|
|
 City of Hermosa Beach --- 07-13-99SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 PARKING PLAN NO. 99-2 LOCATION: 53 PIER AVENUE APPLICANT: GARY VINCENT
Planning Commission Recommendation: That the City Council:
Background: There are three discretionary permits and one encroachment permit connected to this project. The restaurant was originally approved in January 13, 1998 under CUP Amendment No. 98-7 for the site formerly known as Casablanca Restaurant. The restaurant expansion was approved on May 17, 1999 under Parking Plan 99-2 and CUP Amendment 99-4. A separate approval for outdoor dining was approved by Planning Commission under Parking Plan Amendment No. 99-3 on June 15, 1999 which allows the addition of 200 square feet of outdoor dining on a bridge spanning the public right-of-way known as Loreto Plaza. The outdoor dining also requires approval of an encroachment permit, and the City Council authorized submittal of an encroachment permit application on May 11, 1999. Parking Plan 99-2 and Conditional Use Permit Amendment 99-4 allows a 1,150 square foot expansion to the former Casablanca Restaurant space within the contiguous building area to the south. The Commission approved the project with in-lieu parking payment instead of providing parking on-site pursuant to Section 17.44.190 of the Zone Code. Appeal The subject of the appeal is summarized in the appellant’s letter and relates to the restaurant expansion. The appellant notes four main areas of concern: It is not possible to contain the alcohol problems in the downtown; there is a tremendous expansion of alcohol downtown resulting in more auto trips; satellite parking was not posted as part of the project notice; and the staff report does not refer to the elimination of private parking spaces connected to the building. Regarding the first and second items in the appeal indicating there is "tremendous expansion" of alcohol related use that cannot be "contained", staff has prepared a summary of the number of restaurants serving alcohol uses along Pier Plaza and Hermosa Avenue which is the area of highest concentration of such uses. 1 This tabulation indicates that since 1994 there have only been five new alcohol related businesses established in this area. Pier Plaza has a total of 8 businesses (7 restaurants) and Hermosa Avenue has 11 businesses (9 restaurants). This is analogous to a "restaurant row" in most communities in terms of the number of restaurant establishments and the number of blocks which accommodate these uses. The City has an extremely small downtown and the zoning and General Plan "contain" these uses and no property has been proposed for rezoning or a General Plan amendment to accommodate them. The City has established through parking studies conducted for the downtown that up to 1/3 of those arriving downtown come by means other than car (walk, ride bike, etc.) which addresses the matter of use and trip generation. Regarding the third item that the property proposed for satellite parking was not posted as part of the notice for the project, the remote parking use was approved under separate Parking Plan No. 98-2. This project was duly noticed and continued on three occasions to ensure public participation at the hearings. The applicant is proposing to utilize the approved remote parking area precisely as it was permitted in order to provide supplementary parking for downtown businesses, not as required parking. Posting of the property for remote parking occurred with the original hearing and is unnecessary for the proposed restaurant expansion project as it is not the subject of this application and was previously approved. Regarding the fourth item, that two parking spaces have not been considered in the tabulation of parking credits for the property, these two spaces have been converted to two metered public parking spaces and were never part of the complement of required parking for the property and cannot be considered required or credited parking for the project. Analysis: Proposed Project Loreto Plaza is comprised of two buildings located at 49 and 53 Pier Avenue connected by pedestrian bridges and walkways spanning a pedestrian right-of-way which is City owned property . The bridges are subject to a lease agreement between the building owner and the City which has been in effect for over 21 years. In 1978, the previous restaurant operator had been permitted to provide outdoor seating within the northerly bridge area under Planning Commission Resolution No. 78-11 and in 1991 the restaurant operator was permitted to enclose the bridge as restaurant floor area under CUP No. 90-35 . A lease to permit use of a proposed deck extending over the right of way was not approved by City Council and this element of CUP 98-7 is no longer in effect. The current plans call for a 1,150 square foot expansion within the contiguous building area to the south of the existing restaurant utilizing a shared kitchen facility but no thru pedestrian access between the restaurants. The current restaurant will retain the name of Fat Face Fenner’s Fishack and the proposed restaurant