Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1534 . and other features are adequate to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. 4, That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. 5. That the granting of such Conditional Use Permit will not adversely affect the comprehensive General Plan. 6,That design elements of the proposed patio are in compliance with the design criteria set forth in the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations. 7. That the patio area would not impact the current parking situation because its use would be incidental to the primary indoor dining areas of the restaurant. 8. That the use applied for will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment, and that based upon the record as a whole there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. SECTION 3. That for the foregoing reasons this Commission grants a Conditional Use Permit to add a 640 sq.ft" patio dining area to the existing restaurant at 181 Colorado Place upon the following conditions: 1. That the proposed patio dining area and the site shall be maintained and operated in a manner that is consistent with the plans and application materials submitted for C.U.P. 96-002. 2. That the following modifications be granted for the proposed use: A. To permit 38 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 59 spaces required (Sec, . 9269.2.). B. A 5'-0" westerly front yard setback in lieu of a 35'-0" special setback along Colorado Place (Sec, 9320,11,2.). 3. All applicable Code requirements regarding building occupancy, exitllg, fire protection, disabled access, safety features, etc., shall be complied with to the satisfaction ofBuildiog Services and the Fire Department. . 2 1534 4. That the applicant shall continue to comply with the conditions as set forth in . Resolution No. 1377 (granting Conditional Use Permit 88-012 for the restaurant use) with the exception of Condition No, I which requires on-site valet parking, 5, That the applicant shall provide valet parking if it is determined by the Development SelVices Department that the restaurant generates a parking problem, If the valet parking is required, except for gratuity, such parking shall be provided free to all patrons during all business hours. Signs shall be posted informing the public of free valet parking. The signs' location, size, color, number, and print shall be subject to the approval of the Development SelVices Department. Also, a tandem parking plan for the valet parking shall be submitted to the Development SelVices Department for review and approval. 6. That a planter curb (0'-39" in depth) shall be provided between the proposed patio dining area and the adjacent parking.stalls (Nos. 24 thru 27) to further enhance the project. 7. The maximum seating capacity of the proposed patio dining area shall not . exceed 35 people. 8. Design Review approval shall be obtained from the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency prior to the issuance of any building permits. 9. C.U.P. 96-002 shall not take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form that is available from the Development SelVices Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 10. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use permit shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation. II. ReselVation of Jurisdiction: that the Planning Commission shall reselVe jurisdiction, and will hold a hearing 3 months after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to review all related parking and traffic circulation issues; and that the Commission retains jurisdiction to impose such additional conditions that the Commissions feels are appropriate, based on the evidence presented at the hearing, 12. That the applicant shall Continue to seek a formal off-'site parking agreement . with the neighboring Ca:Iifomia Thoroughbred Breeders A-ssociation (CTBA). The intent 3 1534 of such an agreement with CTBA is to utilize their office facility's parking lot at 201 . Colorado Place, as a means to provide additional off-street parking for the patrons of the restaurant. SECTION 4. The decision, fmdings and conditions contained in this Resolution reflect the Commission's action of May 14, ] 996, and the following vote: AYES: Huang, Kalemkiarian, Kovacic NOES: Bell, Murphy ABSENT: Sleeter ABSTAIN: Daggett SECTION 5. The Secretary shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall cause a copy to be fO/warded to the City Council of the City of Arcadia. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the forgoing Resolution was adopted at a .regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of May, 1996 by the following vote: . AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Bell, Huang, Kalemkiarian, Kovacic Murphy Sleeter Daggett ecretary, Planning Commission City of Arcadia . APPROVED AS TO FORM: !:1::!i ~If! Attorney 4 1534 . STAFF REPORT D~OPMrnNTSER~CESDEPARTMENT May 14, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Arcadia City Planning Commission FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator By: Corkran W. Nicholson, Planning Services Manager SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-002 (Continued public hearing) SUMMARY . The Planning Commission, at its April 23, 1996 meeting, opened the public hearing for Conditional Use Permit 96-002 and deliberated on the applicant's request to add a 640 sq.ft" patio dining area to the existing restaurant at 181 Colorado Place. However, the hearing was continued to tonight's meeting because of the Commission's concern with the current on-site parking situation and their desire to have the applicant seek to obtain a formal off-site parking lI!P:eement with the neighboring California Thoroughbred Breeders Association (CTBA). The intent of the off-site parking agreement with CTBA is to utilize their office facility's parking lot at 201 Colorado Place, as a means to provide additional off-street parking for the patrons of the restaurant The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the conditions that are outlined in the attached April 23, 1996 staff report. DISCUSSION The applicant, Gary L. Barringer, has advised staff that he has not obtained the off-site parking agreement with CTBA, as suggested by the Commission, because he has not been able to contact any individual from CTBA that has the authority to make such an agreement. Therefore, the applicant is requesting that the Commission continue to consider his proposal, as originally submitted, and in addition has provided information (copy attached) that he wishes the Commission to consider in his behalf. . . Staff believes that the applicant's proposal would provide for an appropriate improvement i.e., the proposed patio area would not impact the current parking situation because its use would be incidental to the primary indoor dining areas. A means to mitigate the Commission's concern about the potential traffic that may be generated by the addition of the patio dining area would be to provide for further review after the patio is in use. Such a provision would be stated as an additional condition and would read as follows: Reservation of Jurisdiction: that the Planning Commission shall reserve jurisdiction, and will hold a hearing 3 months after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy to review all related parking and traffic circulation issues; and that the Commission retains jurisdiction to impose such additional conditions that the Commissions feels are appropriate, based on the evidence. presented at the hearing. In accordance with the above condition a report would be prepared to update the Commission on the status of the related parking and traffic circulation, and if necessary provide recommendations for any additional conditions of approval. RECOMMENDATION . The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Pennit 96-002 subject to the conditions of approval in the attached April 23,1996 staff report plus the additional condition set forth above regarding reservation of jurisdiction. FINDINGS AND MOTIONS ApDroval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this conditional use pennit application, the Commission should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration, and find that the design elements of the project are in compliance with the ADR criteria, and adopt Resolution No. 1534, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, granting Conditional Use Pennit No. 96-002 for a proposed patio dining area to be added to an existing restaurant at 181 Colorado Place, which incorporates the Commission's decision, specific fmdings and conditions of approval as, set forth in the staffreport, or as modified by the Commission. Denial . If the Planning Commission intends to deny this conditional use permit application, the Commission should move for denial and adopt Resolution No. 1534, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Arcadia, California, denying Conditional Use Permit C.U.P. 96.002 May 14, 1996 Page 2 -- No. 96-002 for a proposed patio dining area to be added to an existing restaurant at 181 . Colorado Place, which incorporates the Commission's decision and specific findings. If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions regarding this matter prior to the May 14th public hearing, please contact Corkran W, Nicholson at (818) 574-5422. A~~" ____ Donna ~'. utler Community Development Administrator Attachments: . . Applicant's list offacts · On-Street Parking Survey by Commissioner Sleeter . Planning Commission Minutes of April 23rd . Resolutions for approval and denial . April 23 rd staff report . , C.U.P. 96-002 May 14,1996 Page 3 . . . 1. I want to work with you as lam sure' you do with me. 2. The City is encouraging outdoor dining to all businesses. which was adopted 4/96. 3. Peppers has been an Arcadia tradition for 22 years with a wonderful reputation. That is also good for the City! Peppers has been at its present location for two years. During this time neither the City nor myself have received one complaint. 4. On street Darkina is leaal for Dublic Darkina. San Juan Drive and Santa Rosa Road are certainly used by Best Western and Santa Anita Race Track patrons. as well as four apartment buildings adjacent to Peppers. It is not solely for Peppers' patronsl 5, Many businesses in Arcadia have been able to open and operate with less parking than is required. Why me? I am paying for the Westerner Bar reputation or the paranoia of the anticipation of the Race Track Complex! 