GLENDALE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING ... · PDF fileglendale community...

GLENDALE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT

TO:

PREPARED BY:

MEETING DATE:

CASE NO:

PROPOSAL:

APPLICANT:

OWNERS:

APPELLANT:

LOCATIONIAPN:

Members of the Planning Commission

Vilia Zemaitaitis, Senior Planner

July 18, 2012

Appeal of Planning Hearing Officer's Denial of Conditional Use Permit Case No. PCUP 2011-031 and Administrative Exception Case No. PAE 2011-023.

The Conditional. Use Permit application seeks to permit the sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages at a restaurant located at 2833 Honolulu Avenue (proposed "Chandelier Restaurant"), within a shopping center addressed as 2831-283.9 Honolulu Avenue.

The Administrative Exception application seeks to add approximately 430 SF for new ADA-compliant restrooms without providing three additional parking spaces.

Fred Teichert

Alfred E. Teichert and Ramona C. Teichert Trust c/o Alfred Teichert · 251 0 Countryside Lane La Crescenta, CA 91214

Fred Teichert

2833 HONOLULU AVENUE /5650-040-041

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 12-17, and the East 5 Feet of Lot 18, Tract No. 6067

RECOMMENDATION: Planning Division staff recommends that the Planning Commission overturn the Planning Hearing Officer's denial of Conditional Use Permit Case No. PCUP 2011-031 and Administrative Exception Case No. PAE 2011-023.

General Information

Land Use Element: Neighborhood Commercial

Zone: "C1"- Neighborhood Commercial

Existing Site Characteristics and Background: The building is located in a multi-tenant commercial center on the north side of Honolulu Avenue, addressed as 2831-2839 Honolulu Avenue. The 19,375 square foot site consists of a rectangular-shaped lot with relatively flat topography. The site is presently developed with an approximately 8,300 square-foot, multitenant commercial building with on-site parking. In addition to the proposed full-service

Appeal of Case No. PCUP 2011-031 & PAE 2011-023 2833 Honolulu Avenue

July 18, 2012

restaurant, the commercial building features a general office and a beauty salon. The surrounding uses include commercial uses to the east, west and across the street to the south and residential uses across the alley to the north. As indicated on the submitted site plan, there are 26 on-site parking spaces which serve all uses on the site. The parking lot is accessed from Honolulu Avenue and the alley to the north.

There is an existing common driveway to the west that provides vehicular access to the subject site as well as the abutting commercial retail center and its parking lot. The majority of the common driveway's width is on the adjacent lot and without common access, the subject site would have a substandard driveway width. The drive aisle to the north of this driVeway also provides the required back-up space for the parking spaces perpendicular to and between the two neighboring commercial buildings on the individual parcels. A reciprocal access easement was entered into by the two adjacent property owners and recorded with the County Recorders Office. This easement specifies that the adjacent driveway and turning aisle can be used for access to the subject property and also provides for the required backup space for the 11 parking spaces perpendicular to the subject building. However, this easement does not list a definitive timeframe and can be revoked by either property owner at any time, such as for the sale of property or the proposed redevelopment.

The original restaurant was constructed at this location in 1953. According to Planning records, the restaurant received its first CUP for alcohol sales in 1966 (3902-CU). There have been seven subsequent CUP approvals for alcohol since 1966. A restaurant use with alcohol sales, service and consumption has been in operation at this location up until 2010 following the revocation of permits.

The previous business ("Montrose Collection") had received approvals to expand the restaurant's floor area into the adjacent 1,210 square-foot space (office use) without providing the nine additional parking spaces (Parking Reduction Permit Case No. PPR 2005-002). During its operation, Montrose Collection had several code violations due to noncompliance with the original conditional use permit, parking reduction permit and zoning use certificate. The parking reduction permit and the zoning use certificate were ultimately revoked by the City Council and the then Zoning Administrator, respectively. Upon revocation of the previous parking reduction permit, the expansion and originally-approved entitlements became null and void. The business owner of Montrose Collection permanently ceased operations on or about October 2010.

The current applicant (the property owner), working in conjunction with a new restaurant operator, is proposing to establish a new full-service restaurant offering the on-site sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages. The applicant is also proposing an approximately 438 square foot addition to provide handicap accessible restrooms; this is a 772 square-foot floor area reduction of the previously expanded restaurant area that was approved in 2005 and later revoked. The total proposed area for the expanded restaurant will be 4,564 square feet. As proposed, the 438 square-foot expansion would result in a parking shortfall of three spaces, according to Code. The 438 square foot area was previously an office, which required 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for a requirement of one space. Upon expansion and change of use from an office to a full-service restaurant, this area would require additional parking at a ratio of ten spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area, resulting in a total of four required spaces. Therefore, based on the above calculation, three additional spaces are required for the 438 square-foot restaurant addition. The remaining 794 square feet of the 1,210 square-foot expansion approved in 2005 will be converted back to an office tenant space.

of 18


July 18, 2012

Surrounding Uses/Zoning:

Zoning Existing Uses

North R1-ll and R-1650 Single & multi-family residential

South C1 Senior living residences

East C1 Commercial Uses West C1 Commercial shopping center Project Site C1 Commercial center with on-site parking

Circulation Element: Honolulu Avenue is classified as a Minor Arterial in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and is improved with a public right-of-way 90 feet in width.

Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: The surrounding lots are developed with commercial uses along Honolulu Avenue and residential uses (multi-family developments on the east and single family residences on the west) to the north across the 20 ft. wide alley.

Previous Discretionary Permits for the Use: • Conditional Use Permit 7501-CU was granted with conditions on October 27,

1983, for alcohol sales, service and consumption. • Parking Reduction Permit Case No. PPR 2005-002 was granted with conditions on

August 5, 2005, to allow the expansion of a full-service restaurant into an adjacent office space without providing the required number of parking spaces.

• Parking Reduction Permit Case No. PPR 2005-002 was revoked by City Council on March 24, 2009.

• Zoning Use Certificate PZUC-20060234 was revoked by the then Zoning Administrator on March 26, 2009.

• Parking Reduction Permit PPR 2011-003 and Conditional Use Permit Case No. PCUP-2011-017 were denied by the Planning Hearing Officer on September 26, 2011.

Project History:

December 7, 2011 -Conditional use permit and administrative exception applications were filed.

January 3, 2011 -Applications were deemed incomplete due to previous issues regarding property lines and parking.

April 10, 2012 -Applications were deemed complete.

April 25, 2012 - Public hearing was conducted for the CUP. Planning Hearing Officer took the administrative exception application under consideration.

May 31, 2012 - Planning Hearing Officer denied the conditional use permit and administrative exception.

June 14, 2012- Appellant appealed the Planning Hearing Officer's decisions.

of 18


July 18, 2012

Applicable Regulations: Glendale Municipal Code (G.M.C.), Title 30, Chapter 30.42 provides rules and procedures for conditional use permits.

G.M.C., Title 30, Chapter 30.44, provides rules and procedures for administrative exceptions.

G.M.C., Title 30, Chapter 30.62, provides rules and procedures for appeals before the Planning Commission.

Ordinance No. 5582, adopted on November 27, 2007, provides the rules and procedure for appeals before the Planning Commission.

Utilities and Public Services: All municipal and private utilities are in place serving the neighborhood and other public services are currently provided to the vicinity.

Environmental Documentation: Exempt.

ANALYSIS

Requested Action by the Appellant: The owner/appellant is requesting that the Planning Commission overturn the May 31, 2012, Planning Hearing Officer's denial of Conditional Use Permit Case No. PCUP 2011-31 for the sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages at a restaurant located at 2833 Honolulu Avenue (proposed "Chandelier Restaurant"). The owner/appellant has also appealed the Planning Hearing Officer's denial of Administrative Exception PAE 2011-023 to add approximately 430 SF to the restaurant for new ADA-compliant restrooms without providing three additionally required parking spaces.

Conditional Use Permit Required Findings Pursuant to Section 30.42.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code, a conditional use permit may be granted only if the review authority first finds that each of the following exists:

A. That the proposed use will be consistent with the various elements and objectives of the general plan.

B. That the use and its associated structures and facilities will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment.

C. That the use and facilities will not adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal development of surrounding property.

D. That adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are or will be provided for the proposed use.

Administrative Exception Required Findings Pursuant to Section 30.44.040 of the Glendale Municipal Code, an administrative exception may be granted only if the review authority first finds that each of the following exists:

A. The granting of the exception will result in design improvements, or there are space restrictions on the site which preclude full compliance with Code requirements without hardship; · '

B. The granting of the exception, with any conditions imposed, will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located; and

of 18


July 18, 2012

C. The granting of the exception will not be contrary to the objectives of the applicable regulations.

Basis of the Planning Hearing Officer's Decision to Deny the CUP The Planning Hearing Officer's decision to deny the conditional use permit was based on her inability to make all four required findings in favor of the application and to justify approval of the case given the lack of permanent, adequate parking on site. The Planning Hearing Officer stated that the temporary easement for the parking is not a permanent solution for a permanent use, especially given that the recorded temporary agreement could be terminated by a decision of either party (subject site property owner or neighboring property owner) to sell, redevelop, or build any new structure. According to the Planning Hearing Officer, the conditional use permit application was denied based on the following rationales: ·

1. The Planning Hearing Officer was able to make the first finding: the full-service restaurant use with on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages appears to be consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan that designates this property for Neighborhood Commercial uses. A full-service restaurant with ancillary service of alcoholic beverages is a permitted use in the "C1" zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A restaurant use has been in existence at this location for several decades with service of alcoholic beverages, indicating that the use does serve a public convenience purpose for the area.

2. The Planning Hearing Officer was able to make the second required finding: No evidence was presented that would indicate the proposal would be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment, if conditions are proposed and implemented. A restaurant with alcohol sales, service and consumption has existed at the subject location since the mid-1960s. No public facilities are located nearby. While there is a high crime rate in the subject census tract, according to the Police Department, most crimes are related to theft in local retail stores in the area. Given that the service of alcoholic beverages will be accessory to the primary restaurant use, a full-service restaurant is not anticipated to increase the need for police activity.

