximately 8,000 square feet). They are beginning to accept second accessory
units in Orange Park Acres and are learning
to
live with them.Rebuttal Mr. Loritz said they were going to be remodeling their existing home within a year to
8,000 square feet.Plans are currently being drawn up and he showed the Commission a sketch of the
house. They plan to live in the guest house while the other
house is under construction.The
public
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
Chairman Bosch noted they had a variance application before them and there are specific findings they
must make under law with regard to the variance. This becomes a chicken and egg sori of problem
regarding the application of the code. There is a piece of property that has near to it in the same zone and
visual range lots that have significantly larger existing houses on them that could build an accessory
structure this large or bigger within the way the current ordinance is written. It becomes a matter of what is
done first. In this case, the application of the ordinance seems to be a hardship in terms of timing, given
the main house doesn't exist yet. Although they can't control whether that house will ever exist, the
hardship in this case is that the strict application of the zoning ordinance would deprive the subject
property of privileges enjoyed by other properiies in the vicinity under identical zone classifications, and,
therefore, would not be a special privilege and thus be allowed with that finding under city ordinance and
slate law.
It was noted this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA review.
Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Chairman Bosch, to recommend to the City Council to
approve Conditional Use Permit 2139-95 and Variance 2008-95, with the conditions listed in
the staff report and with the findings
previously
stated.
AYES:NOES:Commissioners Bosch, Pruett,
Romero, Smith None
MOTION CARRIED IN
RE:MISCELLANEOUS 1. CODE ENFORCEMENT APPEAL NO. 429 - KRISTI L.
DAVIS An appeal of Code Enforcement Notice of Violation for improper
occupancy.John Godlewski, Manager of Community Enhancement, presented this case to the
Commission.Responding to a complaint, the Code Enforcement staff investigated the address and found a
bedroom had been located where the garage had originally been planned for the structure. Code
Enforcement issued a Notice of Violation for improper occupancy and research has indicated that permits on file
indicate the property was built as a residence and a garage. The City has no further record of any
subsequent alterations to this structure. The appellant would like to keep the bedroom in the garage area and
has provided an appeal consistent with the appeal form specified in the Uniform Housing Code. Because
the Notice of Violation was issued on a Uniform Housing Code, the appellant used the Uniform Housing
Code form for appeal. That's why the format is a little different from what the Commission is accustomed
to seeing in appeals. But the effect is the same. Staff is requesting that the Commission determine
whether adequate evidence has been provided by the appellant to overturn staff's determination - that the use is
an improper occupancy for the properiy, and that the garage needs to be returned to a garage use.
Chairman Bosch stated this was not a building code issue; this is a land use issue with regard to the
requirement of the ordinance to provide an enclosed garage for a single family residence in this particular
zone. (Correct.)
The public hearing was opened.
Aooellant
Kristi Davis, 767 North Orange Street, has lived at this residence for 25 years and has raised three children
there. The room in question has never been a garage to her. It was a bedroom when she moved in.
When the garage door is opened in front, there is about five feet of storage area she uses for extra items.
She was told a citizen had complained -- the complaint was made by two neighbors who didn~ have a personal
problem for over 20 years with her bedroom. They chose to come at her and make the complaint about
her bedroom because they had a personal problem with the 40 fl. school bus. The same week Code
Enforcement came out, they found out her boyfriend would be taking the bus to Arizona. She 12
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
confronted her neighbors and told them about the hardship they caused her and they wanted to come
down and tell the City they changed their minds. The bedroom doesn~ hurt anybody; she's not renting it
out to anyone. It has always been her bedroom. Code Enforcement told her she needed to have
covered off-street parking for two vehicles. She has covered parking for vehicles - she can put two
motorcycles in the front storage area of the garage. To her understanding, when the house was built it did
not stipulate she had to have covered parking. In 1954 or 1955 it stated she only had to have a cement
slab, 10 x 20, for off-street parking. Her driveway is 15 x 20. She believed she was grandfathered
in.Robert Wilson, 767 North Orange Street, said Ms. Davis purchased her house with the assumption that
all uses of the building, as is, was a legally permitted use. In the interim, she found that she did not have
a permit to convert the garage into a bedroom. She wants to continue using the garage area as
her bedroom since she bought the house that way. He has been in the construction industry for 18 years
and from what he can tell, the room was built to code requirements. He could not find in the
Constitution stating that a city can make demands that there must be a
garage.The public hearing was
closed.Commissioner Smith wanted to know how common it was for a structure that has been functioning in
a particular use for 25 years to be questioned? How often does that occur in City
business?Mr. Godlewski said staff comes across garage conversions probably about 5 or 6 times a year that
they have actually taken to task and end up writing a Notice of Violation. Whenever they get a complaint,
staff goes out and investigates. When the investigation is made and it is determined an improper
occupancy exists, they follow it through to have the occupancy removed and the garage put back to its original
state.He couldn~ think of any that has been appealed to keep the improper
occupancy.Chairman Bosch understood this was a land use issue; it's not the issue with regard to the quality of
the construction within the space originally constructed as a garage. Nor, is it within the Commission's
purview to discuss Constitutional issues. They are not functioning as a building code Board of Appeals at
this time; they're functioning as an appeal with regard to the land use issue where in the City's
ordinance requires a garage for a single family residence in this zone. They do have other residences in parts of
the City that do not have garages legally because they were constructed without garages originally.
