Loading...
Minutes-PC 1996/09/30SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 10:30 A.M. DISCUSSION PERTAINING TO FLAGS, PENNANTS, BANNERS AND SIGNS IN MULTI-FAMILY ZONES PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW (Immediately following the discussion) 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING (festimany) COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: BOSTWICK, BOYDSTUN, BRISTOL, HENNINGER, MAYER, MESSE, PERAZA COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: NONE STAFF PRESENT: Selma Mann Greg Hastings Cheryl Flores Greg McCafferty Bruce Freeman Melanie Adams Tom Engle Margarita Sdorio Ossie Edmundson Assistant City Attorney Zoning Division Manager Senior Planner Associate Planner Code Enforcement Supervisor Associate Civil Engineer Vice Detail Senior Secretary Senior Word Processing Operator P:\DOCS\CLERICAL\MI NUTES\AC093096.WP Q9~0-96 Page 1 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ~__ 1. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: A. VARIANCE NO 3831 - REQUEST FOR TERMINATION: Terminated W. G. Wells, FujRa Corporation, P.0. Box 1607 Santa Monica, CA 90406, requests termination of Variance No. 3831 (waNer of required lot ftontage to permit a 20-lot (plus 1 common lot) industrial subdivision. Property is located at 5155 East Huller Avenue. TERMINATION RESOLUTION N0. PC96-97 _ I SR6327JKWP B. REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN FOR COUNTY USE OF LEASED OFFICE AND Determined to be in confommance with WAREHOUSE SPACE: County of Orange, Genera! Services Agency, the Anaheim Attn: Cardee Condon, Real Property Agent, 14 CNk: Center Plaza, Thins General Plan Santa Ana, Ca 92701, requests determinatbn of conformance Floor , with the General Plan for County use of leased office and warehouse space for the Sheriff Department's Commissary Operations and Food Services Unft. Property is located at 1530 South State Cdlege Boulevard. ~'TIQIV: Commissioner Bostwick offered a motion, seconded by A , Commissioner Bristd and MOTION CARRIED that the Anaheim Ciry Planning Commission does hereb~~ determine that the County's proposed use of leased space for office and warehouse purposes at 1530 South State Cdlege Boulevard is in conformance with the Anaheim General Plan. The City Council reviews all actions taken by the Planning Commission. This matter will be placed on the City C+wncU agenda of October 8, 1996. You or any member of the public may appear regarding this matter at that time. The decision of the Planning Commission will be final on that date unless the City Council determines to reverse the decision of the Planning Commission or continues this matter for subsequent consideration at a later date. ~~~ WP 09-30-96 Page ^c SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA -- 2a. CEOA NEGATIVE DFr! °~ON-fPREV1OilSLY APPROVEDl ~~m~ 2tr. CONDITION"' "ems a~R~uiT NO 18?4i'R~4DVERTISEDI OWNER: LANDSDALE & CARR, 17662 Armstrong Avenue, Irvine, CA 92714 AGENT: STRATA LAND COMPANY, Attn: Michael Toerge, 3810 E. Coast Highway, Corona.Del Mar,CA 92625 LOCATION: 950 North Harbor Boul~ev~ Property is an irregulariy- shaped parcel of land consi5ting of approximately 0.37 acre located at the southeast comer of La Palma Avenue and Harbor Boulevard. To permit automotive reaair in canjunctian with a previously approved fire sales installation business. Continued from the Planning Commission meetings of August 5, 1996 and September 4, 1996. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ffiESOL.UTION NO. SR6336MA.WP ------------------------------- ' FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: MOTION ioCARRIED thatffhe Anaheim City Planning doeCs hereby accept thenrequestfrom the applicant to withdraw subject petition. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TIME: This item was not discussed. lKJ~0-96 Page 3 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ~ Cen,A ~eTCr•.nair•_er ~[FruaTloN -CLASS 21 3b. rONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NOS 104 AND 1765 (READVERTISEDI Concurred w/staff Revoked CUPS by REQUESTED BY: CITY-INITIATED (CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION), separate resolutions 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1652 West Lincoln Avenue (EI Oio de Aaua). Property is arectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 1.3 acres, having a frontage of approximately 220 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and located approximately 440 feet east of the centerline cd Eudid Street. City initiated (Code Enforck~:~ivni Divisor.) n~quest to consider the revocation or modification of Conditional Use r eRrlit No. 104 (to self beer in conjunction wiih a restaurant) anti Conditia~al Use Permit No. 1765 (to permit a beer bar) pursus~nt to Sec~bn ip.03.091 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. Continued from the August 19, 1!96 Planning Commission meeting. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 104 RESOLUTION N0. PC96-98 II CONDITIONAL USE PER~AIT NO. 1765 RESOLUTION N0. PC96-99 SR6342CF.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None PEOPLE PRESENT: Rick Blake, legal counsel (for Mr. Carbajal, owner) at 2700 N. Main Street, Suite 1000, Santa Ana, CA. STAFF'S CGMMENTS: Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Division, presented Code Enforcement's recommerxfaton f^r consideration of revocatbn or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 104 and 1765 as stated on the staff report. He stated the Poice Department and Code Enforcement continue to have problems with the operaton of the restaurant. He stated Irnestigator Engle from Anaheim Police and a representative from ABC (Alcohol Beverage (:ontrd) were present to answer any questions. 0930-96 Page 4 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA ~~ Anaheim Pdice Department, stated the Pdice continues to have the same Irnestigator Tom Engle, problems with the 'B' girl activity, narcotics sales inside the location, and operating outside of their conditional use permit. The Pdke Department concurs with Code Enforcement's recommendation. He checked the statistks for the reporting district in that area and found this property is within reporting the street is~reportFn district 622 andbtheeir$crimeg rate is 26696 above-apve ge.