3. The Planning Hearing Officer was only able to partially make the third finding: the restaurant use itself is not expected to adversely affect or impede the normal development of surrounding property, yet the temporary easement for the parking is not a permanent solution for a permanent use. The applicant has worked with the neighboring property owner to the west to record a temporary reciprocal access agreement addressing the driveway, turning radius, and required back-up space for the parking spaces. As drafted, the temporary agreement shall terminate by a decision of either party (subject site property owner or neighboring property owner) to sell, redevelop, or build any new structure. The temporary nature of the proposed reciprocal access agreement would not permanently resolve access to these parking spaces and as a result, there is not adequate parking available on the project site. Therefore, the proposed temporary access and parking arrangement would conflict with the normal development of both this property as well as surrounding property.

4. The Planning Hearing Officer was NOT able to make the fourth finding: while adequate public and private facilities such as utilities and landscaping are provided, the Planning Hearing Officer asserted that an adequate number of parking spaces and driveway access are not provided for the proposed use. While the recorded temporary reciprocal access agreement grants permission to use the adjacent property for access to and

of 18


July 18, 2012

backing distance for the parking spaces shown along the common driveway, itdoes not provide a permanent provision of adequate parking and permanent traffic circulation. Therefore, the proposal does not provide permanent provision of adequate parking and access to meet Code requirements, which are already reduced due to the nonconforming status of the site, including the 11 compromised parking spaces addressed by the easement.

Ultimately, the Planning Hearing Officer denied the CUP due to the temporary nature of the reciprocal easement and the lack of a permanent parking solution for the proposed permanent use.

Planning Hearing Officers Meeting: The hearing is available for viewing online at: http:l/qlendale.granicus.com/MediaPiayer.php?view id=30&clip id=3579

Basis of the Planning Hearing Officer's Decision to Deny the Administrative Exception: Although related to the CUP, the administrative exception is a separate permit that was reviewed administratively by the Hearing Officer and addressed in a separate decision letter. The Planning Hearing Officer's decision to deny the administrative exception application was based on her inability to make all three required findings in favor of the application. The Planning Hearing Officer determined that granting the exception would be contrary to the objectives of the applicable regulations because the number of parking spaces is already nonconforming and the proposal exacerbates that nonconformity. Moreover, the applicant's easement with the neighboring property owner can be cancelled at any time. According to the Hearing Officer, the application was denied based on the following:

1. Although the project is minor and the fully developed site presents space restrictions that would preclude adding three parking spaces, there are existing parking spaces on the project site that are not spaces which can be counted on staying in a permanent usable configuration and affect the required parking. The property is already short required parking spaces based on current parking standards and granting an Administrative Exception for three parking spaces would only continue to contribute to inadequate parking for the site.

2. The 438 square-foot change of use from an office to a full-service restaurant expansion appears minor, while one could argue that not providing the three additional parking spaces would appear not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or neighborhood. However, the Planning Hearing Officer determined that an adequate number of parking spaces and driveway access are not provided. Furthermore, the temporary nature of the reciprocal access agreement will not permanently resolve access to these parking spaces and as a result, there is not adequate parking available on the project site. Therefore, the temporary access and parking arrangement would conflict with improvements of both this property, as well as surrounding property.

3. The purpose of the administrative exception procedure is to provide a simplified means for considering applications for minor deviations from the code standards. However, the Planning Hearing Officer felt that granting of the exception would be contrary to the objectives of the applicable regulations, given that the proposal does not provide a permanent solution to parking and access to meet Code requirements. The number of parking spaces is already nonconforming. Moreover, 11 of the 26 onsite parking spaces are compromised because of the lack of driveway access and

of 18


July 18,2012

backup space; this situation is being addressed by the "temporary" easement. The impacts of three parking spaces considered with this administrative exception application compound the nonconformity of the property based on the shortfall of existing parking spaces. Therefore, granting an exception would contradict the intent of the Zoning Code that promotes adequate off-street parking.

Summary of the Appellant's Discussion As indicated in the appeal applications (Exhibit 6), the appellant contends that the denial of both the CUP and the Administrative Exception was the result of Planning Hearing Officer's opinion of the temporary nature of the easement, given that it could be overturned at any time by the possible sale of either property. To address this, the appellant has contacted the adjacent property owners and all property owners now agree to enter into a definitive five year easement that would prevent any redevelopment of the properties (and subsequent elimination of the easement) for a period of five years (Exhibit 7). Given this new agreement and proposed five year easement, the appellant requests that the denials be overturned.

Staff Analysis of Appeal The appellant/applicant is appealing the denial of the CUP to permit the sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the proposed restaurant, as well as the denial of the Administrative Exception to allow for a 438 sq.ft. expansion of the restaurant into the adjacent office space without providing the three additionally required parking spaces.

Staff originally recommended approval and drafted findings in support of the CUP. The restaurant was first constructed in 1953 and the original restaurant received its. first CUP for alcohol sales in 1966 (3902-CU). A restaurant use with alcohol sales, service and consumption has been in operation for almost forty-five years at this location until 2010 following the revocation of permits. There are 26 spaces currently located on the site to serve the three different uses on the property (two offices, a restaurant and a beauty shop); the property is considered legal, non-conforming as it relates to the minimum number of parking spaces. Prior to the last establishment ("Montrose Collection") and its unpermitted operation as a banquet hall, the restaurant did not appear to have any negative parking impacts. Furthermore, the intent of parking standards in the zoning code is to ensure that convenient parking is available for customers and that overflow parking will not unduly impact nearby areas. Section 30.32.030.F. requires that the review authority consider not whether Code requirements for parking spaces are met, but whether adequate parking is provided. With the recorded easement and long-term history of the project site, staff felt that the CUP could be approved.

The appellant/applicant intends to address the Planning Hearing Officer's concerns regarding the temporary nature of the easement (that it could be terminated at any time by a decision of either party to sell, redevelop, or build any new structure) by proposing a binding easement for a definitive five year period. The adjacent property owners, who signed the previous temporary easement, have submitted a letter in writing that they are willing to enter into the "terminable" five year easement (Exhibit 7). This "terminable" easement would ensure that the parking and access would be in place for at least five years. It would also allow for the continued operation of the restaurant as it has been for the last fifty years within the existing shopping center with its 26 on-site parking spaces. The language of this proposed easement would also be reviewed by the City Attorney and "approved to form", unlike the previous easement, and will not be revocable without the City's consent. With the fixed five year easement in place, the Planning Commission could consider supporting the appellant/applicant's request to approve the CUP

of 18


July 18, 2012

(with conditions) for the proposed sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with the restaurant use for a five year period.

Similar to the CUP appeal, the appeal of the administrative exception also points to the five year terminable easement as a justification for approving the project. On one hand, the specific timeframe of the proposed easement addresses the Hearing Officer's concern regarding the disposable, temporary quality of the original, recorded easement; on the other hand, the permanent on-site parking issue is still present.

The existing shopping center has been legal nonconforming in terms of the number of parking spaces in its current state since 1966. This proposal focuses on a 438 square-foot change of use from an existing office to a full-service restaurant for handicap accessible restrooms without providing the additional three required parking spaces for the restaurant expansion. The administrative exception process was created to provide a simplified means to allow for deviations from code standards, including deficits up to three parking spaces for a change of use, as in this case. As noted earlier, no additional seating area for the restaurant is proposed. According to plans submitted prior to the 2005 expansion for Montrose Collection, the restrooms for the use were approximately 170 square feet in area; the new ADAcompliant restrooms are proposed at 430 square feet. Therefore, the increase in kitchen, storage and bar service area is only 170 square feet. The remaining 260 square feet of the expansion goes towards enlarging the restrooms, which is unlikely in and of itself to generate significant new parking demands.

Aside from the recent unauthorized use of the subject tenant space as a banquet hall, former operating restaurants in this commercial center did not appear to have parking related issues. For these reasons, an administrative exception application for a change of use in order to provide handicap accessible restrooms could be justified. However, staff also sees the merit in the argument made by the Planning Hearing Officer that approval of the administrative exception would compound the nonconformity of the parking situation.

If so inclined, the Planning Commission could approve the CUP for the sale, service and consumption of alcohol sales for the restaurant, and require that the handicap accessible restrooms be relocated into the original/previous restaurant floor plan, thereby eliminating the need for an administrative exception.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission overturn the Planning Hearing Officer's denial of Conditional Use Permit Case No. PCUP 2011-031, based on the above analysis. Staff also suggests that the Planning Commission consider overturning the denial of Administrative Exception Case No. PAE 2011-023, as analyzed above. Approval of the CUP and the administrative exception would be contingent on the recordation and applicability of the proposed terminable (five year) reciprocal easement. Motions for approval are attached. If the Commission is inclined to uphold the prior decision and deny the applications, draft motions are also attached that refer to the findings listed in the original Planning Hearing Officer's decision letters.

of 18

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1 - Location Map Exhibit 2- Reduced Plans


July 18,2012

Exhibit 3- Photographs of 2833 Honolulu Avenue Exhibit 4- Planning Hearing Officer CUP Staff Report Exhibit 5- Planning Hearing Officer's Decision Letters of May 31, 2012 Exhibit 6- Notices of Appeal to the Planning Commission Exhibit 7- Letter from Adjacent Property Owners Regarding Easement Proposal Exhibit 8- Previous floor plan for Brie Restaurant (pre-2005 expansion for Montrose

Collection}, showing previous bathroom location

of 18


July 18, 2012

MOTION To overturn the Planning Hearing Officer's Denial of PCUP 2011-31

Moved by Commission Member , seconded by Commission Member ---:---:-::-' that upon review and consideration of all materials and exhibits of current record relative to Conditional Use Permit Case No. PCUP 2011-031, located at 2833 Honolulu Avenue, and after having conducted an appeal hearing on said matter, that the Planning Commission hereby overturns the Planning Hearing Officer's decision and approves said Conditional Use Permit Case No. PCUP 2011-031 in accord with the findings and conditions set forth below:


The proposed restaurant with ancillary alcohol beverage sale, service and consumption is consistent with the General Plan. The site is located in the General Plan's Neighborhood Commercial Land Use area, and is zoned "C1"- Neighborhood Commercial. Service and consumption of alcoholic beverages at a full-service restaurant is consistent with the intent of this land use designation and zoning district. The C1 zone is intended as a zone for small shopping centers, professional buildings, service centers and other commercial activities providing convenience goods and services to the surrounding residential neighborhood in conformance with the intentions of the Neighborhood Commercial Land Use designation; the proposed restaurant with alcoholic beverage service meets is consistent with such intentions. The Noise Element discusses land use conflicts related to noise. Conditions of approval will mitigate noise and nuisance concerns to be consistent with the Noise Element. The project site is not identified as parkland by the Recreation Element. The development features no housing component that would be addressed by the Housing Element, and th.e restaurant has been constructed and will be expanded per all applicable Building & Fire Code standards that address any seismic, geological, and fire hazards identified in the Safety Element. Therefore, the project and its associated uses area are consistent with the elements and objectives of the City's General Plan.


