Loading...
Minutes-PC 2008/09/03ity of nahei lannin o iss~on inutes Wednesdav, September 3, 2008 Council Chamber, City Hall 200 South Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, California Commissioners Present: Chairman: Joseph Karaki Peter Agarwal, Kelly Buffa, Gaii Eastman, Stephen Faessel, Victoria Ramirez, Panky Romero Staff Present: CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager Raul Garcia, Principal Civil Engineer Linda Johnson, Principal Planner David Kennedy, Associate Transportation Planner Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney Michele irwin, Sr. Police Services Representative David See, Senior Planner Ossie Edmundson, Senior Secretary Scott Koehm, Associate Planner ponna Patino, Secretary Agenda Posting: A complete copy of the Planning Commission Agenda was posted at 10:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 28, 2008, inside the dispiay case located in the foyer of the Council Chamber, and also in the outside display kiosk. Published: Anaheim Bulletin Newspaper on Thursday, August 21, 2008 • Call to Order • Preliminary Plan Review 1:30 P.M. • STAFF UPDATE TO COMMISSION ON VARIOUS CITY DEVELOPMENTS AND ISSUES (AS REQUESTED BY PLANNING COMMISSION) • PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW FOR ITEMS ON THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2008 AGENDA • Recess to Public Hearing • Reconvene to Public Hearing 2:30 P.flA. Attendance: 8 e Pledge of Allegiance: Commissioner Buffa s Public Comments o Co~sent Calendar o Public Hearing Items . Adjournment H:\TOOLS\Planning Commission Administration\PC Action Agendas - Minutes\2008 Minutes\2008 Minules~P,C090308.doc Anaheim Planning Commission Minutes. Public Comments: None `" ' This is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on any item under the jurisdiction of the Anaheim Planning Commission or public comments on agenda items with the exception of public hearing items. Consent Calendar: Commissioner Faessel offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Buffa and MOTION CARRIED, for continuance of Items 1A and 1 B. Reports and Recommendations ITEM NO. 1A CEQA CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIOM. CLASS 21 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2798 (Tracking No. CUP2008-05355) Owner. Charles Hance 828 West Vermont Avenue Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Charles Hance 828 West Vermont Avenue Anaheim, CA 92805 Location: 828 West Vermont Avenue: This property is approximately 1.29 acres, with a frontage of 292 feet on the south and west side of Vermont Avenue with the Interstate 5 Freeway to the north and west of the property and single-family and multiple family residences to the north and east. Request to initiate the modification or revocation of Conditional Use Permit No. 2798 (to permit an automotive sales and service facility and outdoor storage with waiver of minimum number of parking spaces). Consent Calendar Approval Contirtued to September 15, 2008 Motion: Faessel/Buffa VOTE: 7-0 Project Planner: Scott Koehm skoehmno anaheim.net 09/03/08 Page 2 of 12 Minu es ITEM 1 B Receiving and approving the Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of September 4, 2008. Continued to September 15, 2008 Consent Calendar Approval Motion: Faessel/Buffa VOTE: 7-0 09/03/08 Page 3 of 12 Public Hearina Item: ITEM NO. 2 Owner: John Marovic 735 North Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Helen Brummel 741 North Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Elmer Boydstun 703 North Anaheim Boulevard Anaheim, CA 92805 Applicant: Mike Ayaz 2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 Santa Ana, CA 92706 Locations: 735 North Anaheim_Boulevard (Juke Joint): This property is approximately 0.25 acre and has frontage of 104 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard, a maximum depth of 108 feet, and is located 287 feet south of the centerline of North Street. Off-site parking would be provided on the following properties located at: 929 North Anaheim Boulevard (deleted) 741-745 North Anaheim Boulevard: This property is approximately 0.26 acres, having a frontage of 100 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and is located 181 feet south of the centerline of North Street. Resolution No. PC2008-86 Resolution No. PC2008-87 (Buffa) CUP Approved, modified Condition Nos. 4, 6, 27 & 28 and added Condition No. 34 VOTE: 7-0 Prior to the vote on the resolution, an amendment was offered to adjust the hours of operation in Condition No. 28. Motion: Eastman/Faessel PCN Approved, modified Condition Nos. 1, 3, 24 & 25 and added Condition No. 29 VOTE: 7•0 09/03/08 Page 4 of 12 703 North Anaheim Boulevard: This property is approximately 0.12 acre and is located at the northwest corner of Anaheim Boulevard and Wilhelmina Street with frontages of 52 feet on the west side of Anaheim Boulevard and 108 feet on the north side of Wilhelmina Street. Re4uest: Request for a Conditional Use Permit and a Determination of Public Convenience or Necessity