~ yConsequenUy they believe it does adversely impact the area. Bruce Freeman, indicated the staff report induded several memorandums ftom both Code Enforcement Division and the Pdice Department, regarding the types of activities that are continuing to reoccur on this property. The restaurant was inspected on several occasions both during the lunch hour as well as the dinner hour. The dinner hour considered from 5:30 p.m. until 9:00 p.m. The lunch hour from 11:30 a.m. until 1:30 p.m. They were at the location as recent as last Friday (September 27, 1996). The restaurant was setup to serve food, however, there were no customers inside eating food. in fact, a recent Inspection of the property found there had been no customers at all. Some of the problems observed inside this location were alcohdic sales to minors, private parties held after the nom~al dosing time of 2:00 a.m. He stated the Pdice Department constantly responds to this location for problems. At notloperational, it waslbeing used as a storage locekeruonly fThe grills had notrbeeneon nor had they was fryers been hot, stc. In response to Chaimnan Messe's question as to what typa of license they currently have, Bruce Freeman responded they have a type 48 which is a restaurant in conjunction with beer. Chairman Messe recommended they hear ftom the operator and asked whether there were any - questions of staff? Cheryl Flores, Senbr Planner, Planning Department, stated paragraph 18 on pz;ge 4 of the staff report should be corrected to road, 'fhe subJect property was originally approved ab a restaurant with on- premises sale an:'• consumptbn of beer incidental to and in conjunction with the serving of meals and then modified to be a beer bar.' In response to Chairman Messe's question as to whether both CUP's were still in effect, Cheryl Flores, senior Planner, responded yes they were. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: stated when Rick Blake, attorney (representing Mr. CarbaJal) at 2700 N. Main St. Sufte 1000, Santa Ana, this matter was originally before the Planning Commission ft was requested to modify the conditional use permit and the was denied and rww the City has brought a proceeding to ravoke existing CUP's Mr. Blake stated he met with staff and thought thby had worked out a ~asolution of this; whereby Mr. Carbajal was going to surrender or sell his type 47 in-sale general bonafied eating place license to restaurant license. He was going to sell that and was going to replace that with a beer license. He discussed the matter wfth Phyllis Cripin from the Department d Alcohd Beverage Contrd and she Indicated that her preference was that they obtain a beer pu~i~ a Y~ ulnd ~ agetof 211y~ears to t does not require the sale and service of food nor does it pe enter the premises. 0930-96 Page 5 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ~ Mr. Blake stated they concurred jointly, ABC and Mr. Carbajal and then he checked with Irnestigator Engle from the Pdice Department. It all seemed to be agreeable that a type 61 on-sale beer public premises license would be the best solution for everyone concerned. That would then bring the premises Into compliance with Conditional Use Permit No. 1765, operating as a beer bar. Mr. Carbajai's predecessor, did an expansion of the premises to Include the unit nex: door, and they agreed to reduce the premises to it's original size. The problem with doing that is there was a substantial expense irndved constructing walls, moving bathrooms replacing kitchens, creating new entrances, etc. They did not want to do that work until such time as they knew what the outcome of the proceeding would be. Mr. Blake stated they could not apply for the beer license with the Department of Alcohdic Beverage Contrd because they need the zoning affidavit which is a form the City signs and K states the premises is properly zoned. They tried to do that but staff would not sign it, presumably because the premises was too big. It was beyond the size that ft had been originally approved and, therefore, they were caught in the middle. Mr. Blake stated Mr. Carbajal has the full intention and desire to reduce the size of the premises as it was originally many years ago and go strictly to a beer license that does not require food. Mr. Blake indicated regarding the bathrooms, that they were hoping not to have to move those due to the expense invdved. Mr. Carbajal would like to sell the business and c~^.s ~y has a buyer. Mr. Carbajal would like to do the work that the City requires in terms of the structural modifications and obtain a new license before he sells the business. Mr. Blake stated concerning the Pdice Department memorandums regarding the 'B' girl activity, the Pdice Department had originally suggested there was a problem with 'B" girls and noise emanating from - the patrons around the parking lot. Therefore, they engaged in an outside security service and instructed them to contact the Pdk:e Department. Mr. Blake fdlowed up wfth the Pdice Department and was of the assumption that the security company was doing a reasonably good job in contrdling noise ar~d activities in the parking lot. That was one of the other understandings that they had pending this continued hearing date. As to the "B° girl activity, Mr. Carbajal indicated that none of those girls work for him. Mr. Carbajal makes no money from them, independently, and he is doing his best ~o get them out of his premises. The number of 'B' girls have subsided. The effoR b•; management is to remove those girls but some of them 5^tlll filter in and sometimes he doesn't know whether they are customers or "B" girls but he is working on that. Mr. Blake requested Conditional Use Permit No. 1765 remain in effect allowing Mr. Carbajal to a;~ply for an on-sale beer public premises license and let him make the structural modifications to the premises to bring it Into conformity. That wUl allow him to sell the business to somebody else who will operate under reasonable conditions to satisfy everybody. Chairman Masse asked in the event these Ik:enses were exchanged wouldn't the Commission have to determine the publk: convenierti^e and necessity issue? Investigator Engle rt~sponded, no, ft would be considered a new license. Chairman Masse asked if this came back before Planning Commission with the statistics as Indicated (266% above across the street and 33% of this side of the street), what would the Pdice Department recommend? 