6. Traffic turning right off of Colorado Place onto San Juan Drive far exceeds legal visibility limits for safe turnsl 7. When at the stop sign on San Juan Drive. turning left onto Colorado Place. visibility again is more than the legal limit. 8. My patrons are asking for patio dining. I am trying to improve the look of Peppers. which the Commission can be sure of. which I am trying to provide for them. along with improving the look of Peppers. Thank you. 6/;/ f~/,(/t$e~ ~ , \ ,- OBSERVATIONS OF "ON-STREET" PARKING AT PEPPERS San Juan Santa Rosa Total . April 19, 1996 7:00pm 12 15 27 9:45pm 6 4 10 April 20, 1996 6:00pm 15 10 25 7:30pm 15 11 26 April 21, 1996 1 :OOpm 8 4 12 7:15pm 16 11 27 9:10pm 6 5 11 April 22, 1996 6:15pm 21 18 39 9:05pm 13 6 19 . . \ 4. PUBLIC BEAlUNG CUP 96-002 181 Colorado pl. G3J)' L. Baninger for Peppers Mexican Grill & Cantina . Consideration of a conditional use permit with related paIldng and building setback modifications, and archltectuml design review to add a 640 sq. ft. patio dining area to the existing restaUIllDl The staft'report was presented. Staff Indicated !bat parking problems are usually brought to staff's attentlonby surrounding neighbors, at which time staft' will Inspect the site and oouduct follow up inspectIons. If there are problems, the owner would then be contacted and required to implement the conditIon. He thought !bat once all the on-site parldng is occupied the patrons probably parlt on San Juan Dr. CunentIy, there is a pIan for the valet patldng with the CUP and it allows for tandem parldng with SO spaces. The paIldng survey is on-site parldng only and does not reflect street parldng becauseitis almost impossible to determine if those cars belong 10 the patrons or to the persons residing In the apartment oomplex or at other locations near that facility. In response 10 a question by Commissioner Mwphy, staft' said If oomplaints are received, staft'. is required to oonduct follow up Inspections and staft' keeps an eye on various businesses that might bave potential parldng problems. Staff was contacted by two neighbors, both were property owners from the residential area to the east of the subject property, who were concerned with the parldng within the residential area. Both neighbors were adamant and against anything that would generate a patldng demand on the street, but prior 10 the m~ilIng of the noticestaft' was not aware of any complaints from the nelghborllood. Both neighbors remarked !bat they had not oomplained before but because they received a notice, they fell this would be the appropriate time to voice their concerns. The neighbors thought some of the traffic might be generated by the mce track. Staff responded to questions by Chairman Pro Tem Kovacic, by saying that even though the demand for patldng may be more than 38, that is all they can accommodate. In speaking with the owner, staft' raised concerns with the overflow of parldng onlo the street and visited the site on numerous occasions, and without going InIO the residential area, there did nol seem to be a Art<ing problem. The valet paIldng was a condition when the CUP wasinit1ally approved but the City did not pursue that _ndition because both the City and the operator of the restaurant did not feel there was a need 10 initiate it If valet patldng was to be implemented It would be on site with tandem parldng. The applicanl felt his request would allow his customers an additional dining amenity. He did not feel It would generate the maximum requested. Staff felt this would be the reconfiguratlon of the seating for the existing patronage. The public hearing was opened. Gary BlIIringer, 181 Colorado Place, the owner of Pepper's Restaurant was present. He explained that his customers bave been asking him to provide outside dining and since staft' Informed him of the new regnlations he decided to pursue it Commissioner Mlllphy thought Mr. Baninger had a great idea but was concemed with the parldng, He asked if Mr. BlIIringer had thought about bavlng 12 seats which would ellminate the need for a new CUP and the valet parldng condition? He fell the valet parldng condition is undefined as far as what wOnld require him to implement It In response to Commissioner Mwphy's comments, Mr. BlIIringer said he might get new customers who might see this and might decide 10 dine there. There Is a 2 hour parldng limit on the residential street which came about as a result of the mce ttack. He felt people parlt there and walk over to the ttack. He noted that there bave been occasions where they parle In his parldng lot Even though the valet parldng might be a burden, if the Commission felt he should provide it he would. If he reduced the number to 12, he would bave to redesign his layout and did not think that would be feasible and would not look as good. He did not bave any problems with implementing the vaIet parldng. He said he bas an agree1llent with the California Thoroughbred Breeders Association (crBA) and he bas extended his liability insurance over to !bat lot where his employees and some ofhis customers parlt. They do not parlt on the street. emmlssioner Bell remarked this is a nice addition. ~dia City P1aunins Commission Page 3 4123/96 Cbairman Pro Tem Kovacic said that on the random SUIVey 4 out of 7 nights the parking lot is full at 8:00 ami he wondered if ~t is typical? ,. Baninger said the patroPBge changes every week but he felt 4 out of7 is the most. Helnd1cated that he has not received any complaints from neighbors or any patrons with regard to parldng. Since his business ID1lved there that comer is weD Ut and he felt the neighbors like that. He did not implement the valet parking because there was never a need for It ami was unaware as to the cost. He guessed that be would need two employees for the valet parldng. The outdoor dining area would be open and will not connect to the building. The furniture would have to be moved In and out daily to prevent theft. No one else spoke In favor or In opposition to this item. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner MUIJlhy, seconded by Commissioner BeD to close the pubDc hearing. The motion passed by voice vote with none dissenting. Commissioner Kalemkiarian retnaIked that no businessman would spend this type of money unless he expected to get more business. He stated that the residents have not been complaining ami only did so because of the notice. He did not think this would create a great problem other than there might be a few more cars. In response to a question by Commissioner Kalemkiarlan, staff.said one street comer is red cwbed. Commissioner Sleeter remarked that unless it Is limited with lohourparldng, !tis 2-hour parking until 6:00 p.m. but that Is not enforced. In front of the restaurant there Is a 24 minute parking limitation. Mr. Bminger remarked that the entire area has a 2-hour parking limitation on all the residential streets. Ammissioner Sleeter said he walks around this area ami since receiving the notice he has counted the cars parleed on the street at ~ous times. He prepared a summary of his findings and distributed it to the Commission, staff and appUcant He said that obviously, not all the cars belong to the restaurant and some might be for the apartment residents. Parking In the evening is .perceived as a problem bel:lluse cars are parked on Santa Rosa, San Juan and even on Santa Cruz. Even though Peppers has been a good neighbor, many of his neighbors have lnd1cated that parldng is a problem. Had the neighbors known that valet parldng was a condition of approval of the CUP, they would have probably complained He felt the comer of Colorado PI. and San Juan is a dangerous one, especially if someone is opening their car door. He thought there Is an accident waiting to happen. He DO longer utillzes San Rafael to get to Huntington Dr. because it is so difficult to make a right tmn, instead he bavels down San Juan ami makes a left on Colorado PI. If.this building is allowed to encroach Into the 35' special setback, it will block additional line of sight around that comer. As a daily user of that area, Pepper's has been.a good neighbor but there are some problems. Chairman Pro Tem Kovacic asked if Mr. Barringer would like to make comments bel:llnse the evidence introduced by Commissioner Sleeter will be pan of the record. The hearing was nHlpened. Mr. Barringer said that he has not been counting the cars. There are a lot of apartments ami actiVity there, i.e. Best Western, etc. He was certain that not all the cars on the street belong to Pepper's customers, There isa lot of use of the general area. The SUIVey distributed by Commissioner Sleeter was taken at 6: 15 p.m. on the last day of races. He attributed most of the cars to the other uses in the area. He indicated that his employees do not parle on .the street. Commissioner MUIJlhy rellllUked that many people do not like valet parIdog ami asked if Mr. Banioger viewed that as a deterrent that could perilaps more than offset its benefit? .. Barringer answered by 5llyiog that valet parldng will be new to him and some people might utilize it and some might DOt. Artadia City Planning Commission Page 4 4/23/96 ~ Pro Tem Kovacic asked how many spaces does the CTBA have? Mr. BaJringer said there an: at least SO spaces there. There an: no signs indicating that his customelS can park in their lot. He extended his liability to utiIlze their parldng lot. On race days people will park there and walk over to the ttac:k because they do not want to pay. The hearing was closed. Commissioner Murphy asked Commissioner Sleeter If he noticed the usage of the parldng lot? Commissioner Sleeter remarked that in most instances the lot is full or near full. He did not want to walk through the parking lot but noticed. He noticed that early in the evenings, the parldng lot was full and there were many cars parleed on the street. However, later in the evening, when the crowed thinned out the usage of both the parldng lot and street parking were reduced. He went on to say that there are a couple of parldng spaces in the lot that no one utilizes because of the awkward angle unless they have to. Even the handicap spaces seem to be utilized all the time. The CTBA is falrly well Ut and the only down side might be the long narrow driveway along the east side that people would have to use to get there. He has seen people parle there and walk over to the restaurant. He disagreed with Mr. Barringer and said the majority of the people that parle on the street are his customers. There are 3-4 cars that parle on the street and he assumed they belonged to the residents of the apartment unlts. He was certain the cars parked on