The proposed restaurant with alcohol beverage sales, service and consumption is not anticipated to be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment. According to the Police Department, the property is located in a census tract where the recommended limit is for seven on-sale establishments. Currently there are 29 on-sale ABC licenses in this tract. The previous ABC license was one of the 29 licenses. Based on Part 1 crime statistics for this census tract in 2010, there were 112 crimes, 44% above the city wide average of 78. While there is a high crime rate in this area, according to the Police Department, most crimes are related to theft in local retail stores in the area. The Police Department has recommended specific conditions that have been included in this approval. A full-service restaurant with alcohol sales, as conditioned, is not anticipated to increase the need for police activity.

of 18


July 18, 2012

No public facilities are located in the immediate area. The closest public facilities are Crescenta Valley Park (1.5 miles away), Montrose Community Park, (1.3 miles away), Montrose-Crescenta Library (0.6 miles), Fire Station No. 29 (0.6 miles away), Sparr Heights Senior Center (1.0 miles away), and John C. Fremont Elementary School (1.1 miles away). In addition, there is a preschool located across the street to the west and the Closest churches are 0.6 miles. As previously stated, a restaurant with alcohol sales, service has been in existence at the subject location since the mid-1960s. The proposal to permit the on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with food service at the proposed new restaurant will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment, as conditioned.

C. That the use and facilities will no adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal development of surrounding property.

The use and facilities will not adversely affect or impede the normal development of surrounding property. A restaurant serving alcohol has been in operation at this location since the mid-1960s; the restaurant is located within a small shopping center located on Honolulu Avenue in an area featuring a number of smaller scale shopping centers, neighborhood commercial uses and larger multi-family developments. Specific conditions have been included in this approval to address any issues regarding noise, loitering, and lighting that would result in possibly negative impacts to the surrounding businesses and neighborhood. Therefore, it is not expected that the operation of a new full-service restaurant with ancillary on-site sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood.

D. That adequate public and private facilities, such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are not provided for the proposed use.

Adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, traffic circulation and parking are provided for the proposed use. The restaurant was first constructed in 1953 and has operated with alcohol sales for almost fifty years (with the exception of the last few years when the restaurant was closed). All utilities are in place and the shopping center in which the restaurant is located has 26 on-site parking spaces (legal nonconforming in regards to the number of spaces). The site on which the restaurant is proposed is considered legal, non-conforming as it relates to the minimum number of parking spaces.

The intent of parking standards in the zoning code is to ensure that convenient parking is available for customers and that overflow parking will not unduly impact nearby areas. Section 30.32.030.F. requires that the review authority consider not whether Code requirements for parking spaces are met, but whether adequate parking is provided. As noted above, while the proposed 438 expansion will result in a three space parking deficiency, the proposal for the additional bathrooms is not expected to significantly impact the existing on-site parking situation. Further, the existing on-site parking spaces have been serving the shopping center for over fifty years and until the prior restaurant/banquet establishment, the parking appeared adequate for the center's parking demand. As proposed, the new restaurant use provides adequate parking facilities to satisfy the parking needs of the proposed use.

Page11of18


July 18, 2012

E. That all the criteria set forth in Section 30.32.030 (F) to be considered in making the findings in subsection A. through D. above have been met and thoroughly considered.

1. That such use does not or will not tend to intensify or otherwise contribute to the adverse impacts on the surrounding area caused by over concentration as described above in finding B.

2. That such use does not or will not tend to encourage or intensify crime within the district as described above in finding B.

3. That such use does not or will not adversely impact any other uses within the surrounding area (church, public or private schools or college, day car facility, public park, library, hospital or residential use) as described above in findings B and C.

4. That the proposed use does satisfy its transportation or parking needs as described above in finding D.

5. That the proposed use does or will serve a public necessity or public convenience purpose for the area as evidenced by the operation of this restaurant with alcoholic beverage on sale, consumption and service as described above in finding A.

Conditions:

1. That the development shall be in substantial accord with the plans submitted with the application and presented at the hearing except for any modifications as may be required to meet specific Code standards or other conditions stipulated herein to the satisfaction of the Planning Hearing Officer.

2. That all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Division and all construction shall be in compliance with the Glendale Building Code and all other applicable regulations.

3. That all necessary licenses as required from Federal, State, County or City authorities including the City Clerk shall be obtained and kept current at all times

4. That the service of alcoholic beverages shall be in full accord with the regulations and conditions established by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The appropriate ABC license (Type 47) allowing distilled spirits at an eating place must be obtained and maintained in good standing at all times.

5. That sale of alcoholic beverages at the restaurant shall be incidental to the selling of food to be consumed on the premises. The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises is strictly prohibited.

of 18


July 18, 2012

6. That no patron be allowed to bring into the restaurant any alcoholic beverage unless the alcoholic beverage was purchased within the restaurant, unless the facility has an established corkage policy allowing and regulating such.

7. That the sales, service or consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. daily.

8. Those premises may not be utilized for banquets, private parties, or other private events, unless the private function occupies less than 30 percent of the square footage of the serving area. The facilities shall not be rented, leased or otherwise occupied for purposes not specified in this application. The restaurant shall remain open to the public during business hours.

9. That no outdoor dining or seating will be allowed.

10. That all music, lighting, noise and odors shall be confined to the occupancy so as not to disturb occupants of other businesses or properties and patrons on the public rightof-way.

11. That sufficient measures shall be enforced by the property owner and business operator to effectively eliminate interior and exterior loitering, parking congestion, disturbing noise, disturbing light, loud conversation and criminal activities.

12. That the proprietor and his/her employees shall make an active and conscientious effort to keep customers and employees from trespassing on other nearby properties or otherwise making disturbances in the area. The business establishment will be responsible to prevent the loitering of patrons in the areas where patrons park.

13. That noise shall be contained to the interior of the premises, such that persons of normal sensitivity off-site are not disturbed. No speaker systems shall be installed outside or in the parking area and no music shall allowed in the outdoor areas. The Planning Hearing Officer's opinion shall prevail to arbitrate any conflicts.

14. That any proposed exterior lighting shall be directed on the driveways, walkways, and parking areas within the development and away from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Planning Hearing Officer.

15. That the parking area shall be kept adequately illuminated for security purposes during all hours of darkness. Lighting fixtures shall be installed and maintained in the parking area in those areas where street lights do not effectively illuminate the premises.

16. That the premises shall be maintained in a clean and orderly condition, free of weeds, trash and graffiti.

17. That the proposed full-service restaurant adhere to the City's Fresh Air (smoking) Ordinance, Title 15, Chapter 8.52 of the Glendale Municipal Code.

18. That adequate means shall be provided for the collection of solid waste generated at the site and that all recyclable items shall be collected and properly disposed of to the

of 18


July 18, 2012

satisfaction of the Integrated Waste Administrator of the City of Glendale. No trash containers shall be stored in any parking, driveway, or landscaping area.

19. That all signs displayed shall conform to the requirements of the Glendale Municipal Code.

20. That no exterior signs advertising the sales/service of alcoholic beverages be permitted .

. 21. That access to the premises shall be made available upon request to all City of Glendale authorized staff (i.e. Planning Division, Neighborhood Services Division, Building and Safety Division Fire Department, Police Department, etc.) for the purpose of verifying compliance with all laws and the conditions of this approval.

22. That evidence of a State-approved license issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) shall be presented to the Permit Services Center upon application for a Zoning Use Certificate (ZUC).

23. That the remaining 794 square feet of the 1,210 square-foot expansion approved in 2005 will be converted back to an office tenant space and that all necessary permits (tenant improvement permit, ZUC, etc) shall be obtained for this space.

24. That any expansion or modification of the facility or use which intensifies the existing Conditional Use Permit shall require a new Conditional Use Permit application. Expansion shall constitute adding floor area, increased hours of operation, changes to the use or operation, or any physical change as determined by the Planning Hearing Officer and concurrence with the Director of Community Development.

25. That the authorization granted herein shall be valid for a period of five years, following the recordation of the terminable reciprocal access easement related to the common driveway and back-up spaces. The proposed easement shall be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved to form; the easement cannot be removed without the City's consent. If reapplication is submitted for a CUP renewal, the applicant and/or property owner shall provide proof that a new terminable reciprocal access easement is applicable and recorded.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:

of 18


July 18, 2012

MOTION To sustain the Planning Hearing Officers denial of PCUP 2011-031

Moved by Commission Member , seconded by Commission Member --,----.,.....-,-' that upon review and consideration of all materials and exhibits of current record relative to Conditional Use Permit Case No. PCUP 2011-031, located at 2833 Honolulu Avenue, and after having conducted an appeal hearing on said niatter, that the Planning Commission hereby sustains the Planning Hearing Officer's decision arid denies said Conditional Use Permit Case No. PCUP 2011-031, in accord with the findings set forth in the decision letter of May 31, 2012.

