Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-19-1995 PC MinutesMINUTE Planning Commission June 19, 1995 City of Orange Monday - 7:00 p.m. PRESENT: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Vem Jones, Manager of Current Planning -Commission Secretary; Stan Soo-Hoc, Assistant City Attorney, Gary Johnson, City Engineer, and Sue Devlin, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IN RE: APPROVAL OF MINUTES FOR THE JUNE 5 1995 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETIN Moved by Commissioner Pruett, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to approve the Minutes of June 5, 1995 as recorded. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: NEW HEARINGS 1 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2112-95 -WINE EXCHANGE A request to allow a license for on-site consumption of beer and wine for the purpose of operating a Wine Education Faality (wine lasses and tasting) within an existing wine sales facility. The site is located at 2356 North Tustin Street (Orange Mall). NOTE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. There was no opposition; therefore, the full reading of the staff report was waived. Commissioner Cathcart commented the property owner is Orange Mall Associates rather than HarryNewman, as stated in the staff report. The public hearing was opened. Aonlicant Steve Zanotti, 436 South Cedarhaven, Anaheim, briefly explained the wine education facility they are proposing. He also explained tasting bars. They have heard Von's Markets are planning to apply for Type 42 licenses in approximately 20 locations. Tasting is part of product knowledge and sales. However, they are not in the business to sell drinks. They want to teach people about wine. Samplingwineisthewayofthefuture. Wines are very expensive. Sampling makes a better relationship for the store and the community. Traffic flows will not change at all; increased traffic will not occur. Their education facility has no permanent fixtures or bar. This concept is unique for a store, but not unique to the wine business. Commissioner Cathcart asked if he knew of other business locations that allow wine tasting in the City of Planning Commission Minutes June 19,1995 Mr. Zanotti was not aware of any. He did not believe there were any in Anaheim either. They were one of three elite stores in Orange County with a high volume and high visibility. Commissioner Smith asked if they were planning to lease their room for private parties? Mr. Zanotti did not intend to rent their store for private parties. Their business is to educate people about wine. There is no business reason to allow private parties. Their store doses at 8:00 p.m. and a private party would not want to leave at that hour. Chairman Bosch asked if Mr. Zanotti had a chance to review the staff report and conditions of approval? Yes.) The public hearing was dosed. It was noted the item was categorically exempt from CEQA review. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to approve Conditional Use Permit 2112-95 with the .conditions listed in the staff report; and, find and recommend to the City Councl the use is a public convenience and necessity from the standpoint there are no other wine tasting fadlities in the City of Orange and this would be a welcome addition. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 2 -- ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 1-95 -CITY OF ORANGE A proposed ordinance amendment modifying provisions of the Orange Municipal Code Tdle 17.78 Outdoor Signs and Advertising Devices", more specifically relating to the length of time allowed for display of banners and A-frame signs and conditions for such display. If approved, this change will also be incorporated into Chapter 17.36 "Sign Regulations" of the recently approved update of the Zoning Ordinance. N TE: This project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15311 of the State CEQA Guidelines. John Godlewski, Community Enhancement Manager, presented the staff report. The item is before the Commission predicated on an action by a ggroup of small businessmen and the Chamber of Commerce. In 1993-94 the Chamber came to the City Councl and asked for relief from the banner conditions that are in the current sign ordinance. Because of the necessity to try and drum up more business and the recessionary times, Council agreed to let the businesses show their banners with no time limit for the entire year of 1993-94. Near the end of 1994 the Chamber approached the City to look into the ordinance to see if a permanent change couldn't be made to allow banners and A-frame signs to be displayed in the City on a year round basis. The Commission is asked to look at an ordinance that parallels what the Chamber Committee came up with in allowing banners and A-frame signs to be inducted on a year round basis. There are a few specific concerns the City has that would need to be addressed at such time as the final ordinance is adopted. That is, the display of A-frame signs in the public right-of-way, making sure there is handicapped clearance, insurance policy, a City hold harrnless agreement, and a height limit on the height of the signs. Staff was also concerned with the display of signs and banners to make sure there is a logical area or some kind of controls on the size of the sign that can be displayed. Suggested in the staff report are amendments to the soon to be adopted ordnance that's why the numbers don't match with the ordinance the Commission currently has). Commissioner Cathcart believed the request is for the A-frames or portable signs to be limited to 48 inches high and 24 inches wide. He felt 48 inches high was too high. There needs to be some consistency. In landscaping, the architects are held to 42 inches high. Mr. Godlewski talked with the City Traffic Division and there are regulations limiting height to 42 inches. They considered the height of the curb and suggested a 36 inch height on the signs would be below the required height limit and clearances for traffic safety purposes. 