the street are from Pepper's customers because they have decals or menus from Pepper's. Commissioner Kalemldarian did not want to grant the modification for the 7 spaces; He thought valet parldng might create problems. HethougIU it would be a better idea to utiIlze the CTBA parking and making an agreement with them either for valet parldng or for the patlll1lS. He felt that would be a nice balance. Mr. Miller interjected and said when he represented the City of Newport Beach. there were a number of situations like this and lIII1Iii.e City would require an off-site parldng agreement between the entities which would be a condition of approval subject to wProval by the City, That agreement would have to be made and approved by the City prior to this process and approval of the request by the Commission. If the Commission is leaning in that direction, he suggested coDtlnulng the hearing subject to an agreement being prepared and approved by staff and brougIU bac:k to the Commission for final action. This would require that the owner negotiate an agreement that meets City requirements for this parldng. Commissioner Murphy asked because there is no crosswalk would there be a liability issue for the City? Mr. Miller said staff would consult with Traffic Engineering in determlnlng If the change in clrcumstances would necessitate a crosswalk. Cbalnnan Pro Tem Kovacic said based on comments made by the Commission, It seems that they are concerned with the parking and feel it should be n!SOlved prior to permitting this extension by providing valet or off-slte parldng. Mr. Miller explained bis reason for continuing this would be to allow Mr. Barringer to make a formal agreement with the CTBA to utilize their parldng. to submit that agreement III the City for review and then to present it to the Commission. The agreement seems to be the heart and core of this approval and without itthere is nothing. Ms. Butler said this is a unique situation and she c:oncwred with the City Attorney. Staff will bring it bac:k along with a resolution so that Mr. Smringer does not lose any time If he is able to secure the agreement. The hearing was re-opened. Cbairman Pro Tem Kovacic said the Commission seems to be inclined in continuing this hearing to allow Mr. Barringer to obtain an agreement with the CTBA to utilize their parking. He explained that it is Mr. Bmringer's prerogative to ask for a decision tonigIU If he'd like. It Is his choice If he'd like a decision or a coDtlnuance to allow him time to obtain said agreement. In his .inion, it would be better to c:oDtlnue the hearing and have Mr. Barringer make an agreement rather than conditioning the Artadia City Planning Co~on Page S 4123/96 approval on securing it only to find that he cannot secure it. If he is unable to secure an agreement then other options might be ~Iored. ,. B3Irlnger was tencerned with undue delay. He asked what would happen if the crBA is ambiguous and does not make this agreement? In ChaInoan Pro Telll Kovacic's opinion, It would be better to tentinue the hearing and have Mr. B3Irlnger make an agreement rather than conditioning the approval on securing it only to fmd that he can DOt secure it. If he is unable to secure an agreement then other options might be explored. Ms. Butler lndlCated that the next Commission meeting would be on May 14. ChaInoan Pro Tem Kovacic explained that If the Commission took action tonight, it would not be fonoa1 until the adoption of the resolution which would be at the Commission's May 14th meeting. Staff can prepare a resolution for the neKt meeting to adopt at the time a decision is rendered.. Mr. B3Irlnger was in favor of the continuance. Ms. Butler InfOlDled Mr. Baninger to ClOIIIact staff and said the Information should be submitted at least one week prior to the meeting. . Mr. Miller said he could prepare a draft agreement for Mr. B3Irlnger that teuldpresent to the crBA. Commissioner Kaleuddarian pointed outthat It should be noticed II!at they would utilize the parking lot after 6:00 p.m. when the CTBA is closed. MOTION . It was moved by CommiOl'lnner Kalemklarian, seconded by Commissioner Bell to continue the public hearing tl) the May 14th meeting. ROLL CALL: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Bell, Huang, Kalemklarian, Murphy, Sleeter, Kovacic None Commissioner Daggett . Alcadia City Planning Commission , Page 6 4123/96 .- I . STAFF REPORT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT April 23, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Arcadia City Planning Commission FROM: Donna L. Butler, Community Development Administrator By: Corkran W. Nicholson, Planning Services Manager SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-002 SUMMARY . The subject of this staff report is a requesi for a conditional use permit to add a 640 sq.ft" patio dining area to an existing restaurant at 181 Colorado Place. The Development Services Department is recommending approval of the requested conditional use permit subject to the conditions that are outlined in this staff report. GENERAL INFORMATION APPLICANT: Gary L. Barringer (property owner) LOCATION: 181 Colorado Place REQUEST: A conditional use permit - with related parking and building setback modifications, and architectural design review - to add a 640 sq.ft., patio dining area to an existing restaurant (Peppers Mexican Grill & Cantina) LOT AREA: Approximately 29,000 sq.ft. (0.66 acres) FRONTAGE: 153.39 feet along Colorado Place 535.00 feet along San Juan Drive EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING: .. A 5,200 sq.ft, restaurant facility; zonedC-2 , '. . . . SURROUNDING LAND USE &. ZONING: North: Office building (California Thoroughbred Breeder Association) and multiple-family residential units; zoned R-3 Santa Anita Race Track; zoned S-1 Motel and single-family residences; zoned C-2 and R-l respectively Santa Anita Race Track; zoned S-1 South: East: West: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The site is designated as Commercial. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The subject site was developed fora restaurant use in 1953, prior to the requirement of a conditional use permit Since that time there have been various restaurant businesses that have been permitted to occupy the site without being under a conditional use pennit i.e., as a continuance of a nonconforming use ~ Arcadia Municipal Code (A.MC.) Section 9245 (Westerner, Ginger Branch West and the-English Butler restaurant). In 1988, the subject building was renovated for a new restaurant business under Conditional Use Permit 88-012. In this case a conditional use pennit was required because the site had been vacant for more than 90 days which constituted the abandonment of the previous nonconforming restaurant use (A.M.C. Section 9248). The renovation also involved the redesign of the on-site parking lot to provide a maximum of 38 parking spaces in lieu of 52 spaces required for the project. The parking deficiency is addressed in Conditional Use Permit 88-012 which requires the restaurant use to provide free on-site valet parking during all business hours, as a condition of approval. In 1994, the applicant purchased the subject property and opened his restaurant business under Conditional Use Permit 88-012, . SPECIAL INFORMATION The need to encourage outdoor dining areas is recognized by the City because it can add needed vitality to our business districts and enhance the quality of life for Arcadia residence. Therefore, on February 20, 1996, the Arcadia City Council adopted an "Incidental Outdoor Dining Ordinance", The ordinance sets forth specific regulations for outdoor dining on private property of up to 12 persons without a conditional use pennit, similar to the sidewalk dining regulations adopted by the City Council in 1995. The applicant's proposal requires a conditional use permit'because he is requesting an outdoor dining area for approximately 30 to 35 people. C.U.P, 96~2 April 23, 1996 Page 2 PROPOSAL '. The applicant is seeking a required conditional use permit to add a proposed 640 sq.ft., patio dining area to his existing restaurant facility at 181 Colorado Place, as shown on the submitted site plan (copy attached). The current business hours for the restaurant are from 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m., Monday thru Sunday. A seating arrangement for approximately 186 people is currently provided within the 5,200 sq.ft., restaurant (excluding the proposed patio area). The applicant is requesting a maximum seating capacity of 30 to 35 people for the proposed patio dining area. PARKING . On-site parking consists of 38 spaces. This existing amount of on-site parking does not comply with the current Code requirement of 52 spaces for the existing restaurant business (i.e., 10 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. of gross retail floor area [5,200 sq.ft.]). With the addition of the proposed 640 sq.ft., patio dining area the total number of on-site parking spaces required for the restaurant would be 59 (i.e., 10 spaces per 1,000 sq.ft. of gross retail floor area [5,200 sq.ft., plus the proposed 640 sq.ft.]). The attached "Parking Survey" was submitted by the property owner, which indicates that the restaurant has a peak parking demand of38 spaces (counts occurred at 8:00 p.m., on the 26th, 29th, 30th and 31st of March 1996). The applicant has conveyed to staff that there has not been a need to provide any on-site valet parking, as stipulated in C.U.P. 88-012, because his business has not generated any parking problems. SITE ALTERATIONS The proposed alterations to the site will consist of the foIlowing improvements: . A detached wooden trellis structure, atop 3'-2" high perimeter garden walls, would cover the proposed patio area. The overall height of the trellis structure would be approximately 9'.(1' above the existing grade (see the attached elevations and photo). Also, a proposed masonry brick fireplace would be built within the patio structure, as shown on the submitted site plan. . Portions of the existing parking area (designated on the submitted site plan as "NEW WORK") would be rearranged to accommodate the proposed patio area. . The existing free-standing pole sign would be relocated to the northwest comer of the site where a former free-standing sign existed, as shown on the submitted site plan. . Concurrent with the consideration of the requested conditional use permit the applicant is also requesting architectural design review approval, which incorporates the above mentioned improvements. C.U.P. 96-002 April 23, 1996 Page 3 --- . LANDSCAPING The applicant is proposing to retain the existing landscaping; as noted on the submitted site plan. All of the existing landscaping is well maintained. Staff is recommending that a planter curb (0' -39" in depth) be provided between the proposed patio dining area and the adjacent parking stalls (Nos. 24 thru 27) to further enhance the project. MODIFICATIONS The applicant's proposal requires the following modifications to be granted: 1. To pennit 38 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 59 spaces required (Sec. 9269.2.). 