Adopted this 181h day of July, 2012.

This motion shall take effect and be in force upon the tenth (1 01h) day after its passage.

Vote as follows: Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:

of 18


July 18,2012

MOTION To overturn the Planning Hearing Officer's Denial of PAE 2011-023

Moved by Commission Member , seconded by Commission Member --...,---,--.,---' that upon review and consideration of all materials and exhibits of current record relative to Administrative Exception Case No. PAE 2011-023, located at 2833 Honolulu Avenue, and after having conducted an appeal hearing on said matter, that the Planning Commission hereby overturns the Planning Hearing Officer's decision and approves said Administrative Exception Case No. PAE 2011-023 in accord with the findings and conditions set forth below:

A. The granting of the exception will result in design improvements, or there are space restrictions on the site that preclude full compliance with the Code requirements without hardship.

There are space restrictions on the site that would preclude compliance with the parking requirement for the addition of three parking spaces. The site is presently developed with an approximately 8,300 square-foot, multi-tenant commercial building with on-site parking. The uses on the site include an office, the subject restaurant and a beauty salon. The parking lot contains 26 parking spaces. An access easement for the parking spaces oriented perpendicular to the street and alley has been signed by both property owners to be recorded with the County.

There are space restrictions on the site that would preclude compliance with the addition of three addition parking spaces. Converting 438 square feet of existing office space to provide for larger bathrooms for the restaurant use is considered an expansion of the full-service restaurant and thereby requires three additional parking spaces. The previous restrooms (pre-2005) were approximately 170 square feet and were not compliant with current handicap accessible regulations. Efforts to meet the minimum parking requirements for the change of use frorn an office to a full-service restaurant for the ADA-compliant restrooms would compromise the existing vehicular circulation and parking design. Moreover, it would exacerbate the existing nonconforming conditions that currently exist in the parking area. There is not enough space in the parking area to add the required three parking spaces, nor would any changes to the layout and the existing circulation pattern result in an increase in the number of parking spaces. Therefore, compliance with the parking requirements for the change of use as required by the Zoning Code would require impractical changes to the existing parking lot that would unduly restrict the use of the parking lot by the current or future tenant in the building on-site.

B. The granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located.

The 438 square-foot change of use from an office to a full-service restaurant expansion while not providing the three additional parking spaces will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or neighborhood. The 438 square-foot change of use and restaurant expansion consists primarily of bathrooms for restaurant customers and employees. As proposed, the expansion does not encompass additional seating area. First

of 18


July 18, 2012

constructed in 1953, the restaurant use has been in existence in the subject multitenant commercial center for several decades. The proposal will continue to provide parking for the existing tenants in the commercial center, as well as parking for restaurant patrons.

C. The granting of the exception will not be contrary to the objectives of the applicable regulations.

The purpose of the administrative exception procedure is to provide a simplified means for considering applications for minor deviations from the code standards, such as the 438 square-foot change of use from an office to a full-service restaurant without providing the additional three required parking spaces for the restaurant expansion. The expansion is for the provision of handicap-accessible, code-compliant restrooms. No additional seating area for the restaurant is proposed. The existing parking lot has been in its present state for many years. Aside from the recent unauthorized use of the subject tenant space as a banquet hall, former operating restaurants in this commercial center did not appear to have parking related issues.

of18


July 18,2012.

MOTION To sustain the Planning Hearing Officers denial of PAE 2011-023

Moved by Commission Member , seconded by Commission Member --,..---:--:-:-' that upon review and consideration of all materials and exhibits of current record relative to Administrative Exception Case No. PAE 2011-023, located at 2833 Honolulu Avenue, and after having conducted an appeal hearing on said matter, that the Planning Commission hereby sustains the Planning Hearing Olficer's decision and denies said Administrative Exception Case No. PAE 2011-031, in accord with the findings set forth in the decision letter of May 31, 2012.

Adopted this 181h day of July, 2012.

This motion shall take effect and be in force upon the tenth (101h) day after its passage.

Vote as follows: Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:

of 18

l Legend

-----:- _Streets_

Labels_561 0016039_500FT

8uffer_561 00 16039 _500FT

0 125 250 500 Feet L..L___j______L_j _ I I I I

500 • FOOT RADIUS MAP FROM AIN # 5610·016-039

··· i<'ri A.S.$l1$SPEU.L rE'i,ic~~~~lt-.N

tz.:l X ··:x: H 0:1 H 1-3

......

Los Angeles County Office ofthe Assessor 500 W Temple Street, Room 291

Los Angeles, CA90012

F

E

D

c

8

A

8 7

I

~ TENANT AREA t

1m (N) SEPARATE SUITE .

ACCESSABLE ~- PATH OF TRAVEL

L NOTE: INSTAllATION OF ANY PERMANANT SIGNS WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE SIGN PERMIT. PORTABLE SIGNS, BANNERS, BALLOONS, ANS FLAGS ARE PROHIBITED BY THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE.

,..__j

6

(N) SUITE 794 Sq. Ft.

OUTDOOR STORAGE

OFFICES 2,324 Sq. Ft.

HONOLULU AVE.

5 4

(E) 5,342 SF REDUCED TO

4,564S.F

BEAUTY SALON

638 Sq. Ft.

21'-S"

3

CD SITEPLAN Scale: 3/32"=1'0"

2

"MONTROSE CHANDELIER" 2833 HONOLULU AVE., VERDUGO CITY, CA

SITE INFO:

LEGALDESC. TR. #5067 LOTS 12,13,14,15, 16,17 AND SE 5 FTOF LOT 18

APN. 5610..()16-039

SITEAREA: 19,375S.F.

ZONE: C1

BUILDING INFO:

OCCUPANCY: A 2.1

TYPE OF coNsTRUCTION: V 1 HR.

NO. OF STORIES: 1 STORY

TOTAL BUILDING AREA: 8,304 S.F,

TENANT AREA: 5,342 S.F.

SCOPE OF WORK:

1.{N) DIM ISING WALL TO SEPARATE 794 S.F INTO SEPERATE SUITE.

2.{N) SINGLE OCCUPANCY UNISEX ADA RESTROOM FOR NEW SUITE.

3.(N) EGRESS DOOR FOR RESTAURANT.

3.(N) BUILTIN SEATING BOOTHS AND WAITER STATION.

PARKING:

SURFACE 26 (INCLUDING 2 HANDICAPPED)

AREA TABULATION

EXISTING PROPOSED_

LOUNGE 900 S.F

DINING ROOM 3,181 S.F. 1,486 S.F.

ENTRY 368 S.F. 366 S.F.

OFFICE 223 S.F, 223 S.F.

KITCHEN/BAR 1,14BS.F. 1,148 S.F.

RESTROOMS/HALL 438 S.F. 438 S.F.

RESTAURANT TOTAL 5,358 S.F 4,564 S.F

NEW SUITE 794 S.F.

TREE NOTE:

NO OAK, SYCAMORE OR BAY TREES WITHIN 25' OF THE PROPERTY OR ON THE PROJECT SITE.

'EXHIBIT

PREPARED BY

ARMEN !<AZANCHYAN 7259 NORTH ATOLL AVE NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91505 TEl: (816) 395·26B6 FAX: (618) 827--47RB S!men.arcl>@gman.com

KAZANCHYAN DESIGN COPYRIGHT: ,OUD<'81GN lll"""AREANI>SIW.I.Ralo\EN'I!l~ fll.o;'Eff!Y OF PZA>!CHV.o.IIOEsltm,AAJ.\Eil PZA>!O!f'f~~. /10 PAI{Tll!BIECFS!W.I.8E eol'l<D, f>a01-0SS>1tl OTI<EIIS OR USED I~ CONNEO'I!OHWfllll\mWOfiK CRPROJECIIT OrHERliWl'l!lESP!OCIAS> MOJrnTfQR WH!CH THEY WIVE ftSal PREPA!IEO""" O~?EI>YIITI«<UT'I!lEWIU'IENCOIISE!<TOF I<A2.o.I/CiiYA~OEsl<rN,AAUEII~ ..... \llSUAl COfi!A,CTYIITHTHEsEDAA\\11~ SfW.I.C<>NtmniTECONCUJ•II'EEII>OEm:EOF I<CCH'TAACEOF'IIl"$ER5imll<:flCNS. ;~.J

w 1-(f)

I OWNER

~ •

PROJECTlTTl.E

Tl 2833 HONOLULU GLENDALE, CA

PROJECT NO: :zg1g~OS

CADOWGFILE: M.OSOE-JMG

DRAWN BY: " CHK'DBY: " SCALE: 3!.1:l"~ 1'..0'

OATE: 1WI:z/2011

SHEETTlltE

SITE PLAN SHEET NUMBER

A1.0 oe

2.

F

E

D

B

A

8 7

~'-6112"

6

I

I

ENLARGED RESTROOM PLAN

OCCUPANT LOAD CALCULATION

SPACE FlOOR AREA AREA/DCC. OCCUPANTS

LOUNGE 900 S.F SEENOTE2 39

DINING AREA 1,487 S.F. SEENOTE2 80

ENTRY 368 S.F. SEENOTE2

OFFICE 223 S.F 100/PER S.F 3

KITCHENIBAR 1,148 S.F 200!PER S.F 6

RESTROOMS/HALL 438 S.F. D

TOTAL 4,51i4S,F 137

NOTE:

1. BATHROOMS AND HALLWAYS WERE NOT TAKEN INTO OCCUPANCY LOAD CALCULATION

2. OCCUPANT LOAD CALCUlATED BASED ON NUMBER OF SEATS PROVIDED,

Scale: 1/2'=1'0'

MANAGEMENT COMPANY

OFFICE 2,324 Sq. Ft.