09,30-96 Page 6 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA Imrestigator Engle stated the Pdice Department's rec:ommendatkx~ would be denial. Chairman Masse stated R wed come back before Commissk~n. ified that CUP, then the public cornenience and necessity Mr. Blake stated he understood that problem but the issue is really not that simple. We are taking that license that authorizes the sale of distilled spirits, wine and beer and removing h ftom a location. Yes, they are putting in a public premises license that has a different standard but they are taking a license away. It is a license that has been authorized to operate in that location under the CUP for a number of years. It seems that under those standards the City should be able to Ju~rn~ied ~d~t to anon fo that necessity to allow the existence of the Dense that has, in fact, been aPP period of time. Commissioner Bostwick stated that was in conjunction with a restaurant and that testimony today by the Pdk:e would Indicate that the o ~d~dro~njuanction owith aestaurant. location for 20 to 30 years untA recently and ft was supposed Mr. Blake responded he understood that ~ a aarestaurant operation. ilt justtseems to them tha n ~sng the location is really interested (n buying gdng to be a very hard sell to the City that this place wouldn't be operated by a new buyer as a full and complete restaurant, even though that is what the buyer wants. The buyer Is willing to take ft as a beer bar but prefers the food. As he ~ a~ io ~~ ~I~ ~~~ f°r a beer bar and that is what the authorization under that corxlitkxial use Perm 8n~ce Freeman stated Code Enforcement is still recommending termination of both, CUP 104 and 1765• The same Issue was visited when h was brought before the Commission for a modification orb irm~tion of their previous conditbnal use permfi. The operation is identified as a restaurant, however, operating as a restaurant. The vitiations have not dimiMshed, the Pdk:e Department stAl continues to respond. testified too prio to thr is Bruce Freeman iresponded that wase orrect. the same vitiations that were Commissioner Henninger stated with regard to the one CUP basically for a restaurant with alcohd use (wfth beer), apparently they are not operating in that manner. Code Enforcement has been out there and found food in the fteezer for months and no evidence of food service going on or the kitchen being operated. W"fth regard to the other one which is for a beer bar, the beer bar Is not operating according to the condftions because K has been expanded considerably. Also the beer bae~ have B' girl actNity to be operating within the normal rules of the beer bar in Anaheim. They apps going on. We have heard conflicting testimony of whether those'B' girls are employed by the owner. Chaim~an Masse indicated the CUP is not operating with the correct ABC license. C me crime of ftsnown. Backt in 993 there was a urderthere;inow there Is a new owner andrthey ~d so have had some calls for servk:e. 09-30-96 Page 7 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA Commissioner Boydstun stated there apparently had been drug busts when they were there for something else. Commissioner Henninger stated it does not seem to be a use that is conducive to the peace and welfare of the citizens of that area. ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within the definition of Categorical Exemptions, Class 21, as defined in the State EIR and is, therefore, categork:ally exempt ftom the requirements to prepare an EIR. Revoked Conditbnal Use Permit Nos. 104 and 1765 by separate resolutions, based on tho following: (i) That the use for which such approval was granted has ceased to exist or has been suspended for one year or more; (ii) That the permft granted is being, or recently has been, exercised contrary to the terms or condftbns of such approval, or in vitiation of any statute, ordinance, law or regulation; (iii) That 4he use for which the approval was granted has been so exercised as to be detrimental to the public health or safety, or so as to constitute a nuisance; (iv) That Conditional Use Permft No. 104 permits the sale of beer fn conjunction with a restaurant. The current ABC license, for the subject location, is a Type '4T, On-Sale General -Eating Piave (full alcohol) license; (v) That the current ABC license requires that saps of alcohd~ beverages shall be made only in conjunction with the sale and service of food. ABC further requires the premises to be maintained as a bona fkle restaurant, and that a menu be provided containing an assortment of foods normally offered at restaurants; (vi) That the Pdice Department has observed person(s) soliciting or encouraging others to buy them drinks, in this licensed premises, for purposes of obtaining a commission, percentage, salary or profit sharing by conspiracy; (vii) That the evktence presented concludes that the serving of meats is not, or has not been, the primary use or source of revenue for the business, and/or that the serving of meals is, or has been, incidental to the sale of alcoholic beverages. VOTE: 7-0 Selma Mann, Assistant Catty Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights. DISCUSSION TIME: 20 minutes 090-96 Page 8 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 4a. CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION -CLASS 21 Continued to 4b. VARIANCE NO 1945-3 (READVERTISED) October 14, 1996 INITIATED BY: CITY OF ANAHEIM, PLANNING DEPARTMENT (CODE ENFORCEMENT DIVISION), 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Anaheim, CA 92805 LOCATION: 1126 North Anaheim Boulevard (EI Mural ,R~staurantl. Property is a rectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.26 acre located at the northwest comer of Anaheim Boulevard and Parry Avenue. City-initiated (Code Enforcement Division) request to consider the revocation or modfficatkxi of Variance No. 1945-3 (to permft the operation of a restaurant). Thls item was continued ftom the Planning Commission meetings of July 22, 1996 and August 19, 1996. VARIANCE RESOLUTION N0. SR6349CF.WP ---------------------------------------------------- FOLLOWING !S A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. [THIS ITEM WAS TRAILED AND HEARD FOLLOWING ITEM NO. 5.] OPPOSITION: None PEOPLE PRESENT: None Chairman Messe asked statU (Cheryl Flores) for status of the applicant related to Item No. 4. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department, responded she spoke with to Mr. Michael Cho, the legal counsel for the properly owner. Mr. Cho Indicated he had not heard back ftom his dleM and, therefore, had not scheduled todays meeting. He said his main concern was that he has been trying to get his dient to apply for a cxxrdiUonal use permit in the event wanted to have a pubik: dance hall. Ms. Flores explained staffs recommendation on todays matter aril she felt that this would be appropriate for the use they currently have, a restaurant wfth accessory banquet activity. Mr. Cho has not seen the staff report nor the conditions. Mr. Cho's concern would also be the hours of operation and as long as they could operate until 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, he felt his dient would be in agreement. Chairman Messe asked if there was anyone present relative to Item No. 4 and there was no response. 