2. A 5'..0" westerly front yard setback in lieu of a 35' -0" special setback along Colorado Place (Sec. 9320.11.2.). The Fire Department, Engineering Division and Building Services have reviewed the applicant's proposal, and have noted no opposition or conditions of approval. . ANALYSIS Uses such as restaurants require conditional use pennits, and traffic concerns can be addressed as part of the consideration of such applications. Generally, staff does not encourage uses which are deficient in parking; however, based upon the applicant's proposal, background infonnation about the site, and the parking survey, it is staff opinion that the proposed patio dining area would be an appropriate addition to the applicant's restaurant. Staff believes that the patio area would not impact the current parking situation because its use would be incidental to the primary indoor dining areas. Also, staff is recommending that the applicant provide valet parking (as previously conditioned by C.U.P. 88-(1) if it is detennined by the Development Services Department that the restaurant generates a parking problem. Valet parking would pennit tandem parking and better utilization of the parking lot whereupon the parking area could accommodate approximately 50 vehicles. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN REVIEW Concurrent with the consideration of this conditional use pennit, the Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve or deny the applicant's design concept plans. . Staff believes that the applicant's proposal meets the intent of the design criteria set forth in the City's Architectural Design Review Regulations. The design elements of the C.U.P. 96.002 April 23.1996 Page 4 . proposed patio (i.e., the wooden trellis structure atop 3' -2" high perimeter garden walls) would be visually hannonious with the subject building and the surrounding commercial developments (see the attached building elevations). Since this proposal is within the boundaries of the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency, Design Review will also be required before the Redevelopment Agency for the site improvements. CEOA Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Development Services Department has prepared an initial study for the proposed project. Said initial study did not disclose any substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise and objects of historical' or aesthetic significance. When considering the record as a whole, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have any potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. RECOMMENDATION . The Development Services Department recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 96-002 subject to the following conditions: 1. That the proposed patio dining area and the site shall be maintained and operated in a manner that is consistent with the plans and application materials submitted for C.U.P.96.o02. 2. That the following modifications be granted for the proposed use: 1. To permit 38 on-site parking spaces in lieu of 59 sp~ required (Sec. 9269.2.). 2. A 5'.(f' westerly front yard setback in lieu of a 35' -0" special setback along Colorado Place (Sec. 9320.11.2.). 3. All applicable Code requirements regarding building occupancy, exiting, fire protection, disabled access, safety features, etc., shall be complied with to the satisfaction of Building Services and the Fire Department 4. That the applicant shall continue to comply with the conditions as set forth in Resolution No. 1377 (granting Conditional Use Permit 88-012 for the restaurant use) with the exception of Condition No. 1 which re<!uires on-site valet parking. . C.U.P. 9~2 April 23, 1996 Page S " . s. . That the applicant shall provide valet parking if it is detennined by the Development Services Department that the restaurant generates a parking problem. If the valet parking is required, except for gratuity, such parking shall be provided free to all patrons during all business hours. Signs shall be posted informing the public of free valet parking. The signs' location, size, color, number, and print shall be subject to the approval of the Development Services Department. Also, a tandem parking plan for the valet parking shall be submitted to the Development Services Department for review and approval. 6. That a planter curb (0'-39" in depth) shall be provided between the proposed patio dining area and the adjacent parking sta11s.(Nos. 24 thru 27) to further enhance the project. 7. The maximum seating capacity of the proposed patio dining area shall not exceed 3S people. 8. Design Review approval shall be obtained from the Arcadia Redevelopment Agency prior to the issuance of any building pennits. . 