to permit and retain an existing nightclub with dancing, live entertainment and fewer parking spaces than required by code. The applicant also requests authorization for the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption with a Type 48 public premises ABC license. Project Planner. David See dsee(~a anaheim.net Dave See, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Staff recommended modifications to conditions of approval with regards to the Conditionai Use Permit resolution, Condition No. 4 is to read as follows; That the rear door (west side of the building) shall remain closed at ail times except during times of emergencies. The rear door shall also be fitted with an alarm which sounds when the door is opened. With regards to Condition No. 27, staff recommends that the first sentence be removed. The condition should read as follows; Patrons must go in and out of the front doors and the owner shall create a smoking area in the front equipped with ashtrays and a trash receptacle. Staff also recommended the following new condition: That the owner shall maintain the conditions of approval at the business premises and shall make said conditions available to personnel of the City of Anaheim upon request during regular business hours. Staff pointed out that the applicant submitted a petition and a notice of the community meeting which staff provided to the Commission at the plan review. Chairman Karaki opened the public hearing. Mike Ayaz, attorney, 2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106, stated that he represents the appiicant John Marovia They have been working on tHis project together diligently with staff. He stated that his client has gone over each and every condition and with the exception of a few conditions he is agreeable. He wanted to address some issues that were brought up during the preliminary meeting, with regards to the alley, parking, and list of signatures provided to the Planning Commission. He stated that the list of signatures he provided are names of patrons that come from all across the country to the Juke Joint which is a historic venue. In the package that was provided to the Planning Commission there is a letter from the previous owner of the Doll 09/03/D8 Page 5 of 12 Hut who is in support of this venue. There are musicians present at this meeting who regularly play at the Juke Joint, Doll Hut, and the House of Blues. There are people that come from all over the country to see them. Staff could attest that during their community - meeting there were neighbors that were there to voice their concerns but at the same time they expressed how their friends from Detroit would come to see their favorite performers at this location. With regards to the ailey and condition of approval No. 3 which requires removal of two parking spaces towards Anaheim Boulevard in order to open up that driveway for easier access Anaheim Boulevard, they went door to door to each of the neighbors on Zeyn Street. Six of the neighbors attended the meeting and an overwhelming number of them were supportive of their project. He understands that the Planning Commission received two letters of opposition however, the other neighbors were supportive. With regards to conditions, they are fine with the hours proposed for Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, but they are asking the Commission if they would allow limited hours of entertainment on Sunday, which is traditionally reserved for football watching, bar-b que's and jazz bands. The applicant also would Iike to have a Wednesday show. The reason for the Wednesday show is because this venue plays to traveling bands from across the United States. It is difficult for their business not to offer a Wednesday show because when bands are traveling from North to South to get to larger venues they have to schedule shows when the bands are available. The applicant believes that the conditions that have been proposed by the Police and Planning staff will mitigate any concerns whether it be on a Wednesday or Thursday. They hope that based on the conditions and their future encounters with the City they would be able to show that they will be able to address all the issues outlined by staff. He pointed out that the Planning Department has never received a complaint with regards to this location. He understands that the Police have received calis but the only thing they could do is adhere to the conditions that have been placed upon them as well as adding the additional security and taking additional measures to make sure that they reduce those calls. With regards to eliminating the smoking ~ear the back exif; they do not have a problem with that. It was part of their suggestion when they worked with staff that they would not have people in the back during the evening hours. It can be problematic in the afternoon if someone walks out the back door. They are asking the Commission to either limit the hours that the back door could be open to a reasonable time like 8 or 9 o'clock. The applicant does not want people out there because if they are not good with their neighbors the neighbors will not be good with them and it would eventually lead them back to the Planning Commission in a much worse scenario. The applicant has tried to be as proactive as possible with this project. They held a community meeting and invited staff and neighbors. They will try to do more things like this to put there name out there and to let the community know how to get a hold of the business owner by providing a hotline. They are in the process of creating an e-mail address and an open door policy. 