WALL LEGEND ----1

{E) II' c.M.U EXTERIOR WALL

(E) a· DEMISING WALL

(E) FRAMED WAtt

~<7-S (N) FRAMED DEMISING WALL

lw..<W////##4W/N.I (N) FRAMED WAtl

5

ililJllill: 794 sa. FT.

! I

I

i

I !,

r-"11 !

4 3

(N)BOOTH 6

B[J BENCH

'il

D

~ I I I I

)"'

3t~'J

ILJ

-!---o

2

1r 1ll F 2

1-

o0d I:=-F=

0 0

T "'"'"" ENTRY ""'"" 368 E.f,

""" '"'

OFFICE 2.23 s.l.

BEAUTY SALON

636 Sq. Ft.

-~ ._,

G) FLOOR PLAN

I

~

'

Sca!e: 3!16"<=1'0"

PAE!'AREOBY

ARMENKAZANCINAN 7259 NORTH ATOLL AVE NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CAS1605 TEL: (816)395-2686 FAX: {818)827-4796 armen..,[email protected]

KAZANCHYAN DESIGN COPYRIGHT: AU..DE!l!GN 10£AS MEANOSHAil.REI.WW!>!E PROPS!lYOF~,QICE!l"'f<Allr.I<N !<AZAACIIYAII. /IOPMTTJI<IIEOFSIW-LI!S COPI&l, 0<5CI.OSEDTO O'rnERS OR USEOIN COioiNECI10NW!T!I/IJffWORK OR PRoJ5CAf O'rn£1! TIWl'ffiESPEQFIED PROJIOI:TR>Il Wli'CH l!l.VItii\IE BeEN PREPAru;D AND !>IM.Of'ED \\mlo!lflliE 1\WfEHco~omrm= I<.OZAm:I<Y~N!llisJ~N.~RU.III<o'.ZANGH'(J.II. VlOUAlCOI<fi.ClWflllTHES~nAAWI/155 SIWJ.C<lNOlllUTEctlNCUISIVEE;VIOEIICEOF ACC:fi'TAN<:EIIl''ffi"'E~!Cl10/IS. - • ...:)

z ~ a. 0:::: 0 0 _J LL

r·

~:-·_

-r-. __

N co

I OWNER

I A2.0

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------~ ~ SHffT

B 7 6

F

E

D

c

8

A

5

D i,;KYL~~HT r!JAICUNIT

~AICUNIT

LJ SLOPED ROOF I PARAPET WALL

NOTE: ALL ROOF TOP MOUNTED EQUIPMENT. TO REMAIN AS IS, NO CHANGE.

NOTE: ROOF TOP MOUNTED EQUIPMENT NOT VISABLE FROM STREET. TOP OF THE SLOPED ROOF I PARAPET WALL IS HIGHER THAN TOP OF ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT.

4

WATER HEATER

LOW PARAPET WALL

r!JA/CUNIT

0 MAKEUP

r AIR UNIT

3

(''"'\ D D

~AJCUNIT

[!JEJ

LOW PARAPET WALL

~AICUNIT

2

(D,_!R.o:O=Oc.F...:Pc.LA=,_,N __ --;5::-~::-,,cc,;;;":;:._:;,.;;;,.

j 2 "

PREI'AREO:BY

ARMEN IU.ZANCHYAN 721i9 NORTH ATOlL AVE NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA91605 TEL: (816} 39S.2696 FAX: {618)827-4798 arm~n.arch@gma~.com

KAZANCHYAN DESIGN COPYRIGHT: NJ.O<SIG~I!>EASAREAND SfW.l.REI.WNTJ<e PROPERTYIII'I<<llo!•<:tfYI<Il Deli~N.AAMa.l K.OZO.N<:!<I'/<N, m>PAATlHO!IErol'SHAIJ.~~ COPieD, Oa<l~SO!lTO Oli!Efli OR Um>IH COO/NECTIOI<Wfrn IMYWORK OO.PROJE<:A,T OTJIE!lllWi '!llEWe::IF!Ell PROJEUTftlR W .. CillHO'f""VEUfEN PREI'""En""" Crn.of'EO\vrt>lOllrlllE W!IITE!l CONIEIITOF KAZAN<llf\'A~~SSffi!I.AAI.!al KAZAI;CilYAII. VISU'J. CUUfACTW!ll!n!ESE O!IA.IWIGs SfWl.CON...9ll\11EC<lNCWSMO!M00NceOF A<:Ca'TA»CEOf'lHESE R£li1'1'UC110NO.

r

!ii OWNER

i 1 :3" MONTROSE CHANDELEIR

2833 HONOLULU GLENDA~, CA

PROJECT TITLE

Tl 2833 HONOlULU GLENDALE, CA

PROJECT NO;· Z010005

CADDWGFllE: ~-~

DIIAWNBY: " CHK'OBY; " SC"'-E: 3132"~1'-0"

OAre 10/12.'.1011

SHEET TITLE

SITE PLAN SHEET NllMBER

A3.0

F

E

D

c

8

A

8

6'-ll 1/2'

I \

7

flUSH VAl 'It 00 t-~O~tlrjj 1'-

MOUillEO f.c. L \ I 3TMIN. _ 18"

I ~~II L~--"1/

I '- /

7'-17118'

6 5 4 3

·-

ENLARGED RESTROOM PLAN

OCCUPANT LOAD CALCULATION SPACE FLOOR AREA AREA/DCC. OCCUPANTS

lOUNGE SOOS.F SEENOTE2 39

DINING AREA 1,487 S.F. SEENOTE2 80

ENTRY 366 S.F. SEENOTE2

OFFICE 223 S.F 100/PERS.F 3

KITCHEN/BAR 1,148 S.F 200/PERS.F 6

RESTRODMSIHALl 438 S.F. 0

TOTAL 4,564S.F 137

NOTE:

1. BATHROOMS AND HALLWAYS WERE NOT TAKEN INTO OCCUPANCY LOAD CALCULATION

2. OCCUPANT LOAD CALCULATED BASED ON NUMBER OF SEATS PROVIDED.

Scale: 112'"'1'0"

58' ~10'

MANAGEMENT COMPANY

OFFICE 2,324 Sq. Ft.

(N) UNIT 794 SQ. FT.

,,

"" I U : • ~ ii;~~'"

-1'"'""" 6

:1 '"'""'" 6

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~,~~~;~~~~\--~---~ II

1

'il

~I "\I

_, 0

WALLLEGEN D

(E) 8' C.M ,U EXTERIOR WALl

--- (E)B"OE M!SINGWAI.L

(E)FRAM EDWALL

l:q;,.,~;RikiWib§l (N) li!l" H IGH PARTITION 87 -= (N)FRAM EO DEMISING WALL

I' w"" = 1 {N)FRAM EO WALl I I I I

2

r------21''-5""-------~

' 1-

o[Jo

I= 0 0 I

?ti~:l'J T ' ENTRY -ro""''"

3GB x.f,

' "'"'" ""

IU OFFJCE 2Z3 s.f.

BEAUTY SALON

635 Sq. Ft.

- !-- - '-_,

0 FLOORPLAN Sr:a!e: 3116"=1'0"

PRE!'ARI:DIIY

ARMEN KAZANCI-NAN 7259 NOR11l ATOLL AVE NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91605 TEl.: (818) 39~-2686 FAX: (818) 827-4798 arm~n.arch@~maReom

r "

e,_

c

z <(: _J o:c· 0::: 0 0 -I lL

I OWNER

f A2.0

L.----------------------------------~------------------------------------------~------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------_J ~ SHSIT

.:.._':)

= "''-· c_;

""" J'.) co

['.}

Ul

8 7 6

F

E

D

c

8

A

5

l!]NCUNIT

~AICUNIT

LJ SLOPED ROOF I PARAPET WALL

NOTE: ALL ROOF TOP MOUNTED EQUIPMENT TO REMAIN AS IS, NO CHANGE.

NOTE: ROOF TOP MOUNTED EQUIPMENT NOT VISABLE FROM STREET. TOP OF THE SLOPED ROOF I PARAPET WALL IS HIGHER THAN TOP OF ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT.

4

lliNCUNIT

3

~AICUNIT

~l!J

LOW PARAPET WALL

SLOPED ROOF I PARAPET WALL

i!JNGUNIT

2

CD)---"R;O"O"'F'--"-P;lA~N,_ __ 5_~~,-,c-,cc,,,-,,=.,.

• " i f

•

PREPARED BY

ARMEN ICAZANCHYAN 72.59 NORTH ATOLL AVE NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CA 91605 TEL: (818) 39&-2566 FAX: (616) 627-4798 [email protected]

KAZANCHYAN DESIGN COPYRIGHT;

IIU.<>E51GN!OI'AS"""Al<OSH.*.U.RE!.WNTI!E PROI'a<!Y OF i<RI>IICHYANOESKlii.AAMEil K.IZANO!ffMI. IIOPAAfllfER50FSHAU,_O~ ~E!!,OESC\.OSEt>TO OT!iER5 ORU5EiliN ctmN""llONI'IITHAirfWORK Oft FROJEr..\T OT!l"'l TIWIT><E5P5C<FIED PROJa:Tf~ \'IH!C~'ffieYHAVEOEI'I< PR"F'AAEDII!lO OIM.OPCDWilHourrn~WOI'Tal coo••m-c~ I<AZ4N<:fl'l'l.ll CESIGN,ARMei l<llJ.IlC!IVAN, VISW.I.COflrACT~TilESEDAA\\!~

:,_~~~~=.,~~_;::oF

.,.. ~-~

t5 -< 1''0

c ())

t. ''1;)

""" :::<;:;

0. f>? .;;:z Ul ~<(

_J

0.. lL 0 0 0:::

l<i OWNER

j I ] MONTROSE CHANDELEIR

2833 HONOLULU !? GlENDALE, CA

i l ~ " I • ! ~ ~ i

PROJECTTITI.E


PROJECT NO: 20100{15

CADDWGfll.E: -=·-·WWO\'G OAAWN8Y: AA

CHK'DBY: "" SCALE: 3132"~1'.(1"