9. C.U.P. 96-002 shall noi take effect until the property owner and applicant have executed and filed the Acceptance Form that is available from the Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of the conditions of approval. 10. Noncompliance with the provisions and conditions of this conditional use pennit shall constitute grounds for its immediate suspension or revocation. FINDINGS AND MOTIONS Apnroval If the Planning Commission intends to approve this conditional use pennit application, the Commission should move to approve and file the Negative Declaration, and find that the design elements of the project are in compliance with the ADR criteria, and direct staff to prepare a resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision, specific findings and conditions of approval as set forth in the staff report, or as modified by the Commission. Denial If the Planning Commission intends to deny this conditional use pennit application, the Commission should move for denial and direct staff to prepare a resolution which incorporates the Commission's decision and specific fmdings. . ; C.U.P. 96.002 Apri123. 1996 Page 6 . If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions regarding this matter prior to the April 23rd public hearing, please contact Corkran W. Nicholson at (818) 574-5422. APft by: tl, A HI _~ 11;...1 Donna L. Butler Community Development Administrator Attachments: Application information, Parking Survey, Resolution No. 1377, Land Use & Zoning Map, a site plan & building elevations, Negative Declaration & Initial Study . . C.U.P. 96.002 April 23, 1996 Page 1 , '. " . . -- --... . , c.,Ll f' 9 (c -{) ad- . . , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION A. AI,,!.JJ~ ~.y"-~FoG Name Address Daytime Telephone No. Interest in Property B. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION h /f.k-ve Name Address Daytime Telephone No. .' . c. c:::,/A~;cf' /)L,~. D. PRO~4 ([~TION) / d/ I'! , -- ~dz1 ~ . . - LEGAL DESCRIPTION ~,fcT # ~ 47- ~~ ..) 6 tt77'''?-fA E ?~&.~ ~ // ~ /#/J~/" . &/ .g B"J ~r 4"N Al4,r.T ~ ~~A t?.,c. ~r 1../ ~ #I ///Js/ 73' J: ~~ ~ /&;ef~A E. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION commercial F. ZONE CLASSIFICATION C-2 G. Proposed Use (State exactly what use is intended for the property. If you are applying fq&an eating establishment, restaurant, or place of assembly, include the seatinppadty and hours of operation) outs~dininq of approximately 640 scruare feet which is planned to accommodate perhaps 30-35 people as a probable maximum ' ,., . . .. 1 PREREQmsITJr CONDmONS: (The law requires that the conditions set forth below be clearly established before a conditional use permit can be granted.) EXP1.AlN IN DBTAIL WHEREIN YOUR CASE CONFORMS TO THE FOLLOWlNG FIVE CONDmONS: :-"-- 1. That the granting of such conditional use permit will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or vicinity. outside dining will not be detrimental to the public health or welfare or injurious to the property 2. That the use apP',ied for at the location indicated is one for which a conditional use permit is authorized. outside dining is an extension of the primary business of the applicant's restaurant 3. That the site for the proposed use.is adequate in size and shape to accommodatesaid use, including all yards, spaces, wall$; fences, parking, loading, land-scapin~ and. other features required to adjust said use with the land and uses in the neighborhood. . the outside dining area is well within the subject prop~rty !.. lines and is not the least bit intrusive on other functions in the immediate vicinty 4. That the site abuts streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the kind of traffic generated by the proposed use. outside dining will not change the proposed use of the present business: it will merely be an extension thereof .:.~ 5. .... That the piing of such conditional use permit will not adversely affect the com- prehensive General Plan. outside dining in this area is not in conflict with the general plan . CUP -2- 4/27/94 , -' __:->;::...~ ~....._._""","'=::. _ 4'''l,4~~_- ~..... -.- ~ ---, -;P-".. _ ~~ NOTE: 'l1Ie Planning Commlutonls required by law to make. written fIndln~ 01 facti. baled upon u..- mtom.lIon presenled at the time of the public: hearing. that beyond . I'eIl8OII8bIe doubt tile ftve above_led alndtllol1l apply. . ~.uUCAW'(S)~VERIFICATION I (WE) HEREBY'CERTIFY (OR DECLARE) UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY lHAT mE FOREGOING INFORMATION AND AITACHED OWNERSHIP UST ARB TRUE AND CORRECT. . --A / SIGNATURE$...~ - ~ny ffbfR/#4"eA> TelephoneNo. ~$- o/'/~-.s:7ZF Applicant '/B/ ~~/(d /?41U. ~~ t;-- t9}t?1Jr Address (include street, city, state and zip cooe) Telephone No. Applicant (~ more than one) " Address (include street, city, state and zip code)- LL NOT BE ACl.:IiYIIiD WlTHOVTTHE OWNER'S SIGNATURE . Owner of record (if more than.one) ~- . .. .-- ...>>:... ,........ : Address (inc1ude>~ .t. city, state and zip code) --I' .'~ 4/27/94 Received by {! Receipt No. Date . -3- , " idPlbJisIJed 1914 MEXICAN RESTAURANT 181 C0L01U\IIO p~ · fRatllnl. ClufllltNl1\ '1001 (SlsI 4-4G. 55%.9 ~ (SlSI 4-4(;.9l0z. f..._ . RANDOM PARKING SURVEY 12Noon 4:00 pm 8:00 pm 11 :00 pm 3-25-96 5 6 20 0 3-26-96 10 4 38 0 3-27-96 6 1 30 0 . 3-28-96 8 7 29 I 3-29-96 5 3 38 10 3-30-96 3 9 38 9 3-31-96 8 12 38 0 .