Minutes-PC 1964/09/21..
I
I
'
. i 1 ~
•
,` i
.`
~_~
~ . '
, ~
City Hall
Anaheim9California
September 21, 1964
A REGULAR MEE7 IIVG OF THE ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING CObiPAISSION
REGULAR MEETING + A regular meeting of the Anaheim City Planning Commission was called
" ~ to order by Chairman Mungall at 7:00 o'clock pe me9 a quorum being
presente
PRESENT - CHAIRMAN: Mungalla
- COMMISSIONERSs ALLRED~ CAMP~ CHAVOS, GAUER~ PERRY~ ROWLAND,
ABSENT ; COMMISSIONERSs Nonee
PRESENT - Assistant City Attorneya John Dawson '
Chief Building Inspector: Homer Wallace
• Deputy City Attorneye F~urman Aoberts
~ Office Engineer: Arthur Daw
Planning Coordinator: Allan Shoff
Zoning Coordinator: Martin Kreidt
•; : Zoning Departmen~ Stenographer: Corrine Galvan
AMENDMENT TO THE - CONTINUEA P~LIC HEARINGe 'NTTIATED BY THE ANAHEIM CITY
ANAHEIM MUNICIPA~. PLANNING COMMISSION, 204 Hast Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, Califo
CODE. SEGTION 18e62 proposing to amend the Anaheim~Municipal•Code by the adoption
of ra :`si•gh : ordinance ~
~ Subject Code amendment was continued from the meetings of
April 27, May 25, July 20, and August 39 1964, for further study'and suggested revisionso
Deputy City Attprney Furman Roberts distributed copies of the proposed ordinance as amended
and itemized~the.last minute changes Mhich were proposede A.cop~ of•this document was marked
Exhibit "A" and placed on file in the Planning Departmente •
Mr. Roberts explained that the Billboard Ordinance would be considered by the Planning Com-
mission in February, 1965, alth.ough he hoped that the Commission would be willing to adopt
the first.,page of the present draft of the ordinance per~aining to the purpose of the ordin-
ance, the•method of classification of outdoor advertising. signs and billboards, and a defini-
tion of b~llboardse
c.. . ..
Commissioner Chavos.stated that he 31d not believe the Commission should consider the Bill-
board Ordinance until it was completedo Mre Roberts pointed.otit that it.may be necessary
for the City to take~a position prior to February91965,since state legislation pertaining
to the establishment oF billboards along the Interstate Highway System is now pendingo
Mr. Roberts reviewed in detail all changes which had been made since the .^•ommission's
August 3,.1964 hearing on the proposed ordinanceo The following changes were discussed by
tne Commission:
Section 18,620020 ~b) - Guide Sianss Although Disneyland had suggested that the
percentage of out-of-state annual attendance at any regional recrAation or enter-
tai,nment center be changed from 15% to ?_5% to qualify for a guide sign~ the Com-
rqission felt that this would be unduly restrictivee Af.ter ~ome discussion, it was
concluded that the 15% fic~~~re would be retained in the proposed ordinance<
~Section 18a62o030 ~b) - Face of Buildina: The Planning Commission agreed that ~
qarapet walls should be included in calculating the area of the building facee
SQ"ction 180620030 ~k) - A~ea of Siana Mra Roberts explai.ned that the change in
definitfon attempted to simplify the method, of calculating the area of a sign by •
enclosing the outer limits of any sign material within a parallelogram or trianglea
The Planning Commiss~on endorsed the revision as the most equitable and efficient
method of calculating the sign areao '
-2321 -
, . , ,
~
• i .
. ,~`;
~:
] •~+
~:_) ~ ~1 . '`,
MINUI'ES, CITY PLANNING COhMiIISSION, September 21, 1964 23~
AMENDMENT TO THE ~
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL ~ •
CODE'. SECTION 18062
(Continued)
Allan Shoff, Planning Coordinator, reviewed a.memo dated September 21, 1964,
pertaini~g to the proposed sign ordinancee A copy of this memo was marked Exhibit "B"
and placed on file in the Plannft[g•Departmento The sections emphasized by Mre Shoff
wese as follows:
Section 18a62.080 (a~, - Aaareaate Ar.ea of Sians_Permitted : It was recom-
mended that the aggregate area of signs permitted be based on one square
foot for each lineal foot of street frontage. •
Section 18o62v080 (b-1) - Wall Sians: Recommendation was made that a
maximum area lirr,itation of 15~ of building face be considerede ~
Section 180620080 (b-2) - Roof SicLns: Recommendation was made that only
those roof signs bearing the name of th2 building or principal tenant be {
permitted and that they be an integral part of the buildinge
s
4
Section 180620090 ~a-2) Heiaht of Free Standina Sipns Recommendation was
made that the maximum area of signs permitted be one and one-half square '
feet per lineal foot of street frontageo ~
Sectinn 18e62v090 (b-4-b) Wall Sians: Recommendation was made that a ~
maximum area of wall signs per building face be limited to 15% of building ~
faceo ~
Section 18a62e100 - M-1 Zone °iar.s Permittgd: Recommendation was made g
' that a maximum area of 100 square feet for free standing signs used for ?
designating the principal uses of the premises be adoptede ~
Mre E~. Cronan, Executive Director~ California Electric Sign Industry complimented ~
the Commission and staff on the progress that had been made, and stated his position as ~
follows: i
~
Ae Endorsement of the one square foot of sign area per lineal foot of
s•treet frontage in the C-0 zone with a maximum sign area of 15;K of
building face for wall signse
Be ~daintenance of the 50-foot height limitation on free-standing signs
rather than a reduction to 40 feeto ~i
Ce Incorporation of two square feet of sign area per lineal foot of street ~
frontage as standard for determining aggregate area of signs in commer- _
cial zones, together with a maximum wall sign limitation with a maxi- ;
mum of 20 to 25% of building faceo ~
i
Do Prohibition of flashing ancl rotating signs within 200' of residential .;
area~ ~I
!