09,90-96 Page 9 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PIANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA Chairman Masse then asked ff proper notification was given and then asked whether staff would like to give any input Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Division, stated this was aCity-inftiated request to consider revocation or modification of Variance No. 19453. This matter was before the Planning Commission because of the complexity with a variance issued a number of years ago. At that time, the property was approved for a variance for a restaurant with a stipulation that rw alcohdic beverages souold~ ~ (~ permitted on the property. Since that time, the Zoning restrictions where the property Zone) authorizes, by right, the sale of alcohdk: beverages on the property; making it a somewhat confusing issue based on the number of problems they have had with the operator in the past. This has been brought forvward for a modffication or revocation to get some kind of contrd on the type of operation. Cornersations with the owner indicated he was going to request a termination and the City would then support a conditional use Permit to allow the operation to continue as ft has continued in the past. Mr. Freeman informed the Commission that Investigator Engle from the Pdice Department and ABC (Alcohd Beverage Contrd) were present for any questions. His understanding was that ABC had some restrictions on this owner's applic-atbn. Irnestigator Engle, Anaheim Pdice Department, stated he checked the crime rate statistics and the reporting district, for this property, is located in is at 16496 above-average. He advised any new conditional use permit considered by the Commission should indude a condition to resdve some of those problems. Chaim~an Masse asked ff there were any comments from ABC. Investigator Engle responded Phyll~a criEin (from ABC) had stepped outside for a moment, however, his understanding was that ABC wa£ c;oncerned about Bobby Owens. Chaimsan Masse asked Bn~ce Freeman whether he was recommending a revocation rather than a modification since ft is a change ftom the staff report recommendation. Bruce Freeman responded that originally they were recommending a revocation, however, they are now recommending that h be modffied based on their conditions stated in the staff report. It was thei for a understanding initially that the owner would request a termination of the variance and then apply new, conditional use permit which would have resolved a lot of the problems they had in the past. Ho indicated the variance is contrary to the zoning allowed and this is the issue Code Enforcement is trying to address. Commissioner Bostwick asked Investigator Engle what were the boundaries to the reporting district? lAnahelmtBivdnwouldsbpe tdhe south border of that re~portmn9 distn'ct. hit may indiudedLa Palma Park rder, however, he was not certain offfiand. Commissioner Bostwick stated there is not a lot of alcohdic uses in that area. Investigator Engle stated~inot of th~ehi~ the location a also inthe park~n the area, there is a lot of homeless in the large pa g Commissioner Peraza asked how °the crimearalte' w uld go downince the Social Services Agency have moved and therefore would expect 09-:x-96 Page 1 SEPTEMBER 30, 1986 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA Irnestlgator Engle agreed and stated the statistics are done in January. Commissioner Bostwick stated a problem is the lack of parking this property does not have and thought the County property behind this was either for sale or in escrow. Should that parking no longer be avaAable then there woukf absolutely be no parking for this property. He stated there needs to be a temnination and then come forth with a new conditional use permit Thera would also need to be some type of an agreement regarding parking and issues here; that (s the only way to get the property ~vner to respond. Commissioner Henninger recommended a c~ndftion be added to indicate a re:iprocal parking agreement be provided? Commissioner Bostwick agreed since there was a condftion listed regarding the parking which is not even their property. Commissioner Boydstun asked ff the City gives a Parking agreement for something that is a City lot? Commissioner Bostwick stated he believed K is County Investigator Engle stated their entertainment is only allowed using the banquet facilities side of their license. They can not have entertainment for their ABC license for day-today functions. Investigator 'there should be no live entertainment Engle read condftion no. 7 of their ABC conditl ~ittedi by whet general public on their premises at any or ampiffied music provided for nor dancing per lima. Such activities shall be limited to private rearranged fu~mi~ o~y between hours oft10:00 as m• service and consumption of alcot-dic beverages shall be pe to 11:00 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and 10:00 a.nn. through 12:00 Midnight Friday and Saturday. He believed the owner wanted to change that to 2:OG a.m. but that Is not permitted in his current ABC license dated March 14, 1994. Bruce Freeman stated one of the violatkms that Codn ooh ~ ~~ why ABC hasDot~been notffied in noted is the INe entertainment wfthout a permit, ope P advance. Selma Mann stated the Planning Commission may wish to consider a continuance to give the owner an opportunity to respond to some of these concerns. Particularly since the owner of the business Indicated he has had limited oppo-'tuniry to do so. Commissioner Henninger stated he would like to hear from the owner prior to deciding on this matter. Chairman Meese asked staff for a suggested con~inuance date. Cheryl Flores responded a two week continuance would give us enough time to meet wfth the property owner and his counsel. She indicated she would contact the owner immediately fdlowing the public hearing to inform them of what has happened. Commissioner Bostwick stated he would suggest the conditkxis that are in the ABC license be included in recommendatkx~s so with conform together Commissioner Henninger stated there also needs to add a condition regarding parking. 09-30-9(i Page i 1 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA Planning Commission voted to continue this item until October 14, 19.96. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Continued subject request to the October 14, 1996 Planning Commission meeting in order for the applicant to be present. VOTE: 7-0 DISCUSSION TUNE: 11 minutes 09-30-96 Page 12 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA t Concurred w/staff 5a. ~EOA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION - CLAS 21 5b. ONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NHS 188 AND 2990 (READVERTI ED sMep~arate reUsPolutions INITIATED BY: ENFORCEM NTEIDIVISION)! 