09/03/08 Page 6 of 12 They are okay with the conditipns but the only thing they would ask the Commission to consider would be to allow the limited hours of entertainment on Sunday and Wednesday until 11:00 p.m. Chairma~ Karaki wanted to know how the patrons would physically smoke in the front of the building verses smoking in the back, because there is a public sidewalk at the front entrance. Mr. Ayaz believed the concern with staff and the Police Department was with the use of the back smoking area in the evening hours because people would congregate making noise that would project to the neighbors. The intent was to protect the neighbor's and he suggested language to address the concern by limiting access to the back after 8 p.m.; after 8 o'clock there would be no smoking out back whenever there is entertainment and that the door must remain closed. The hours for entertainment are in the evening. They have regular customers in the afternoon and he does not see why a few people could not come out that door at 11:00 a.m. They are asking the Planning Commission for a reasonabie condition with regards to smoking in back and using the back door during the day. Commissioner Faessel commented with regards to Condition of Approval No. 27, that the doors open up almost right up to the sidewalk. He asked how they were proposing to locate a smoking area outside being on the City sidewalk. Mr. Ayaz stated that it was not a condition that they proposed but it was something they were willing to work with the City to do. There is a large section before the doors which they spoke to staff about putting in some stationary benches and ashtrays. They are open to suggestions. Commissioner Faessel expressed his hope that the applicant and staff could find a location for smoking in front of the building. Tom Chan, Chiropractic Dr., 7766 E. Northfield Avenue, 92805 stated that he was one of the original owners of the Juke Joint. He is in support of this project. The Juke Joint looks much nicer today and they have always tried to make it safe. They have a small niche of bands and peopie from all over the country that go there to enjoy the music. John Marovic, property owner, 735 N. Anaheim Boulevard, 92805, stated that the business has been in his family for over thirty years. There was a time when it was sold it and he did not own it for five years. Since then he has taken the Juke Joint back. He has worked with people to clean up what the previous owner had left. He would like to continue what his father had established as well as be proactive with the community and have a place where people can enjoy themselves at a reasonable cost and listen to live entertainment. There is no other venue like his that caters to this niche crowd. Commissioner Eastman asked about the applicanYs interaction with the community. She was aware that they held a community meeting and the neighbor's were generally 09/03/08 Page 7 of 12 supportive; however, she recognized Chris Hennly's house right behind their property and wondered if he had interaction with Chris. Mr. Marovic replied no not recently. He went to a historic district meeting to meet all the members of the Colony that live in the houses behind the Juke Joint to hear their concerns so that they could mitigate whatever concerns they have. He has given them his personal number so they can notify him if they have a problem. He continues to be proactive with the community. Stephen Estlow, patron, 8081 Holland Drive, Huntington Beach, 92647, stated that he is good friends with the applicant. He loves music and the Juke Joint is the only place in Orange County you can hear western swing, rock-a-billy, and country music. There have been artists from all over the country and he thinks this is a benefit for businesses such as Taco Boy, EI Pollo Fino, and Guadalajara. He is a police officer and he never has seen anyone out of control there and he knows they have better security than other locations. Robert Williams, resident, 202 Pageant Street, Anaheim, 92807, stated that he is a musician and he started in places like the Juke Joint. He feels this is a good location for up and coming bands to have an opportunity to play their music. Jessi Pagel, resident, 1911 S. Haster Street Suite 40, Anaheim, 92802, stated that she has been a resident for about four months. She has known the applicant for a year. She is the owner of a modern pinup subculture group where a group of girls travel to host events. The