I ~S;.:IT.::E;.:P.::LA:.::..:N ___ _ u SHEET NUMBER

o.re 1011212011

'""'""'

J A3.0 rf SHEET

8 7 6 5 4

F ROOF

E

D

c

8

A f-------- MONTROSE CHANDELIER --------+----------EXISTING SUITE ------------1

3 2

NOTE:

f:\ SOUTH ELEVATION 0-'==-"-'-'==s~o~,~,.~, 1~14~'"=,~·o0•

NO CHANGES TO THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING.

l ~

" g

PREPARED BY

ARMEN KAZANCHYAN 7259 NORTHATDlLAVE NORTH HOLLWIOOD, CA91S05 TEL; (816)~95-26B6 FAX: (8111)827-4798 arm~natcll.@gm•n&:Om

KAZANCHYAN DESIGN COPYfiiGHr: AU.OESIGNI-.,AAE,oJI!) B!W.LI\awNTiiE PROPSRTYOFKAZAN<:HY/.11 D6SlGil,AIIM5N MV.IICH'I/.!1. 100 PN!l"THEflEOFOHAI.I.!E COPI5c, PEs<:lOSEDTO OTHEllO OR USED IJl CONNECl>D!<wmiANYWO!IK OR PROJEC>.T arnBI TlWI Tlf£SP£C1FIEil PROJECT FOR WfflC~Til<'fllo\VS aE£1< PREPAREDAII!l OEVlOPEDWITIIOUTlHEI'IIItTEIICONSe;'TOI' KO.ZANO!f(~~ DmGN,AA~ENKAZ<IlCHYilll. VIBUAl. COIIfACTWIJHT>lESEOfi.\Wif!GS GfWJ..<::Om!lT\JTE com:tl!SlVEI'MP511CEOF ~EPTAACEOF1t!!'SE R!'lmllCllO/.IS,

''-' ·= r ,. ~ ::;::: (/) ~~

z < N

0 (]:)

r;: """' ~

~

~ ~

~ U1

w

~ OWNER

1 l 3 MONTROSE CHANDELEIR

2833 HONOLULU

:~:~ GLENDALE, CA

~ PROJECTlffi.E

~

J • J ~


PROJECT NO: 2010005

C.O.ODWGFILE: M.OW>'A""""""'

DRAWN BY: AA

CHK'DBY: " SC.O.l.E: 3132"~1'.0"

DAlE: ID/12/mff

SHEETlm.E ;_;_i

~ ELEVATIONS (j SH60T NUMBER

A4.0

II

Case No. PG~\P 20ii-03i22'5(f>0

~~t ?\tv -@ille:ea~~;;-;J;;;Iv;;;:le:;eti:ing.:-

Date ot('JS1'J-Or-

EXHIBIT 3.

fNTRANCE T:?_ RES TflU f2 A /l} I

Case No. \leu? ;10l\-o3\ 22 SG~.p

P~r~ Received at P1:-rc>

ca6a!iful Meeting

'

\1 r E- u) v .

'

Coogle 2831 honolulu, glendale, ca

CITY OF GLENDALE COMMUNITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT PLANNING HEARING OFFICER STAFF REPORT

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. PCUP 2011-032

MEETING DATE: Apri125, 2012

TO: Planning Hearing Officer

PREPARED BY: Vilia Zemaitaitis, Senior Planner

ADDRESS: 2833 Honolulu Avenue (2831 - 2839 Honolulu Avenue)

BUSINESS NAME: Proposed "Montrose Chandelier Restaurant" (formerly "Montrose Collection")

APPLICANT: Alfred Teichert 2510 Countryside Lane La Crescenta, CA 91214

OWNERS: Alfred E. Teichert and Ramona C. Teichert Trust 2510 Countryside Lane La Crescenta, CA 91214

LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 12-17, and the East 5 Feet of Lot 18, Tract No. 6067

. PROJECT PROPOSAL:

EXHIBIT 4.

A. Applicant Proposes: To permit the sales, service and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages at a new full-service restaurant.

The previous business ("Montrose Collection") was granted .a parking use permit and a conditional use permit for an expansion of a full-service restaurant involving the conversion of an office tenant space and including the sales, service and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages without providing nine additional parking spaces. The previous parking reduction permit and zoning use certificate were later revoked and the business closed. Upon revocation of the previous parking reduction permit, the expansion and originallyapproved entitlements became null/void. The new business operator is proposing a new fullservice restaurant with the sales, service and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, while reducing the total area of the original expansion and applying for an administrative exception for the three-space parking shortfall. The expansion area consists of handicapaccessible restrooms and a hallway.

B. CEQA Status: Exempt

C. Previous Discretionary Permits for the Use: • Conditional Use Permit 7501-CU was granted with conditions on October 27, 1983,

for alcohol sales, service and consumption; • Parking Reduction Permit Case No. PPR 2005-002 was granted with conditions on

August 5, 2005, to allow the expansion of a full-service restaurant into an adjacent office space without providing the required number of parking spaces.

1

PCUP 2011-031 2833 Honolulu Ave.

• . Parking Reduction Permit Case No. PPR 2005-002 was revoked by City Council on March 24, 2009.

• Zoning Use Certificate PZUC-20060234 was revoked by the then Zoning Administrator on March 26, 2009.

• Parking Reduction Permit PPR 2011-003 and Conditional Use Permit Case No. PCUP-2011-017 were denied by the Planning Hearing Officer on September 26, 2011.

D. Related Concurrent Permit Applications: Per GMC 30.44, an Administrative Exception application has been submitted to allow a maximum three (3) space reduction in the number of total parking spaces required in conjunction with a change of a commercial use in an existing commercial center at 2831-2833 Honolulu Avenue. Case No. PAE 2011-023 involves the change of use and 438 square-foot expansion (bathroom addition) to a full-service restaurant without providing the three spaces. The Administrative Exception does not require a: public hearing and will be considered separately.

E. Active/Pending Building Permits: None

G. Recommendation: Approve with conditions.

SITE CONTEXT

GENERAL PLAN: Neighborhood Commercial

ZONE: "C1"- Neighborhood Commercial

DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PROPERTY AND USES: The building is located in a multitenant commercial center on the north side of Honolulu Avenue, addressed as 2831-2839 Honolulu Avenue. The site consists of a rectangular-shaped lot with relatively flat topography. There are several uses on the lot which include the proposed full-service restaurant, general office, and a beauty salon. As indicated on the submitted site plan, there are 26 on-site parking spaces which serve all uses on the site. The parking lot is accessed from Honolulu Avenue . and the alley to the north. There is an existing common driveway on the west which serves the site as well as the abutting commercial retail center. The applicant is finalizing a reciprocal access easement, entered into with the adjacent property owner. This easement specifies that the adjacent driveway and turning aisle can be used for access to the subject property and provides for the required back-up space for the parking spaces perpendicular to the building. The surrounding uses include commercial uses to the east, west and across the street to the south and residential uses across the alley to the north.

The site area is 19,375 square feet. The total area for all uses on the site is 8,304 square feet (including the subject full-service restawrant). The total area of the addition is approximately 438 square feet. The total combined area for the new restaurant will be 4,564 square feet. The original restaurant received a CUP for alcohol sales in 1966 (3902-CU) and a restaurant use with alcohol sales, service and consumption has been in operation since then at that location (with subsequent CUP approvals) until2010 following the revocation of permits.

2

NEIGHBORING ZONES AND USES:

Zoning

North R1-ll and R-1650

South . C1

East C1 West C1 Project Site C1


Existing Uses Single & multi-family residential Senior living residences Commercial Uses Commercial shopping center Commercial center with on-site parking

COMMENTS FROM OTHER CITY DEPARTMENTS: The Police Department did not list any significant concerns for this application, other then recommending the standard conditions of approval regarding alcohol sales and quality of life issues; all calls for service were for the previous Montrose Collection. Traffic Engineering did not register any significant concerns regarding this permit application, given that the existing number of parking spaces will not change. The Neighborhood Services Division indicated that any/all outstanding code enforcement violations should be corrected prior to the approval of any entitlement request and that alcohol service should be allowed in conjunction with full service restaurant activity only.

REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT

Pursuant to Section 30.42.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code, a conditional use permit may be granted qnly if the following findings of fact can be rnade: ·



C. That the use and facilities will not adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal development of surrounding property.

D. That adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are or will be provided for the proposed use.

Further, this request requires that additional findings of fact be made, as follows:

For applications involving the sale, serving or consumption of alcoholic beverages, the following criteria shall be c;onsidered in making the findings in subsection a. through d. above:

1. That where an existing or proposed on-site use is located in a census tract with more than the recommended rnaximum concentration of on-site uses or that where an existing or proposed off-site use is located in a census tract with more than the recommended rnaxirnurn concentration of off-site uses, both as recommended by the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control, such use does not or will not lend to intensify or otherwise contribute to the adverse impacts on the surrounding area c.aused by such over concentration;

2. That where the existing or proposed use is located in a crirne reporting district with a crime rate which exceeds twenty (20) percent of the city average for Part I crimes, as

3


reported by the Glendale Police Department, such use does not or will not tend to encourage or intensify crime within the district;

3. That the existing or proposed use does not or will not adversely fFRpact any church, public or private school or college, day care facility, public park, library, hospital or residential use within the surrounding area;·

4. That adequate parking and loading facilities are or will be provided for the existing or proposed use, or other reasonable alternatives satisfy the transportation and parking needs of the existing or proposed use; and

5. That, notwithstanding consideration of the criteria in subsections 1 through 4 above, the existing or proposed use does or will serve a public necessity or public convenience purpose for the area.

ANALYSIS OF CUP REQUEST

The applicant is requesting a CUP for the sales, service and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages at a new full-service restaurant that was previously occupied by "Montrose Collection". The current proposal also involves a change of use of 438 square feet of adjacent office space to provide new handicap-accessible restrooms for the full-service restaurant.