Eo Prahibition of neon tubing in excess of 300 mill.iamps and indixect i
illuminated signs in excess of 800 milliampse~He maintained that foot ~
lumens and foot lambert formula would nc+t be enforceable)e '
f
Mra Walter Brooks~ representative of the Electric Sign Industry indicated that ~
the 50-foot height limitation for free standing sign is working very well in Fullerton and !
that the New~+or~ Beach provision for a wall sign limitation based on 40~ of the face of the
building was in need of greater limitationo He indicated that any other control' other
thar. a milliamp control on the in`tensity of lighting would require an electrical engineer,
which would be a haxdship on the industryo In conclusion, Mr. Brooks endorsed the ordinance ,
with tY~e exceptions noted aboveo
~
i
i ~ .
..,•`'_
,.
_ .._ .__ ---_._. . __.....__ ._ --__ - ' --.._:____
~
~
~
MINllTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 21y 1964 2323
AMENDMENT TO TH8
ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL
CODE' SECTION 8e62
aontinued
Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 1369, Series.1964-65 and moved for
~l~ts passage and adoption, seconded by Mro Commissioner Chavos, to recommend to the.City
~^ouncil thait thp proposed sign ordinance, marked Exhibit "A",be adopted with ~he following
exceptionv:
Aa That all free standing signs have a maximum height limitation of 90 feet.
Bo That the maximum area of wall signs be based upon 20% in commercial
zone, excepting the C-0 zone,and 15~ in the C-0 zonea
Ca That the aggregate area of roof signs be limited to one square foot
in area per lineal foot of street frontage in the C-0 zone and two square
-• ~ feet of area per lineal foot of street frontage in the commercial zones,
other than C-0 zonee
Following further discussion by the Commission, additional exceptions were attached
to the motiona
D, That the maximum size light bulb per,mitted in any flashing sign be 40
wa:to
Ee That no flashing or rotating sign shall be permitted within 300 feet of
a structure used exclusively for residential purposesa
F, That no indirect lighting sign shall have lighting which exceeds 800
milliamp rated capacity, nor shall any sign lighted by neon have any
lighting which exceeds 300 milliamp rate~ capacitye
G, That the aggregate area of all signs permitted on any one street front-
age of a building in the C-0 zone shall be limited to a maximum of
250 square feet. ~
He That the area of each size of a double-faced free standing sign in all
commercial zones other than the C-0 zone shall not exceed 350 square
feet or two square feet for each lineal foot of street or highway
frontage, whichever is the~ lesser.
Ie That multi-faced free atanding signs in the M-1 zone shall not exceed
100 syuare feet in a~rea.
On roll call the fore9oing resolutian xas pasted by the folloning votes
AYES: CON~NISSIONERSe Allred, Camp, Chavoa~ Gauer, Mungall, Perry, Rowland
NOESe COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENTe. COMMISSIONERS: None
REPQRTS AND - ITFM N0. 1
REOONOuIENDATIONS Clarification of Commission Resolution No. 1310, Series 1964-65 granting
Conditional Use Permit Noe 617~ in part.
Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt i~eviewed the August 31~ 1964 action of the Commission per-
taining to Conditional Use Permit Noa 617. He indicated that although a finding was incor-
porated in the Commission's resolution indioating•that the psoposed Hofbrau would be incom-
patible to the family type restaurant and the neighborhood shopping center, the operation was
not specifically denied within the body of the resolution. 7'}~e Commission clarified their
intent that the Hofbrau be denied because it merely qualified as a beer bar,without the sale
of fooda Commissioner Rowland offered Resolution Noo 1347, Series 1964-65 and moved for its
passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Chavos~ to emend Resolution Noe 1310r Series
1964-65, so as to specifically deny the establishment of the proposed Nofbrau.
,._.___.._._._. _...._.. ._~. ,,
~:: . _
_.. _ . .
~_? ~ ~
h1IAilTFESj CITY PI,ANNING COMMISSION, September 21, 1964 232,4
REPOR'FS~=ANa
REG(~IE!}DkTI ~ N&
CoFlt3nued ~
On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votee
AYESs (~RA~FaSIONERSe Camp, Chavos, Gauer, Perry, Mungall, Rowland
NOESs . - ~ISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMIuFISSIONERSs Allred
ABSENTe CODMOISSIONERSt None
ADJOURNNfENTe - The meeting adjourned at 10:10 o'clock p. mo
Respectfully submitted,
,(~ ~.4hycE . Lli~ ~~,
A Corrine Galv n, Stenographer :
Anaheim Planning Commission ;
,
I
- ---r----- - -- - ,-- . - - - -,~^
, . -..F_,~.,---- ---._.__..: . . __ ...~