2 Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1995 The public hearing was opened. Public Input Brent Hunter, Executive Director of the Orange Chamber of Commerce, 80 Plaza Square, appreciated the opportunity to address the Planning Commission. They have been at this for approximately 8 months and are ready to bring the whole issue to closure. There is a problem with signage in Orange from a variety of standpoints. The City of Orange has a very strict sign ordinance, which it took painful years to put into place, which was adopted in 1989. They're not proposing to change the underlying ordinance, but only to deal with the promotional signs and banners. As was pointed out, the City Council waived the limitations of the promotional banner ordinance -- the 45 day limit per year. Over the last couple of years in light of the recession, not only has small business and the retail community suffered, but in turn the City has suffered. The City is very dependent upon sales tax revenue and the City has seen a shrinking to that sales tax revenue of over three million dollars a year. As Jim Doty is now saying, it's not a recession -- it s a complete economic restructuring. It is a very emotional issue. They have seen a variety of promotional signs and banners since the City waived the requirements or backed away from enforcement of the limitations. What has not been addressed are the A-frame or portable signs; those are still illegal. But, they have not been enforced through mutual agreement. Last July or August, the City started to enforce the signs. The Chamber asked the City for help on this. They met in September and 40 to 50 businesses showed up. Out of that meeting, a small task force was created (3 members). The task force and Mr. Godlewski spent a number of Tuesday mornings surveying the City -- taking pictures of businesses with signs. He presented a photo book to the Commission showing 160 pictures of signs, banners and situations out in the community -- some very good, but some are not appropriate for the City of Orange. The task force realized there were some problems that needed to be addressed. Some A-frame signs are out in the middle of the sidewalks that impede the flow of traffic, block visual right-of-way and block pedestrians. The task force brought their recommendations to a meeting of 80 businesses in attendance just before the end of the year. The Committee was chewed up because the business people felt they did not have a problem with signs. The Committee is bringing a compromise to the City: They propose that the City continues to allow promotional signs up to two per business and/or to make legal A-frame or portable signs, which have not been legal. And that businesses be allowed for a combination of up to two signs (2 promotional banners, 2 A-frames or one and one). Each would need to be licensed and can be left up during the year. If the business wants to have more than two signs, they could exchange them during the course of the year, but each one must be licensed by the City, approved by the City and pay an appropriate fee. That fee being reflective of the cost of the City to enforce the ordinance. Several cities have looked at this and some have shied away from it. The City of Buena Park's underlying ordinance is probably not nearly as strict as the City of Orange. They believe the A-frame signs need to have some limitations in terms of size. The idea of 48 inches high came from the building industry in terms of materials are often either 4 feet or 8 feet in height and it is convenient to cut and make a sign of 48 inches. He believed 36 inches was too low. Many retailers felt the 48 inch sign was not big enough. They believe the promotional signs need to be quality signs; they need to be attached to the building and not impede the flow of ingress/egress to the building: Signs should not be attached to utility poles or to landscaping elements because that is not appropriate. Also, the signs should not be used to replace permanent signage. The Committee took on a couple of challenging issues in addition to this. He referred to item 8 in the sign ordinance proposal outside articulated advertising generally visible to passing traffic -- sometimes known as the East Chapman Avenue gorilla. They did not feel that was appropriate and could not recommend support. Articulated signs is not the solution. Likewise, the Committee has taken on, under item 10, a very challenging, sensitive issue in terms of vehicles that have become principal)y advertising vehicles that are not moved, but are placed in high visibility locations for their advertising. The Committee recommends those be moved on a daily basis or be subject to parking violations and cited. This form of advertising defeats the sign ordinance. For those areas with A-frame signs, Downtown has been singled out sometimes in the Press on this. They are in a variety of locations; they need to be in areas where they do not impede the flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic. In the cases of Old Towne, the feeling is most of those are located on public right-of-way. The City already has an encroachment permit process and those signs should be subject to that encroachment permit to protect the City from any liability in the event there is an unfortunate incident resulting from one of the signs. Controls need to be put in place so they can enjoy an attractive and sucxessful community. Commissioner Pruett understood Mr. Hunter to say the Chamber of Commerce was recommending a permit fee that was reflective of the cost to enforce the ordinance. Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1995 Mr. Hunter responded that was correct, to cover the cost of issuing the permits and enforcement. They estimated approximately $25. If there is evidence it should be higher or lower, they would not object to what staff felt should be the actual cost. Commissioner Smith did not see a recommendation of who would be able to put out the A-frame or portable signs if there was limited space to put it in. For instance, a small shopping center that had a limited grassy area. There was room for two signs, but there were 7 businesses. She sees that problem in Downtown as well. Mr. Hunter said in Downtown the encroachment permit will for the most part address that issue. They have some off site A-frame signs in Downtown and he presumed the encroachment permit would limft that to the area immediately in front of their property and not allow signs across the street or down the street from the business location. For the shopping centers, many of them will have terms within their lease that will limit the signage or placement of signage within the leases. Those areas that have small frontages but larger acreage towards the back (i.e., Egghead, south side of Katella, west of California), he thought the property owner would be the person to determine placement of signs. Commissioner Pruett continued on that line of thought...Mr. Hunter indicated that the property owner would be able to restrict it; in fact, the tenants could ask for a permit to encroach into public property -- could the property owner be able to control that? Mr. Hunter responded in those cases, using the same center, they would not anticipate an encroachment ermit onto the sidewalk area, but most of those, the request has been to put those within thePandscapingsetbackareas. Commissioner Pruett was leading to, is if there is a lease agreement that would restrict the signage, but an individual insists on putting his sign out on the public property and getting an encroachment permit from the City; therefore, the landlord would not have control over that. Has that been thought about? Mr. Hunter would call Mr. Godlewski and ask for direction at that point. Chairman Bosch said there were a variety of types of centers in the City, ranging from a regional shopping center, which typically has a urnfied sign program that was brought before the City and approved. The recommendations don't specifically state whether it would be one A-frame or two banners per business or per property. (They were looking at it per business.) For a regional shopping center that may have 100 shops, there is a potential for 200 banners and/or A-frames, or a combination thereof on that property. That's something the City needs to be concerned about. He didn't find a recommendation limiting the size of banners. Currently, there is a limitation in size for the ordinance. How did the Committee feel about that? Mr. Hunter said in most cases the situations (with few exceptions) had nothing to do with the size. The problems were more in keeping with the location, how they were attached and in many cases, being attached to landscaping materials or utility poles. In most cases, the Committee felt they were in keeping with the scale of the building and did not see a major problem. Chairman Bosch said there were a variety of methods of arriving at multi-tenant signs. Typically, the older signage feature on a strip shopping center -- everyone has one line up on the big sign under the name of the center. Did the Committee Piave any discussion as to the merits of additional signage per a site such as that, given there is already individual tenant identification vs. others that may have a window visibility problem, with only a few key tenants identified? Mr. Hunter responded at this point they tried to stay away from addressing the underlying sign ordinance. They chose not to get involved with that whole issue. There are a number of variance procedures currently available for those special circumstances in terms of permanent signage and center signage. They felt it was best to continue to deal with those issues on a variance or overall property basis. Chairman Bosch asked how does one face the dilemma of permanent signs in a sign ordinance vs. unlimited utilization or year round utilization of banners or A-frames, which, therefore, becomes a permanent sign, although perhaps not constructed of as permanent material, and state they are not interfering or having an effect upon the permanent sign ordinance? 