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
.