200 S. Anaheim BI d., DE Anaheim, CA 92805. LOCATION: 11 Norih Kraemer Boule B f k . Property is arectangularly-shaped parcel of land consisting of approximately 0.9 acre having a ftontage of approximately 175 feet on the east side of Kraemer Boulevard, having a maximum dOZt~a~y 242 feettdy 216 feet and being located appr south of the centerline of Coronado Street. City-initiated (Code Enforcement Division) request to consider the revocation or modification of Condftional Use Permit No. 186 (to establish a planned unit shopping center induding a restaurant with cocktail lounge) and Condtbnal Use Permit uors 2090 olSect o it a public dance hall in conjunction with a restaurant) p 18.03.091 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0. 188 RESOLUTION N0. PC98-100 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT N0.2090 RESOLUTION N0. PC96-101 SR6333KB.WP FOLLOWING IS A SUMMAR'' OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. OPPOSITION: None FOLLOWING IS A SUMMARY OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION. PEOPLE PRESENT: Suite ~ erAnaheim (repress ing M 9 Harv y Owenaowne~• S~ Harbor Blvd., Mr. Harvey Owen, property owner. Allison Sanders, 23765 New Delhi, Mission VieJo, CA. STAFF'S COMMENTS: Bruce Freeman, Code Enforcement Division presented Code Enforcement Division recommendations as stated on the staff report to consider revocation or modification of Conditional Use Permit No. 188. This o slant calls for service over the last ni a (9) months~a a year! The operatioDispli enesed asva had 09-30-96 Page 13 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA restaurarrz, however, inspections irxJicate there is more alcohd being served on the premises than food. Numerous inspections by both Code Enforcement and the Pdice Department Indicate excessive and loud musk:. Neighbors adJaceM to the property have complained because of the traffic, customers urinating in the parking lots, individuals drinking in the parking lots, etc. Irnestigator Engle, Anaheim Pdice De+partment stated the Pdice Department concurred with Code Enforcement's recommendatbn. APPLICANTS STATEMENT: Brian Ostler, ftom the law firm of Briggs and Ale•~cander, 558 S. Harbor Blvd., Suite 100, Anaheim (representing Mr. Harvey Owen, owner), stated their office requested a continuance on this matter. They had been under the impression that the matter was for the most part settled and therefore, there wouldn't be any further daim to revocation or modification. Mr. Owen has owned the property for approximately 15 years and K has been operating under the same CUP for apps'. 30 years. For the entire time period that Mr. Owen has owned the property, there have been no complaints untN this last tenant operated the property. The complaints were first brought to Mr. Owen's attention August 1996, at a meeting Mr. Owen's attended. The complaints and facts leading to the complaints ware brought to his attention. At that point, Mr. Owen took action and exercised his rights under the lease. He eliminated the business owner ftom any further contrd of the operation. It appears since that date there have been no further problems. Mr. Ostler referred to a memorandum ftom Lt. Joe Ruiz, Anaheim Pdice Department, The 3rd page of which he writes, 'It appears that the things that Harvey Owen stated would occur, have been xcurring and, therefore, tt may be worth delaying a decision by the Planning Commission as to the conditional use permit of the Shack for another one to two months to see if the problems reoccur at that location' Mr. Owen has made a commitment that there would be no further problem, everything that had been complained about would be resolved. From all appearances that has been accomplished, and it would not be necessary to take any further action. Mr. Ostler indicated since it appeared everything was going to be resdved, they had not fully prepared for this meeting. They only teamed on Wednesday (September 25, 1996) that there were still issues that were going to be raised at this meeting. As a result they hadn't actually checked into the valkiity of the facts to this complaint. There were a lot of allegations that were made, and they may or may not be true. It is not something that they had stipulated to, so far as those facts actually being accurate, and would preserve that in the event the hearing wasn't workable here. Chairman Meese asked when the operator whom they had dffflculty with departed? Mr. Ostler responded approximately August 15, 1996• That was the sam3 approximate time it was brought to the property owner's attention. 09-30-96 Page 14 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA Mr. Ostler stated in the staff report there is a number of recommendations they havet no utdoor both Conditional Use Permit No. 188 and 2090. On page 5, recommendation no. 2, act'nrities, inducting but not limited to dining, drinking, entertainment, dancing, etc., shall be permitted'. To the extent that this recommendation would affect the allegations that they have made of the noise and the lack of coMrd of the crowds outside the buiding, Mr. Ostler stated they are in full agreement that something can be put Into place here, however, there has never been any suggestion that any of the dining actNities had anything to do with the complaints. Mr. Ostler stated the operation is operated as a restaurant during the day and evening and then after 10:00 p.m.:i~~y have operated it as a night dub where they charge admission to cover the cost of having erttart~.{ nment at the location. Apparently those are the actNfties that lead to the complaints. Mr. Ostler ~r~i~ated during the day and in the evening there is dining that occurs in the patio as well as in the restaurant. Not only has there been no suggestion that this in anyway Interfered with the public or any of the neighboring properties. He said he could not imagine a scenario where this would have caused a problem. They would suggest that Particular limitation at least wfth respell to those activities wouldn't be related to the problems that are being addressed. Chairman Masse asked whether the patio is located out in front, and Mr. Owen, property owner, rbefore 110:00 p: h buttdoiagr afterrit^00 p.m.