expansion will be called Fat Face Fenner’s Falloon. The plans show seating for 32 and a bar area with seating for 11. There is no live entertainment proposed for the expansion, and any new live entertainment in this area would require a Conditional Use Permit amendment. This proposed expansion is analogous to the Pointe 705/ Café Voila business operation where there is a common kitchen and separate dining areas with different themes and names which was approved by the Planning Commission in 1998. The proposed CUP Amendment to permit expansion of the restaurant is consistent with the General Plan and zone, as the project is located within the downtown district along Pier Plaza. The Parking Plan for the project has several policy issues which should be addressed. The applicant has also proposed providing an outdoor dining area on the pedestrian bridge area over the public right-of-way which was considered by the Planning Commission on June 15, 1999. The outdoor dining use is subject to an encroachment permit over City owned property and the City Council authorized submittal of an encroachment permit application. Calculation of Parking Requirement and Parking Credit for Previous Use The applicant requested that Commission consider the previous banquet facility in calculating the parking credit for the project. Loreto Plaza was originally constructed in 1975 when no parking was required in the downtown parking district. 1 It is legally nonconforming to current parking standards. Subsequent conversions to restaurant occupancy at Casablanca Restaurant and Paradise Sushi were also permitted when no additional parking was required. In 1998, CUP No. 98-7 the current restaurant was permitted with no additional parking required based upon a parking credit for the previous use. Under Section 17.44.140 E. of the Zoning Ordinance:
This method of calculating parking credits and debits is used throughout the City and the Planning Commission has previously approved projects based upon the above provision to allow parking credits to apply to the most intense previous use even when the use has been vacated for several months or years. (Please refer to the attached table of parking credits.) Applying the same principal to this expansion the parking requirement is calculated as follows: Use Square Footage Parking Requirement Previous restaurant banquet area 624 sq. ft. 6 credited Current office space (where banquet area eliminated)* 624 sq. ft. 2 required Net Parking Required 4 credited Additional gross floor area for restaurant 1,150 sq. ft. 12 required Previous office space converted to restaurant 1,150 sq. ft. 5 credited Net Parking Required 7 required Total Parking Requirement 7 required - 4 credited = 3 required ** Restaurant parked at 1:100 sq. ft. of gross floor area (GFA), Office parked at 1:250 sq. ft. of GFA
The applicant requested that Commission consider the previous banquet facility in calculating the parking credit and submitted a lease as evidence of the size and location of the banquet facility which was a part of the former Casablanca Restaurant. Staff also noted the minutes of the 1993 CUP approval for Casablanca Restaurant which refers to the former banquet room and consulted with the prior Commission Chairperson involved with the original project approval. Based upon this evidence and following review of the matter by the City Attorney, staff recommended that the Commission approve the project subject to parking requirements of Section 17.44.140 using the difference of the required parking for the previous use including the banquet room. Staff has also provided a condition in the resolution requiring that the banquet facility credit be restricted to the restaurant so that it cannot be double counted in the future. The restaurant has proposed using remote parking after 6:00 p.m. as non-required, surplus parking under Parking Plan No. 98-2for the property at 200 Pier Avenue, and this parking is not applied to the above calculation. 2 In Lieu Parking The Zoning Ordinance provides the option to request accepting payment of in lieu parking fees where parking requirements cannot be accommodated on site. Section 17.44.190 (3), provides for contributions to a parking improvement fund in lieu of providing on-site parking. (Please see applicant’s letter.) The City Council recently approved continuation of the in-lieu program based upon a new rate of $12,500 per required parking space. This new rate would apply to the restaurant expansion. Change of Use The City has previously sought to maximize the amount of downtown office space in order to increase the number of year-round daytime users in the downtown. Originally, Downtown Enhancement District Funds were established to help fund the development of office projects by allocating a portion of in lieu parking fees for such projects. Second story office space is being replaced by a restaurant use and though the impact in terms of the amount of floor area is not considerable, the loss of such space relative to the goal of ensuring daytime users in the downtown is a policy issue to be considered.
Notes:
|
|
|
|