The previous business ("Montrose Collection") had received approvals to expand the restaurant's floor area into the adjacent 1,210 square-foot space (office use) without providing the nine additional parking spaces (Parking Reduction Permit Case No. PPR 2005-002).

· During its operation, Montrose Collection had several code violations due to noncompliance with the original conditional use permit, parking reduction permit and zoning use certificate. The parking reduction permit and the zoning use certificate were ultimately revoked by the City Council and the then Zoning Administrator, respectively. Upon revocation of the previous parking reduction permit, the expansion and originally-approved entitlements became null and void. The business owner of Montrose Collection permanently ceased operations on or about October 29, 2010.

The current applicant (the property owner), working in conjunction with a new restaurant operator, is proposing to establish a new full-service restaurant offering the on-site sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages. The applicant is also proposing a 772 squarefoot floor area reduction of the expanded restaurant area that was approved in 2005 and later revoked. The expansion will now be 438 square feet and will consist of bathrooms and a small hallway leading to the new restrooms. The proposed total area with the new, reduced expansion will be 4,564 square feet. As proposed, the 438 square-foot expansion would re.sult in a parking shortfall of three spaces, according to Code. The remaining 794 square feet of the 1,210 square-foot expansion approved in 2005 will be converted back to an office tenant space, as set forth in the draft conditions of approval. The site contains 26 parking spaces to be used by all the commercial tenants on the property, including the restaurant.

The applicant/owner intends to operate a full-service restaurant and provide the ancillary service of alcoholic beverages. A full-service restaurant is a permitted use in the C1 zone and the service of alcoholic beverages is conditionally permitted with approval of a conditional use permit. . The restaurant was first constructed in 1953. The original restaurant received a CUP for alcohol sales in 1966 (3902-CU). A restaurant use with alcohol sales, serviceand consumption has been in operation since then at that location until 2010 following the revocation of permits. The proposed on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages ancillary to

4

•


food service will not be detrimental to the safety and public welfare of the neighborhood in general. No public facilities are located in the immediate area. The closest public facilities are Crescenta Valley Park (1.5 miles away), Montrose Community Park, (1.3 miles away), Montrose-Crescenta Library (0.6 miles), Fire Station No. 29 (0.6 miles away), Sparr Heights Senior Center (1.0 miles away), and John C. Fremont Elementary School (1.1 miles away). In addition, there is a preschool located across the street to the west and the closest churches are

· 0.6 miles away. Furthermore, the proposed use and facilities will not impede the normal development of surrounding property. Specific conditions have been proposed to address any issues regarding noise, loitering, lighting, and such, that would result in possibly negative impacts to the surrounding businesses and neighborhood. The full-service restaurant may not be utilized for banquets, private parties, or other private events, unless the private function occupies less than 30 percent of the square footage of the serving area; this Code standard is repeated as a proposed condition of approval, in addition to the requirement that the facilities shall not be rented, leased or otherwise occupied for purposes other than a full-service restaurant. Therefore, the serving of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a full-service restaurant is not anticipated to cause any conflicts with surrounding development.

According to the Police Department, the property is located in a census tract with a recommended limit of seven on-sale establishments. Currently, there are 29 on-sale ABC licenses in this tract, which denotes an over-concentration of alcohol in this census tract. Based on Part 1 crime statistics for this census tract in 2010, there were 112 crimes, 44% above the city wide average of 78. While there is a high crime rate in this area, according to the Police Department, most crimes are related to theft in retail stores in the area. Within the last calendar year there no calls for police service at this location, mainly due to the fact that the previous use had been closed. The Police Department has recommended specific conditions that have been included in the proposed conditions of approval. A full-service restaurant with alcohol sales, as conditioned, is not anticipated to increase the need for police activity.

The site on which the restaurant is proposed is considered legal, non-conforming as it relates to the minimum number of parking spaces. As previously mentioned, 26 spaces are currently located on-site to serve the three different uses on the property (two offices, a restaurant and a beauty shop). A reciprocal access easement entered into with the adjacent property owner is being recorded to legally allow the· use of the adjacent driveway and turning aisle for access to the subject property and for the required back-up space for the parking spaces perpendicular to the building. Prior to the last establishment ("Montrose Collection") and its unpermitted operation as a banquet hall, the restaurant did not appear to have any negative impacts on the existing parking situation.

As proposed, the project would require three additional parking spaces due to the change of use from office to full-service restaurant. An Administrative Exception has been submitted requesting a change of use (from office to restaurant in order to provide for the larger restrooms) without providing the additional three required parking spaces for the restaurant. The Administrative Exception would have to be approved prior to the proposed Conditional Use Permit determination, based on the submitted plans for the CUP. The Administrative Exception is not being considered during the CUP public hearing but will be determined separately. If the Administrative Exception is denied, the Planning Hearing Officer has the authority to approve the CUP with a condition requiring that the restaurant reincorporate the proposed restroom.s into the pre-2005 restaurant tenant space and eliminate the proposed 438 sq.ft. expansion from the proposal; the area would have to be returned to its previous office use. While sales of alcoholic beverages may marginally increase a restaurant's popularity and parking needs, it is not anticipated tb be a significant increase.

5


Adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are provided for the use and will be maintained. Associated utilities are existing, and would adequately serve the proposed restaurant with alcohol service. Glendale Water and Power did not cite any concerns relating to providing service to the project. The fullservice restaurant and on-site service of alcoholic beverages is not anticipated to intensify parking demand to any significant degree. The applicant's CUP request for alcoholic beverages does not require any new city services, will not harm public safety and welfare, or is not in conflict with existing or anticipated surrounding land uses.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff believes that all of the findings for the Conditional Use Permit can be made in a positive manner, and therefore, recommends approval of these entitlements. Staff suggests that the Planning Hearing Officer consider the attached draft findings and specific conditions of approval.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map 2. Reduced Plans 3. Departmental Comments

6

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DRAFT FINDINGS

Conditional Use Permit Case No. PCUP .2011-031


The proposed restaurant with ancillary alcohol beverage sale, service and consumption is consistent with the General Plan. The site is located in the General Plan's Neighborhood Commercial Land Use area, and is zoned "C1"- Neighborhood Commercial. Service and consumption of alcoholic beverages at a full-service restaurant is consistent with the intent of this land use designation and zoning district. The C1 zone is intended as a zone for small shopping centers, professional buildings, service centers and other commercial activities providing convenience goods and services to the surrounding residential neighborhood in conformance with the intentions of the Neighborhood Commercial Land Use designation; the proposed restaurant with alcoholic beverage service meets is consistent with such intentions. The Noise Element discusses land use conflicts related to noise. Conditions of

·approval yvill mitigate noise and nuisance concerns to be consistent with the Noise Element. The project site is not identified as parkland by the Recreation Element. The development features no housing component that would be addressed by the Housing Element, and the restaurant has been constructed and will be expanded per all applicable Building & Fire Code standards that address any seismic, geological, and fire hazards identified in the Safety Element. Therefore, the project and its associated uses area are consistent with the elements and objectives of the City's General Plan.


The proposed restaurant with alcohol beverage sales, service and consumption is not anticipated to be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment. According to the Police Department, the property is located in a census tract where the recommended limit is for seven on-sale establishments. Currently there are 29 on-sale ABC licenses in this tract. The previous ABC license was one of the 29 licenses. Based on Part 1 crime statistics for this census tract in 2010, there were 112 crimes, 44% above the city wide average of 78. While there is a high crime rate in this area,· according to the Police Department, most crimes are related to theft in local retail stores in the area. The Police Department has recommended specific conditions that have been included in this approval. A full-service restaurant with alcohol sales, as conditioned, is not anticipated to increase the need for police activity.

No public facilities are located in the immediate area. The closest public facilities are Crescenta Valley Park (1.5 miles away), Montrose Community Park, (1.3 miles away), Montrose-Crescenta Library (0.6 miles), Fire Station No. 29 (0.6 miles away), Sparr Heights Senior Center (1.0 miles away), and John C. Fremont Elementary School (1.1 miles away). In addition, there is a preschool located across the street to the west and the closest churches are 0.6 miles. As previously stated, a restaurant with alcohol sales, service has been in existence at the subject location since the mid-1960s. The proposal to permit the on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages in conjunction with food service at the proposed new restaurant will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment, as conditioned.

c. That the use and facilities will no adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal development of surrounding property.

The use and facilities will not adversely affect or impede the normal development of surrounding property. A restaurant serving alcohol has been in operation at this location since the mid-1960s; the restaurant is located within a small shopping center located on Honolulu Avenue in an area featuring a number of smaller scale shopping centers, neighborhood commercial uses and larger multi-family developments. Specific conditions have been including in this approval to address any issues regarding noise, loitering, and lighting that would result in possibly negative impacts to the surrounding businesses and neighborhood. Therefore, it is not expected that the operation of a new full-service restaurant with ancillary on-site sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages would adversely impact the surrounding neighborhood.


Adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, traffic circulation and parking are provided for the proposed use. The ·restaurant was first constructed in 1953 and has operated with alcohol sales for almost fifty years (with the exception of the last few years when the restaurant was closed). All utilities are in place and the shopping center in which the restaurant is located has 26 on-site parking spaces (legal nonconforming in regards to the number of spaces). The·site on which tne restaurant is proposed is considered legal, non-conforming as it relates to the minimum number of parking spaces.

The intent of parking standards in the .zoning code is to ensure that convenient parking is available for customers and that overflow parking will not unduly impact nearby areas. Section 30.32.030.F. requires that the review authority consider not whether Code requirements for parking spaces are met, but whether adequate parking is provided. As noted above, while the proposed 438 expansion will result in a three space parking deficiency, the proposal for the additional bathrooms is not expected to significantly impact the existing on-site parking situation. Further, the existing on-site parking spaces have been serving the shopping center for over fifty years and up until the prior restaurant/banquet establishment, the parking· appeared adequate for the center's parking demand. As proposed, the new restaurant use provides adequate parking facilities to satisfy the parking needs of the proposed use. ·

E. That all the criteria set forth in Section 30.32.030 (F) to be considered in making the findings in subsection A. through D. above have been met and thoroughly considered.