~n should be eliminated jaind areewi~lling to dothatd. em Commissioner Bostwick asked whether that was in on the original plans and approved when they receNed their conditional use permit for a restaurant? - Mr. Ostler responded he had not seen their original plans. He only receNed this last Friday evening. Chairman Masse stated normally the Pd(ce Department approves outdoor drinking and he dki not recall whether that came before Planning Commission. Cheryl Flores, Senior Planner, Planning Department, responded she was checking on that, but dkl not believe there was ever asemi-endosnd restaurant there. Mr. Ostler stated on page 6, condition no. 3d 'That the quarterly gross sales of alcohdk: beverages s~~all not exceed 4096 of the gross sales of food and/or other non-alcohol related commodfties during the same period'. We do not know ff that figure would even fit with the way the restaurant had been operated. He indkated there are going to be periods of times when the restaurant business would have a dip in business. Further, there are occasional events planned where they are going to have a band. They realized that needs to be contrdied within occupancy limfts and needs to be confined to the interkx of the building. During those times alcohdk; beverages could be substantially more expsnsNe than nomiat whk;h cwuld result in substantial revenue generated for alcohdic beverages. It would seem an arbitrary figure such as this without looking into the actual operation would be an undo burden. It does not seem that there {s really any point to n in terms of achieving the goals that are sought to be achieved by this. Commissioner Bostwick explained the goal is to make ensure that it is operating as a restaurant and after doing a long study and checking many various kinds of restaurants, the result was that their sales always exceeded that amount for food. So that is why it is called for in the staff report. We have found that ensures ft is going to be operated as a restaurant and not just as a dub. 09-30-96 Page 15 ANAFfEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION - S<jMMARY ACTION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 Mr. Ostler stated it would seem that some figure could be reached however, he had not had a chance to look into this. As stated previously, it was first brought to his attention on Friday evening. Commissioner Boydstun stated this is a standard figure that we use for this type of business. Commissioner Bostwick stated either you meet that figure or you are not a restaurant. Chairman Messe saki he dkf not hear what Mr. Owen had just indicated. Mr. Ostler stated, on behalf of Mr. Owen, that he could agree with that figure. Mr. Ostler stated the next issue is condftkm 3e, 'That entertainment provkied on the premises shall not be audible beyond the exterkx of the restaurant/building'. They agree there needs to be some reasonable limits that should be set. They want to do what is reasonable or right under these circumstances, but need to have language that is not going to create a problem, ff >s Just a matter of comhg up with a reasonable figure. Mr. Ostler stated on page 7, 3L'That there shall be no pod table or coin-operated games maintained upon the premises at any time'. They are not dear why that condition is In there. During the meetings there was no discussion to their recollection where the pod tables or the dartboards cause any problem or were related to any problems. If they know what the problem was, then they could address possibly come up with an alternative solution. Chairman Messe asked whether they are still requesting a continuance? Mr. Ostler responded ff these are going to be proposed, then they would need to get a continuance so they can present their case and be given an opportunity to look Into the allegations. Chairman Messe stated Planning Commission has heard testimony that things have improved since August 15, 1996. Bruce Freeman responded Mr. Ostler is correct, they dkf have a meeting with Mr. Owen and everything that Mr. Owens had said he would do he has done. The patrd officers in the area Indicate that they have had no calls for service. The complaints of excesslve noise emanating from the building have completely stopped. So, Mr. Owen and Mr. Ostler are correct in their statements. In regards to the conditions listed regarding the outdoor dining and the outdoor typos of activity, this operation is approved for an endosed restaurant not wfth a patio. The music emanating ftom the outskfe of the business is a standard condftion that all operations such as this would also be required to have. The doors being dosed at all times again is a standard condition. The 40% alcohd vs. 60% food is a standard condition that is used. Bruce Freeman stated the one Issue that the Pdice Department has indicated they would be willing to dismiss would be the Issue of the pod tables, as long as they do not exceed the two pod tables that they have on-site. Chairman Messe asked ff a 30-day continuance was granted on this ttem, would there be any enforcement problems? He thought they were going to have to deal with the item essentially because of the outdoor dining involved and some of the other Issues that have come up. Are there any enforcement problems as a result of Issuing a 30~day continuance? 09-30-96 Page 16 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA Bruce Freeman responded ff they continue to operate as they have (yesterday), then we would have no problems with a continuance. Investigator Engle asked about the current owner of the business, Bobby Owen, what has happened with his current Interest in the business and where is he? Mr. Ostler responded Mr. Owen is still the hdder of the alcohd beverage contrd license at the location. Mr. Ostler further stated Mr. Bobby Owen has been exduded from the business pursuant to the contract terms between he and the property owner. The business hab been sold and is now in escrow. The new owners are here. They also wanted to address certain Issues and address how the place is going to be operated and perhaps it might further illustrate that there should not be any further problems with the business. The new owner's name is Allison Sanders. Mr. Ostler stated Mr. Owen is on vacation from October 13-30, 1996, and, therefore, it would be greatly appreciated ff a continuance can be worked around those dates. Allison Sanders, 23765 New Delhi, Mission VieJo, CA, stated she is in the process of purchasing her own business and is extremely Interested in doing that. She is not awoved forlusa and she did Inot~see any property such as the patio which she did not know was not app problems wfth discontinuing it. Ms. Sanders stated she did know of some of the prahlems especially with the previous owner and the way h was run. She stated she was not Interested in running K in that manner. She did put together a business plan and indicated she had a number of copies available for submittal. Chaiman Masse recommended she submit one copy to Planning staff and ff the item is continued then staff can submit that to Planning Commission at that time. Ms. Sanders Indicated that she was not prepared at that this time since she did not know about some of the requests to modify the CUP. She further stated she can try to answer any questions and plans to be in attendance at the next meeting. Chairman Masse asked ff she had read the staff report? Ms. Sanders responded she had only seen the R today and so unfortunately had not be able to read the staff report. Chairman Masse indicated in the staff report it states that the CUP is coming due in August 1997. Ms. Sanders responded she