They were constructed before there were garages. This is a real dilemma and he felt for the owner
and occupants of the property. The problems they have seen is overcrowding and poorly constructed
bad conditions on occupancies in converied garages in many paris of the
City.Commissioner Pruett is going to reject the appeal because there is a violation in terms of the
zoning ordinance. But, it opens the applicant up to filing for a variance to have that conversion
approved.Mr. Godlewski said there was little provision in the code for that type of appeal to take place. A
variance must have some unique circumstances to the properiy that prevents the owner from providing what
has,in fact, already been provided on the
property.Commissioner Pruett asked if someone wanted to convert their garage to another use, would they have
to go through a variance process in which to do
that?Mr. Godlewski responded no. They would only have to provide the garage as required by
code somewhere else on the
property.Commissioner Smith said it was a dilemma for her also. Twenty-five years ago things were
not monitored as closely in Orange. Permits were not granted for every bit of construction that was done. She
made a site visit of this piece of properiy. She thought if they moved the bus, the use would not be a
problem in the neighborhood. She was confused by this issue. The expense of building a garage is great
and also there is an issue of honesty involved. The applicant has chosen to appeal Code
Enforcement's application of the ordinance. To her, the bigger problem is the bus on the street. It's unsightly
for
Planning Commission Meeting February 21, 1996
neighborhood and is detracting. The garage looks like a garage from a drive by. She is swayed by the fact
it has been there for 25 years without notice and she wasn~ sure 25 years later it could be challenged.
Commissioner Romero agreed with Commissioner Smith's comments. Unfortunately, what has occurred
is simply the requirement of a garage and not having a garage causes it to become a violation. He didn~
believe a statute of limitations would apply in this regard. Specifically, they must rule on the complaint --not
the honesty of the owners.Chairman
Bosch said the grounds for appeal relative to improper occupancy is outside of the Commission'
s purview; that's a building code issue they are not empowered to rule upon. They have to act
upon this on the basis of land use. It's difficult because there was a garage there at one time and the entire
tract when it was built was constructed with garages. Who knows how many of them have been converted
illegally over time. He wanted to know what the vehicle was to solve this problem? If this were granted,
it would severely damage other neighborhoods where conversions would take place. He didn't think
they had the authority to do that legally. The Commission must uphold the zoning ordinance of the City
of Orange in this regard.Commissioner
Pruett wanted to know if there was an alternative through some variance process or some other
process that would allow this to be dealt with without bringing harm? He felt they did not have any other
alternative but to deny the appeal based on the law.Moved
by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Romero, to deny Code Enforcement Appeal
No. 429.AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners
Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None
MOTION CARRIED IN
RE:OTHER ITEMS 1.
Ms. Wolff said the Economic Development Agency is preparing an EIR for property at Main and LaVeta and
they would like to give the Commission some advance notice of this project and would like to set a study
session in April.2.
Chairman Bosch noted a joint study session with City Council on March 5, 1996 at 4:30 p.m. in Conference
Room "C" to discuss the Design Collaborative concepts for the Downtown area of Orange.IN
RE:ORAL PRESENTATIONS Robert
Wilson, 767 North Orange Street, wanted to know if an appeal for the housing code violation is brought
against the City, then why is it being heard by the Planning Commission it it's not their concern in the
first place?Chairman
Bosch said the Commission was bound by State law to allow presentations on items that are not on
the Agenda. Mr. Wilson was addressing an item that was on the Agenda, which was dealt with previously.
Regardless of the appeal, there was a zoning ordinance violation and that's why they were in front
of the Planning Commission.IN
RE:ADJOURNMENT Moved
by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn to the next regularly scheduled
Planning Commission Meeting March 4, 1996, and to a joint study session with City Council on March
5, 1996 at 4:30 p.m. in Conference Room C. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 p.m.AYES:
NOES:
Commissioners
Bosch, Pruett, Romero, Smith None
MOTION CARRIED 14