4 Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1995 Mr. Hunter replied they must be maintained and there is a relatively short life to those temporary promotional banners. They will not maintain season after season. In talking with a lot of the businesses, the feeling is that they would like to rotate signs, each of them separately permitted. Therefore, you hopefully will not see the same sign month after month. They are not in favor of roof mounted signage; it must be attached to the facia. They had not given any thought yet to lettering size or text as to business names. Commissioner Romero discussed the quality of the signs. How would enforcement of these be handled? He sees it as being quite costly. Did the task force come up with a time frame as to when the moratorium should be lifted and enforcement of the ordinance be enforced? Mr. Hunter said all permits would be on record with the City. One could determine whether or not the sign is legal by checking the permits. The Committee/task force is willing to work with the City staff to address the enforcement issues and to help make a determination. The task force now addresses sign problems by talking to the business owners if they feel the sign is not appropriate. As soon as a revised ordinance is in place, 30 days notice should be given and enforcement can begin. The permit process should be self-paying; it should not be a cost to the City. Commissioner Cathcart said one of the issues everyone is wrestling with is enforcement. He suggested the staff and Chamber committee ~o back and try to come up with actual specifications, sizes for banners, a ratio of the sign to the facia, a ratio of the banner to the front of the building -- some ratio that would lead to some enforceable method of deciding whether the size was correct. Another issue is the life of the banner. Maintenance of the signs must be addressed. Will someone review that to make sure the banner is in good shape? He did not have a problem with promotional banners being up for as long as a business feels they need to advertise. He was not ready to make a decision at this hearing. It's a good start, but it needs to be worded in such a way as to be able to enforce it. Safety needs to be addressed. Enforcement and permit/fees needs to be re-evaluated. Commissioner Pruett questioned the cost of enforcement. Has the Chamber polled its members to find out how many of the businesses do, in fact, use these types of signs? He wanted to know if there was an interest in making that kind of investment. If there are a lot, it's not that much, but if there is very few, then it becomes expensive. Mr. Hunter replied no. They have had a couple of general meetings. He knows those people who have the siggns, absolutely swear by them because they have made a tremendous difference in their business. He would guess there are about a couple hundred signs throughout the City. Public Input Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, understood the need for additional advertising, but he wondered about East Chapman. East Chapman looks more like Burbank or the San Fernando Valley each week. What will it look like if each merchant had an A-frame sign on the sidewalks? Signs are everywhere. How is that going to be regulated? Commissioner Cathcart responded he believed somewhere along the line, within the encroachment permit for A-frames, there may be enough methodology of setbacks to get it down to where the signs are not permitted everywhere. It's important to look at the actual location where a sign would be acceptable. The public hearing was dosed. Commissioner Pruett had several questions that needed to be answered before he could support this. There's a variety of issues: One is the issue of enforcement. He was pleased to hear the Chamber is interested in making certain the program pays for itself. He's an advocate of that. He thought the costs should be supported by those who are incurring a cost from the City. He was concerned though that it be structured proper)y so the fees can be recovered. When getting into the issue of encroaching into the right-of-way, it's a whole different issue of the City having some legal responsibility. That business is benefiting from the use of public property. It wouldn't be out of line for the City to charge an additional rental fee for the use of that public property if they were to put the sign in the public right-of-way. That's something the citizens should be able to enjoy. That needs to be looked at to see if there is a fee structure for renting the right-of-way. He was also concerned as they get into the public right-of-way with 5 Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1995 C banners and temporary signs, where they are placed is going to be important. When a sign issue comes before the Planning Commission, it is looked at in relationship to ingress/egress; Is it going to be blocking the view?; What is it going to contribute in terms of accidents or obstruction of public right-of- way? He's also concerned if a car is parked on private property and there is a sign on it, does the City have the right to, under existing ordinance, go out and ticket it and tow it away? He would like to see the Chamber consider a contractual relationship in terms of enforcement with the City -- not for a fee. The Chamber is proposing a sign ordinance for local businesses and that is going to require some enforcement and follow up. Maybe the Chamber is the appropriate organization to do this. They would follow up with their members to make certain they are keeping their signs in order, turning the signs over so they don't look like an eyesore, make sure they have a flavor to them. Maybe the City's action could be structured in such a way the agreement would be the Chamber would follow up on this and provide an annual report to the Planning Department in terms of what they've done and what has occurred Improvements and