was hoping the CUP's would be allowed to stand as they are currently until they are up in August 1997 then at that time review the CUP's and make their recommendations and decisions at that time. She indicated she did understand the problems and would like to run ft as a restaurant and bar and t~eUeved the business will be greatly Improved. Chairman Masse asked Selma Mann to explain any problems that might occur with that statement Ms. Sanders had just made as far as wafting untU August 1997. Selma Mann, Assistant City Attorney, stated the c;orxlitional use perm~ino. ltoathe public dance hall rant does not expire, however, ff the conditional use perrnk (no. 2090) pe 9 _ 09-30-96 Page 17 • SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CfTY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENnA rtted by the zoning. So ff there is any expires, there is no way to continue K since it is no longer perm interest in maintaining that CUP, then ihde oo ~ ~ n ft w ile is still in effect.t~t expiration to see about modifying that condition to possi y 9 Cheryl Flores stated ff there Is a consideration of continuance then there is one additional item to consider for the purpose of a semi-endosed restaurant, since there was no outdoor seating area shown on the approved exhibits. We would have to readvertise ft to include ocddoor seating area. ae~,~ire oncMonte i ue ~, then tey waouldinhavetto come noalnd ask fornmodfficationhat area and if they Commissioner Boydstun asked staff to verffy ff a continuance was granted, they need more than 30 days for readvertising. Cheryl Flores responded ff they desire to take this approach, then they would need to submit plans right away so we could get it advertised for the November 13, 1996, public hearing. Ms. Sarxiers stated ff it is something they are interested in, then they will pursue iG Commissioner Henninger stated he heard a couple of different issues. On meshwh ch the Pidice are~e beyond the Interior and the other was regarding the coin operated table ga willing to drop, so it sounded like we are down to the issue of audibGity beyond the exterbr of the building. Mr. Ostler stated they can stop using that for the time being ff Planning Comm„ss~4 eels to ~ng a continuance edher until that period ~ time or ff there needs to be a new pe obtained, then that is Tina and they can go pursue that. Chairman Messe stated it would take a modification of the CUP involving submittal of plans and advertising. Commissioner Henninger stated he thought there is just this one issue of noise audible beyond the e;cterior of the building and suggested resdving this one issue and going fonrvard. We have a noise cxdinance which talks about certain DB's at the property line, correct? Bruce Freeman responded yes, that is correct. it is 60 desables at the property line. Commissioner Henninger asked ff that was a standard noise ordinance for the City? Bruce Freeman responded that was correct. Commissioner Henninger asked ff this condition was more restrictive than the standard noise ordinance? Bruce Freeman responded yes, this condition would be more restrictive. Commission Henninger questkx~ed whether there would be a problem with using the standard noise ordinance in this case? Irnestigator Engle responded he believed they were looking for a stronger ordinance due to the past problems that they have had at that location. 09-30-96 Page 1 R ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ~ ; Chairman Messe's asked ff they had to adhered to the City standard then in all probability, they would not have those r~mplairrts, and Irnestigator Engle responded yes. Boydstun asked ff these noises were ftom a the dance hall and was this going to be a restaurant/bar or operated as a public dance? Mr. Osudr responded they would like to continue as a public dance hall also. Commissioner Boydstun about minors when it was operating as a publk: dance hall. Phyll(s Cripin, Supervising Irnestlgator Alcohdic Beverage Contrd, Santa Ana office, stated the premises is currently licensed with a type 47 which is an on-sale general which fs a full bar public eating place. That allows anyone of any age at any time whether or not food fs being served. So, ff they quit serving meals in the evening hours and operated dub atmosphere into the morning hours, there Is not age restriction put on by law. Mr. Harvey Owen stated the last tenant (his son) hired bands that attracted a lot of mirrors. He believed ff a new tenant would run ft as a restaurant with dancing and hire bands that attracted more mature customers then customers under 21 would not be interested in going there. OPPOSITION: None ACTION: Concurred with staff that the proposed project falls within t.~e definftion of Categorical Exemptions, gees 21, as defined in the State EIR and is herefore, categorically exempt ftom the requirements to prepare an EIR. ModiTied Conditional Use Permit No. 188 by the adding the following conditions to ReROlution No. 185: 1. That the property owner shall remove the unpermftted structure (shed) from subject property or obtain the proper buUding permits to retain the structure (shed). 2. That no outdoor activities, including but not limited to dining, drinking, entertainment, dancing, etc., shall be permitted. 3. That the subject restaurant and accessory cocktaq lounge shall continuously adhere to the fdlowing conditions, as required by the Pdice Department: a. That food service, including meals, shall be avaUable unto 11:00 p.m. a dosing time, whk:hever occurs first, on every day of operation. b. That the alc:oholk: beverage license shall be transferred ftom the current business owner's name to the current property owner's name, or the name of a new business owner wfth thirty (30) days of the date of this resdution, or submit proof of applk:ation for same. Subject Dense shall not be exchanged for a publJc premises type license nor shat! the premises be operated as a ,public premises. c. That the sale of alcohdic beverages for off-premises consumption shall be 09,30-s6 Page 19 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA prohibfted. d. ?hat the sales of alcoholic beverages shall not exceed 4096 of the gross sales. 