Juke Joint venue in Anaheim is where she and her giris feel the safest. She supports this project. Commissioner Faessel referred to condition no. 12 which states; that all entertainers and employees shall be clothed in such a way as to not to expose "specified anatomical areas° as described in Section 7.16.060 of the Anaheim Municipal Code. He is hopeful that her girls will be able to follow that so that they do not have problems later. Ms. Pagel replied that they are seductive and beautiful buY in a tasteful way. Jorge Bermudez, patron, 314 E. Wilshire Avenue, Fullerton, 92832 stated that the reason he goes to the Juke Joint is to escape the zoo of night life that Fullerton has created. He is a musician and he realized that the Juke Joint is a cooi place to watch local and touring bands. Mr. Ayaz wanted to clarify that Ms. Pagel spoke in general terms. They have always been dressed appropriately when at the Juke Joint. He has explained to his client what is meant by "specific anatomical parts" and the applicant understands what is permitted. Mc See stated that staff will provide the applicant with a copy of the Code Section so that the applicant is aware of the specific language in the Code. 09/03/08 Page 8 of 12 Chairman Karaki asked if there was anyone else who would fike to speak to this item; seeing none, he closed the public hearing. A brief discussion between the Planning Commission and staff took place. The Planning Commissioner's were in support of this project however, they raised some concerns. The Planning Commission's concerns were with regards to off-site parking, lighting, no security cameras, and the smoking area. These concerns were addressed for the neighbors that back up the business property. Commissioner Romero was concerned with the off-site parking and thought staff could modify Conditions of Approval Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Staff assured the Planning Commission that they would work with the applicant to ensure that customers were directed to the correct parking lot and not affect neighboring property owners by providing flyers and information on the website. Chairman Karaki stated that although he was in support of this project he was disappointed with the conditions that were not addressed for this project. He was concerned with the parking lot, smoking area, lighting, and security camera issues. He stated that if they did not address these issues other business owners might expect the same. He thought they needed to address these issues for the safety of the people and for the liability of the owner. CJ Amstrup, Planning Services Manager, stated with regards to the security issue that there are no requirements for security cameras but there are requirements for actual security guards. Staff has specified where security would be stationed and what their range of duties would be in terms of how they would patrol the front and rear area. In terms of the smoking area, staff was aware that there was not an opportunity to provide a covered structure for smokers but what they were looking for was a place where patrons could smoke with adequate facilities for them to put out there cigarettes and to make sure there would be adequate containers for trash. This has been staffs intention with permitting them to smoke in front of the business. Chairman Karaki suggested that the applicant could place lights on the building and convert two parking spaces into an area in the back for smoking. Linda Johnson, Principal Planner, stated that there is a condition of approval that requires the applicant to provide adequate lighting to the satisfaction of the Police Department. Mr. See added that he went out on a Saturday night to view the lighting. The Juke Joint does have wall lights. When considering lighting it is also important to consider how it may affect the neighbors. Ms. Johnson stated that staff will go out with the police department to re-inspect at night to determine if any additional lighting needs to occur. 09/03/08 Page 9 of 12 The standard has been a minimum of 1 foot candle. Michele Irwin, Senior Police Services Representative referred to the smoking area and stated that one of the reasons they do not recommend a smoking area in the back of the property would be the neighbors at the rear of the property. The City was trying to alleviate noise from open doors and people hanging around the parking lot. Commissioner Ramirez wanted to make sure staff clarified that the two Iocations providing off-site parking would provide signage for patrons noting that it is Juke Joint parking. Mr. See replied they will work with them on that. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, wanted to comment on the conditions of approval that were not discussed. He stated that staff mentioned modifications to the conditions of approval attached to the CUP resolution and those Conditions are Nos. 4, 27 and a new Condition No. 34. He noted that by looking at the resolution for the Determination of Public Convenience and Necessity that there are similar conditions. Condition No. 1 of the resolution for the Determination of Public Convenience is in substantial form as Condition No. 4 to the CUP resolution and Condition No. 24 of the resolution for the Determination of the Public Convenience and Necessity is the same or similar to Condition No. 27 in the CUP resolution. He recommended that these conditions should be changed to read the same. The condition that is added to the CUP resolution should also be added as an additional condition to the PCN determination. Cammissioner Buffa stated that one of the issues that was raised during the discussion was whether one of the conditions in the use permit should be amended to provide monitoring of off-site parking. Commissioner Romero suggested that might occur in one of the first three conditions. She thought it would work better if it were part of Condition No. 6 which describes required security measures and identifies where the security guards should be stationed. She thought Commissioner Romero would be satisfied if that condition would be amended to identify that part of the duties of the security guard in the parking lot would be to help direct patrons to the over flow parking areas. She thought Condition No. 6 could be modified also. Mr. See stated that staff concurred that if the security guards were to patrol the premises then they could also manage the parking and direct customers to the correct lots. Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation to adopt the resolution for the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit to amend Condition of Approval Nos. 4, 6, 27, 28, and to add a new Condition No. 34. 09/03/08 Page 10 of 12 Mr. Amstrup wanted clarification with regards to the hours for the rear door of the property. He asked if the Planning Commission would be proposing any limitation on hours on days of business or whenever there would be live entertainment. Commissioner Buffa referred to Condition No. 4 that the rear door on the west side-of the buiiding shall remain closed after 8:00 p.m. and during live entertainment except during times of emergencies. The rear door shall also be fitted with an alarm which sounds when the door is opened. She recommended 8:00 p.m. She stated that would be a change from what staff originally proposed. The applicant also stated that in his letter of operation he asked for an exception for holidays. For example, if there is Monday Holiday such as St. Patrick's Day or Halloween, they would like to have shows and be allowed to operate. Commissioner Eastman offered a motion, seconded by Commissioner Faessel, to allow the facility to operate on Wednesday or a Sunday when the day would fall on a national holiday to have the same hours of operation as a Saturday night. Motion passed with 7 aye votes. A discussion took place with regards to the operating hours and the days of operation pertaining to holidays. Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution for the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-05315 and to amend conditions 4, 6, 27, 28, with the addition of a new Condition No. 34. Chairman Karaki asked staff for clarification with regards to the how the language should read regarding the hours of operation. Mr. Amstrup stated that live entertainment would be permitted Thursday, Friday and Saturday until 2:00 a.m. Wednesday and Sunday live entertainment will be permitted until 11:00 p.m. Live entertainment would also be permitted on federally recognized holidays and the list of holidays that are included in the applicant's letter of operation which includes St. Patrick's Day, Halloween, Cinco De Mayo, Christmas and New Year's Eve, when these holidays fall on a Wednesday or Sunday, entertainment will be permitted until 2:00 a.m., no live entertainment would be permitted on a Monday or Tuesday. Ossie Edmundson, Planning Commission Support Supervisor, announced that the resolution passed with 7 yes votes. Commissioner Buffa offered a recommendation that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution and to approve the Determination of Pubiic Convenience or Necessity No. 2008-00047 with amendments to condition of approvals 1, and 24. The amendments of the conditions would reflect the same changes to the language made in the Conditional Use Permit. 09/03/08 Page 11 of 12 Ossie Edmundson, Planning Commission Support Supervisor, announced that the resolution passed with 7 yes votes. - IN GENERAL: 6 people spoke in favor of the request. A petition was received with 298 signatures in favor of the request. Mark Gordon, Assistant City Attorney, presented the 22-day appeal rights ending at 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 25, 2008. DISCUSSIOM TIME: 1 hour and 26 minutes (2:34 to 4:00) MEETING ADJOURNED AT 4:00 P.BA. TO MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 AT 1:30 P.M. FOR PRELIIIAINARY PLAN REVIEW RespectFully submitted: ~~i/~Z~ G~ ~' Donna Patino Secretary Received and approved by the Planning Commission on September 29, 2008. 09/03/08 Page 12 of 12