changes) and then staff could react to the report as to whether they agree with it. If there's agreement, it could move on; but, if there's disagreement, a correction needs to occur. This is a partnership and it involves the citizens of Orange who need to be protected as well. Commissioner Smith wanted clarification on a public right-of-way. Mr. Johnson responded it was any right-of-way the City has acquired for purposes other than signs. In other words, street right-of-way or non fee owned land. General)y, it is behind the curb, which might be landscaped or it might not. It's areas other than the street itself. It's not just the sidewalk; it could be the grassy areas between the curb and sidewalk. Commissioner Smith would like staff to address the topic of dueling A-frames. As she understands it, they're not talking about the display of merchandise or changes in balloons or streamers. The other thing she hasn't heard about is the actual signage on windows in terms of painting on windows or hanging things in the windows inside the building. It seemed to her in some cases a person could have their store sign, banner, the painting on the windows with banners inside and A-frame signs outside -- it might not be very aesthetic. She was asking that there be sensitivity to all pieces of the ordinance working together. The permit for banners will create an absolute paperwork nightmare. It seems it would be a very expensive task as well. She was also in favor of restricting the banner size so it would not be dependent on the size of the building. Commissioner Romero asked what risk the City had in allowing A-frames on public property? Mr. Soo-Hoo didn't know if that could be precisely answered. Whenever there is increased activity on the public right-of-way, the City faces increased exposure to liability. Obvious)y, through the encroachment permit process they would be looking at some means of indemnification of the City. Chairman Bosch believed they should look closely at the ratio in terms of size of any banners to the permanent signage permitted on a building. He agrees it will be difficult to determine what is professional and not particularly when one sees how marketability best for their business. There should be some reasonable ratio to permit permanent signage and also locational relationship. Part of the problem is when everyone sees signs arbitrarily applied throughout a property. The sign ordinance, as it is written for permanent signage, is concerned with typically square footage of sign per lineal foot of street frontage or front face area of the building. There should be something that could be similarly reviewed and understood by business owners that could be applied as well. He's concerned from a safety point of view on a number of areas, in addition to the ones already heard. Flammability of materials on buildings; it could be applied in proximity to electrical signs and cause problems. It also applies to police visibility through store fronts and into buildings. There has to be concern with the application of banners that block sight lines, as well as painting and other devices hung on the windows. He didn't want to control everything that goes on in a business and certainly a window display of products can block sight lines as well. However, some rule of thumb needs to be in place to avoid problems. The key concern he had particularly with A-frames is the impact on maintenance of required landscape planting -- its health, size and continued existence without being chopped down to provide better visibility; without landscape irrigation being cut off so that the flowers and pants don't grow up to hide the signs. Staff needs to look at this carefully. He was concerned, too, with what types of businesses; there are retail and professional offices. In some cases, there are professional offices on the second floor above retail. Does this mean two stories of banners? Does this mean two stories of other devices? The City needs to make sure that whatever is done, affords equals rights for given Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1995 circumstances. He's very much against the permanent parking of vehicles that serves solely as directional sins or advertising; he's concerned about how the City enforces that legally. He suggested looking into City Link and League of Cities for information as to how it has been successfully accomplished elsewhere so that it can be applied to the City of Orange. Size of banners has been mentioned many times. There must be control over the signs in terms of size. The number and type primarily with regard to multi-tenant sites -- he was concerned about what will occur there. Maybe staff needs to look back to the basic reasons why sign ordinances were adopted in the beginning: The A-frame sign concept seemed good in many instances, but it applies to type of business and location. It's truly a pedestrian sign; not a vehicular sign. It doesn't belong by the curb; he thought it belonged in relationship to drawing people from parking areas to the back of a center -- more of a directional thing -- or drawing people from sidewalk and mall areas back into businesses where there is space available for handicapped accessibility and where pedestrian walkways can be kept clear. How will the A-frame signs be regulated so as not to cause a problem. There is a lot to address before proceeding. He was concerned there may be some thorny issues right now out in the City where people are taking advantage of the moratorium and creating