1'he applicant shall maintain records on a quarterly basis indicating the separate amourrts of sales of alcohdk: beverages, and oilier items. These records shall be made available for inspection by any City of Anaheim dficial when requested. e. That entertainment provided on the premises shall conform to the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. f. That the exterior doors s~ lI ~ emerdencd and toi permit deliveries~mtlon of the premises excep 9 Y g. That there shall be no exterku advertising devices of any kind or type (such as suns), inducting advertising directed to the exterkx ftom inside the building, promoting or Indicating the availability of alcoholk: t~everages. h. That the parking lot serving this facility shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to Aluminate and make easily discemit~s the appearance and conduct of all persons on or about the parking lot. The lighting in the area shall be shielded to prevent unreasonable illumination of the window areas of nearby businesses. i. That the number of persons attending any event at the sub)ect property shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department (299 persons). Signs indicating the maximum occupancy shall be immediately and prominently displayed within the premises. j. That sales, service and consumption of alcohdic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 10 a.m. and 2 a.m. k. That at any time entertainment is provided on the premises, the property owner shalt provide uniformed and licensed (by the State Bureau of Consumer Affairs) security guards in a number as required by the Anaheim Pdice Department. I. That there shall be a maximum of two (2) pod tables and three (3) dart boards at subject business and that no coin-operated games may maintained upon the premises at any time. m. Sub)ect business shall not employ or permft any persons to sdicit or encourage others, directly or Indirectly, to buy them drinks in the Lensed premises under any commission, percentage, salary, or other profft"sharing plan, scheme or conspiracy. 4. That there shall be no coin-operated or credit card telephones on the property that are located outside the building and wfthin the contrd of the property owner. 5. That the owner of the subject business shall pay for the cost of any Code Enforcement inspections which may be required to address Code vk~latbns. 09-30-98 Page 20 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA 6. That all customer parking shall be contained on-sita, unless IegsJ written permission, from an adjacent property owner is obtained, allowing parking on adjacent property(s)• 7. That Condition Nos. 1, 3d, 3h, and 4, above-mentioned, shall be completed within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution. 8. Trstf subject property shall ~~ developed substantially in titkx~er and whkh a ans are speciRcatkxrs submitted to the Clty of Anaheim by the pe Pl on t-e with the Planning Department marked Exhibft Nos. 2, 3, and 4. 9. That approval of this appffcation constitutes approval of the proposed request only to the extent that it t~mplles with the Anaheim Munic(pal Zoning Code and any other applicable City, State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any action or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable ordinance, regulation or requirement. Modified Condition Use Permit No. 2090 in its entirety by adding the following conditions to Resolution No. PC80-92, as amended by Resolution No. PC91-134: 1. That the City Business License and any related permits (i.e., Dinner Dance, Entertainment, etc.) shall be transferred from the current business owner's name and Issued in the name of the property owner or a new business owner. 2. That no outdoor activities, including but not limtted to dining, drinking, entertainment, dancing etc., shall be permitted on subject property. 3. That entertainment provided on the premises shall conform to the City of Anaheim Noise Ordinance. 4. That the exterkx doors shall be kept dosed at all times during the operation of the premises except in cases of emergency and to permit deliveries. 5. That at any Ume entertainment is provided on the premises, the property owner shall rxovide unffomied security guards, in a number as required by the Anaheim Pdice Department. 6. That the parking lot serving this facility shall be equipped with lighting of sufficient power to iiiuminate and make easUy discemibie the appearance and conduct of ail persons on or about the parking lot The lighting in the area shall be shielded to prevant unreasonable Nlumination of the window areas of nearby businesses. 7. That the number of persons attending any event at tlx+ subject property shall not exceed the maximum occupancy load as determined by the Anaheim Fire Department (299 persons). Signs indicating the maximum occupancy shall be prominently displayed within the premises. 8. That there shall be no coin-operated or credit card telephones on the owned that are located outside the twUding and within the contrd of the property 090-96 Page 21 SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 ANAHEIM CITY PLANNING COMMISION -SUMMARY ACTION AGENDA 5EPTEMBER 30, 1996 an permission, scent 9. That the owner of the subject business shall pay for the cost of any Cede Enforcement inspections which may be required to address Code violations. Meted wRhin a 10. That the publk dance hall use shall expire on August 27, 1997. Any request for Prior to August 27,1997, or the t be receNed and approved , extension of Ume mus publk dance hall use shall no longer exist at this location. with plans and whkh plans are 11. If the pudk dance hall use expires, the publk dance hall wpl no longer be pemtttted La Palma Core) Zone in which nt Area 3 (Northeast Area l , opme by the SP94-1, Deve subject property is located. i request only to end any other 12. That the property owner shall Provide any new business operator/owner or property fade any actbn owner with the rx~nditions of approval contained herein. ~ other applicable 13 That subject property shall be developed substantially in accordance with plans and . speciflc;atlons submitted to the City of Anaheim by the petftbner and whkh plans are Ilowing on fpe with the Planning Department marked Exhibit No. 1. ~C91-134: 14. That Condition Nos. 1, 6, 7, and 8, above-mentioned, shall be completed wfthin a )ante, period of thirty (30) days from the date of this resolution. vner's name and 15 That approval of this application constitutes approval of the proposed request only to entertainment, g . the extent that it compiles wfth the Anaheim Munkipal Zoning Code and any other State and Federal regulations. Approval does not include any actkn applcable City , , or findings as to compliance or approval of the request regarding any other applicable _, ordinance, regulatkn or requirement fN of Anaheim VOTE: 7-0 Aeration of the DISCUSSION TIME: 47 minutes party owner shall 4naheim Pdice ng of sufficient MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:55 P.M. i conduct of all TO THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED PLANNING COMMISSION MORNING WORK SESSION OF OCTOBER 14, 1996 AT 11:00 A.M. ~e shielded 40 uinesses. ~erty shall not ?,spectfully submitted, dm Fire Department prominently © .rx~xiJ :he property that Ossie Edmundson, Sr. Word Processing Operator irty owner. Planning Department 090-96 ~~.~ Page 21 Page 22