danger. He hopes there is a way, while this is coming to a good and fruitful conclusion to help everyone, that there is something that can be done to enhance the enforcement of those problems and do it without making people feel like they're being singled out. He wondered if something could be done in terms of an emergency ordinance for those who are greedy in terms of safety; maybe set higher penalties within the limits of the misdemeanor code and the law to assure there is some funding available if the people who wish not to be good citizens don't conform with regard to safety and get them off the street now. Chairman Bosch looked to the staff for assistance on a time frame for coming back to the Commission continuance) to take the next step forward and answer some of the questions and concerns. Mr. Godlewski felt staff would need at least 30-45 days to have a chance to meet with the Chamber of Commerce and discuss tonight's meeting. They could either come back with a report or come back with a revised ordinance. Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to continue Ordinance Amendment 1-95 to August 21, 1995. They look to staff to come back with what they feel is the most appropriate report. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED 3 -- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 2113-95 -ORANGE ELDERLY SERVICES, INC. Applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow weekly bingo games to be conducted at the Orange Senior Center located at 170 South Olive Street. N TE: This project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CE~A) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15323. There was no opposition to this item and the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened. Applicant Keith Regan, Executive Director of Orange Senior Center, 170 South Olive Street, thanked the Planning staff, Police Department and Commission for their help in putting this together. Satellite Market has agreed to allow them to use some of their parking spaces for bingo. Someone has looked at the ventilation system at the Center and they have come to an agreement on what they could do to improve it to make it more than acceptable regarding the smoking issue. This is a volunteer-run operation; employees are not paid for running the program. They see it as a non-work place when it comes to the smoking issue. Commissioner Cathcart called upon Mr. Soo-Hoo for a legal interpretation of the smoking issues and State law. He wanted to make sure condition 3 is clarified and that it remain in place. 7 Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1995 Mr. Soo-Hoo thought Mr. Regan was referring to the enactment and enforcement of AB 13, which became effective in January, 1995. It precludes smoking in closed places of employment with certain exceptions. One of the exceptions includes bingo facilities; however, within that exception there are exceptions and bingo facilities are exempted until January 1, 1997 or upon adoption of certain standards by either the Federal EPA or State OSHA Departments. As to Mr. Regan's rationale that the facility would not be a place of employment and therefore is exempt from the mandate of State law, he was not certain how that would be interpreted. One possible interpretation is that it's a place of employment regardless of whether employees are there or not. The short of it is, the facility will need to comply with State law. He didn't believe the City had the ability to modify those requirements. If there is the opportunity to, within State law, exempt the facility for a longer term or by some other means, he was sure that would be available; however, it was not a matter the Commission could have any effect on. Any enclosed place of employment is broad; it covers any location other than a personal residence. The law only went into effect the beginning of the year and is still being refined. There will be questions such as how the law will be implemented in bingo facilities. It's premature right now to determine exactly how the law will be applied to facilities such as this. Commissioner Smith asked when bingo would begin at the center? She was surprised there were no senior citizens present to support the request. Are they aware of the bingo request? She wondered how the people who use the center during the day feel about filling the center with smoke on Friday nights? Mr. Regan anticipated 30 days after City Council approval. He said they have received numerous calls in support of bingo games. Commissioner Smith had heard Satellite Market was in escrow, or close to being in escrow and she didn't know if they could count on the parking spaces permanently.. She knows the property is for sale. If this use would be approved, there wilt be a conflict for parking space on Friday night of the Street Fair Labor Day Weekend). Mr. Regan didn't see that as a major hurdle. They're willing not to have bingo on that Friday night and they would work with the Street Fair Committee and allow them the full use of the parking lot. Commissioner Smith suggested adding a condition of approval -- no bingo on Friday night of the Street Fair. Or perhaps, a better condition would be to say the public parking lots needed to remain open for public use on Friday night of the Street Fair. Mr. Regan didn't foresee parking to be a problem. He has been talking to the manager of the Legion Hall next door and she sees no problem either, as long as they communicate to the people playing bingo they can't use the parking lot next door to them. That's going to be their responsibility; they are going to work close with the Legion Hall to see that there are no problems with parking. Public In{~ut Walter Roman, 19273 Canyon Drive, Villa Park, is the President of the Orange Elderly Services and represented the Board of Directors in favor of bingo games. They recently completed a fund raising campaign and fell below their goal. The last two years their fund raising campaigns have fallen short of their goals. They are in the process of trying to develop additional revenues from different sources, This bingo program is hopefully a source that is worth pursuing. He asked for a favorable consideration of this request. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cathcart believed the Orange Elderly Services provides such a need in the City of Orange to the elderly citizens. Fund raising is very difficult and a lot of the monies/contributions have fallen off. He thought this would be a wonderful opportunity for the Center to raise enough funds to continue its many programs. It was noted the project was exempt from CEQA review. v 8 Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1995 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to recommend to the City Council to approve Conditional Use Permit 2113-95, given the conditions in the staff report and the addition of a new condition that there be no conflict with parking on Friday night of the Street Fair held on Labor Day Weekends, and a condition there be no advertising of bingo games on the Orange Senior Center building, and a condition that a security guard be provided as a volunteer. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED Discussion Chairman Bosch looked at this as a good cause. His key concern was with regard to sound principals of land use. It is a public gathering place; it's been utilized for many years as a sernor center. Parking is the key concern when associated with bingo. He didn't like bingo because it turns out to be an out of town game more often than not. He would hope something could be done to encourage and promote this to the citizens of Orange in support of programs for the City of Orange, rather than bussing in people from out of town. He hopes the Orange Elderly Services would continue to look to other sources of support in the community. The site location is one of the better ones for this type of activity. Commissioner Cathcart concurred with the statement we need to get our own community involved and hopefully keep the bussing of outsiders down as much as possible. Commissioner Pruett would like the Orange Elderly Services group consider and take advantage of talking to the bingo groups about Orange Elderly Services and all that it provides; with maybe some opportunities on ways people can get involved to support the organization beyond lust playing bingo. Chairman Bosch called upon Detective Sergeant Barry Weinstein of the Orange Police Department to talk r about bingo in general. Sgt. Weinstein reported the Police Department has not had any problems with the limited bingo games in the City of Orange. The Police Department suggested their consideration of no advertising of bingo games on the building based on the fact it is a City owned building and also the fact they prefer not to draw major attention to elderly people playing bingo with a large amount of money on the site. They were concerned about the players safety and protection. He didn't know if there was money available through Orange Elderly Services, but they would also like to see a security guard on site on Friday nights during the bingo games. The Police Department does not oppose bingo and felt it would be a benefit to the commurnty. 4 -- ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 3-95 -CITY OF ORANGE A proposal to amend provisions contained within Sections 17.10.040 and 17.32.040 of the Orange Municipal Code, regarding development standards for accessory second housing units. This amendment is proposed to respond to recent changes in the State law regarding parking requirements for accessory second units. If approved, this change will also be incorporated into Chapter 17.14 "Residential Districts" of the recently approved update of the Zoning Ordinance. N TE: This amendment is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. There was no opposition to this item; the full reading of the staff report was waived. The public hearing was opened and closed. The amendment was categorically exempt from CEQA review. 0 9 Planning Commission Minutes June 19, 1995 Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Pruett, to recommend to the City Council to approve Ordinance Amendment 3-95 by amending Sections 17.10.040 H and 17.32.040 I of the current Zoning Ordinance and Section 17.14.060 A of the recently approved Zoning Ordinance Update, as indicated in the staff report. 0 AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None MOTION CARRIED IN RE: ORAL PRESENTATIONS Bob Bennyhoff, 10642 Morada Drive, Orange Park Acres, complained about not hearing people talk when sitting in the audience. There is an echo and it sounds mushy. The sound system is worse -- not better. The air conditioning needs to be checked as well because it was not working. IN RE: ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Cathcart, seconded by Commissioner Smith, to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. AYES: Commissioners Bosch, Cathcart, Pruett, Romero, Smith NOES: None sld MOTION CARRIED 10