1. That such use does not or will not tend to intensify or otherwise contribute to the adverse impacts on the surrounding area caused by over concentration as described above in finding B.

2. That such use does not or will not tend to encourage or intensify crime within the district'as described above in finding B.

3. That such use does not or will not adversely impact any other uses within the surrounding area (church, public or private schools or college, day car facility, public park, library, hospital or residential use) as described above in findings Band C.

4. That the proposed use does satisfy its transportation or parking needs as described above in finding D.

5. That the proposed use does or will serve a public necessity or public convenience purpose for the area as evidenced by the operation of this restaurant with alcoholic beverage on sale, consumption and service as described above in finding A.

Conditions:

1. That the development shall be in substantial accord with the plans submitted with the application and presented at the hearing except for any modifications as may be required to meet specific Code standards or other conditions stipulated herein to the satisfaction of the Planning Hearing Officer.

2. That all necessary permits shall be obtained from the Building and Safety Division and all construction shall be in compliance with the Glendale Building Code and all other applicable regulations.

3. That all necessary licenses as required from Federal, State, County or City authorities including the City Clerk shall be obtained and kept current at all times

4. That. the service of alcoholic beverages shall be in full accord with the regulations and conditions established by the State Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. The appropriate ABC license (Type 47) allowing distilled spirits at an eating place must be obtained and maintained in good standing at all times.

5. That sale of alcoholic beverages at the restaurant shall be incidental to the selling of food to be consumed on the premises. The sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises is strictly prohibited. ·

6. That no patron be allowed to bring into the restaurant any alcoholic beverage unless the alcoholic beverage was purchased within the restaurant, unless the facility has an established corkage policy allowing and regulating such.

7. That the sales, service or consumption of alcoholic beverages shall be permitted only between the hours of 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. daily.

8. Those premises may not be utilized for banquets, private parties, or other private events, unless the private function occupies tess than 30 percent of the square footage of the serving area. The facilities shall not be rented, leased or otherwise occupied for purposes not specified in this application. The restaurant shall remain open to the .public during business hours.

9. That no outdoor dining or seating will be allowed.

10. That all music, lighting, noise and odors shall be confined to the occupancy so as not to disturb occupants of other businesses or properties and patrons on the public right-of-way.

11. That sufficient measures shall be enforced by the property owner and business operator to · 'effectively eliminaie interior and exterior loitering, parking congestion, disturbing noise, disturbing light, loud conversation and criminal activities.

12 .. That the proprietor and ·his/her !'mployees shall make an active and conscientious effort to keep customers and employees from trespassing on other nearby properties or otherwise making disturbances in the area. The business establishment will be responsible to prevent the loitering of patrons in the areas where patrons park.

13. That noise shall be contained to the interior of the premises, such that persons of normal sensitivity off-site are not disturbed. No speaker systems shall be installed outside or in the parking area and no music shall allowed in the outdoor areas. The Planning Hearing Officer's opinion shall prevail to arbitrate any conflicts.

14. That any proposed exterior lighting shall be directed oil the driveways, walkways, and parking areas within the development and away from adjacent properties and the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the Planning Hearing Officer.

15. That the parking area shall be kept adequately illuminated for security purposes during all hours of darkness. Lighting fixtures shall be installed and maintained in the parking area in those areas where street lights do not effectively illuminate the premises.

16. That the premises shall be maintained in a clean and orderly condition, free of weeds, trash and graffiti. ·

17: That the proposed full-service restaurant adhere to the City's Fresh Air (sm.oking) Ordinance, Title 15, Chapter 8.52 of the Glendale Municipal Code.

18. That adequate means shall be provided for the collection of solid waste generated at the site and that all recyclable items shall be collected and properly disposed of to the satisfaction of the Integrated Waste Administrator of the City of Glendale. No trash containers shall be stored in any parking, driveway, or landscaping area.

19. That all signs displayed shalf conform to the requirements of the Glendale Municipal Code.

20 .. That no exterior signs advertising the sales/service of alcoholic beverages be permitted.

21. That access to the premises shall be made available upon request to all City of Glendale authorized staff (i.e. Planning Division, Neighborhood Services Division, Building and Safety Division Fire Department, Police Department, etc.) for the purpose ofverifying compliance with all laws and the conditions of this approval. ..

22. That evidence of a State-approved license issued by the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) shall be presented to the Permit Services Center upon application for a Zoning Use Cer:tificate (ZUC). ·

23. That the remaining 794 square feet of the 1,210 square-foot expansion approved in 2005 will be converted back to an office tenant space and that all necessary. permits (tenant improvement permit, ZUC, etc) shall be obtained for this space. ·

24. That any expansion or modification of the facility or use which intensifies the existing Conditional Use Permit shall require a new Conditional Use Permit application. Expansion shall constitute adding floor area, increased hours of operation, changes to the ·use or operation, or any physical change as determined by the Planning Hearing Officer ..

25. That the authorization grantee! herein shall be valid for a period of five years, at which time, a reapplication must be made. If the reciprocal access easement related to the common driveway and back-up spaces is rescinded prior to the five year expiration date of the CUP, the CUP will become null and void. If reapplication is submitted for a CUP renewal, the applicant and/or property owner shall provide proof that the reciprocal access easement is applicable.

i.

CITY OF GLENDALE, CAliFORNIA · COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.

P1anning Division

May31, 2012

Alfred Teichert c/o Alfred E. Teichert.and Ramona C. Teichert Trust .2520 Countryside Lane La Crescenta, CA 91214

RE: 2833 HONOLULU AVENUE

•i

EXHIBIT 5.

633 East Bioadway, Room 103

Glendale, California 91206-4386 ·

. (818) 548-2140 (818) 548-2144

(8l8) 548-21l5 Fax (818) 240-039Z .

www.ci.glendale.ca. us

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. PCUP 2011-031 · ( "Chandelier Restaurant" )

(See: Administrative Exception Case No. PAE 201 i -023)

Dear Mr. Teichert:

On April 25, 2012, the Planning Hearing Officer conductedand closed a public hearing, pursuant to the provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code, Chapter 30.42, on your application for a Conditional Use Permit to permit the sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages at a restaurant located at 2833 Honolulu Avenue (proposed "Chandelier Restaurant"), within a shopping center addressed as 2831-2839 Honolulu Avenue, in the "Ci"- Neighborhood Commercial Zone, described as Lots 12~17, and the East 5 Feet of Lot iS, Tract No. 6067, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles. · ·

NOTE: The restaurant is also proposing to add 438 square feet for new ADA-compliant · restrooms without providing three additional parking spaces (Case No. PAE 20'1 i -023).

APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL (i) To permit the sale, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages at a restaurant in·

the "Ci"- Neighborhood Commercial Zone.

CODE REQUIRES (i) A Conditional Use Permit is required for the sales, service and consumption of alcoholic

. beverages in the "Ci"- Neighborhood Commercial Zone (GMC 30. 12.020.8).

ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Categorical exemption.

. 2833 HONOLULU AVENUE 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERIV)IT NC .. CUP 2011-031

I

. ~R~9Ql~-Eotnnft.i-!o/.\T.~o·•FiNoTr\JG$~j~rr~iti~;iifi;;J~~i:~:~;~!~!~l~~Jm~~~~~;\fr~~~~;~~~t@i~1'~~I~};l~~~lJ@J4~1 After thorough consideration of the statements contained in the applicatioli, the plans submitted therewifh·, the report by the Community Development Department staff thereon, and the statements made at the public hearing with respect to this application, the Planning Hearing Officer has DENIED your application based on the following findings:

A. That the proposed use Will be consistent with the various elements and objectives of the ge.neral plan. . ·

The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the sales, service and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages at a new full:service restaurant that was previously occupied by "Montrose Collection". The current proposal also involves a change of use of438 square feet of adjacent office space to provide new handicap-accessible restrooms for the full-service restaurant.

The previous business ("Montrose Collection") had received approvals to expand the restaurant'sfloor area into the adjacent 1 ,210 square-foot space (office use) without . providing the nine additional parking spaces (Parking Reduction Permit Case No. PPR 2005-002). During its operation, Montrose Collection had several code violations due to noncompliance with the original conditional use permit, parking reduction permit and zoning use certificate .. The parking reduction permit and the zoning use certificate were ultimately revoked by the City Council and the then Zoning Administrator, respectively. Upon revocation of the previous parking reduction permit, the expansion and originallyapproved entitlements became null and void. The business owner of Montrose Collection permanently ceased operations on or about October 29, 2010.

The current applicant (the property owner), working in conjunction with a new restaurant operator, is proposing to establish a new full-service restaurant offering the on-site sales, service and consumption of alcoholic beverages. The applicant is also proposing a 772 square-foot floor area reduction of the expanded restaurant area.thatwas approved in 2005 and later revoked. The expansion will now be 438 square feet and will consist of bathrooms and a small hallway leading to the new restrooms. The proposed total area with the new, reduced expansion will be 4,564 square feet As proposed, the 438 square-foot expansion would result in· a parking shortfall of three spaces, according to Code. An Administrative Exception is concurrently being requested for this parking shortfa.ll and although related, this is a separate permit and is addressed through a separate decision ietter. The remaining 794 square feet of the 1 ,210 square-foot expansion approved in 2005 will be converted back to an office tenant space.

A full-service restaurant with ancillary service of alcoholic beverages is a permitted use in the "C1" zone with approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).

A full-service restaurant use and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages appears to be consistent with the Land Use Elerrient of the General Plan which designates thisproperty for Neighborhood Commercial uses. A restaurant use has been in existence at this location for several decades with service of alcoholic beverages, indicating that the use does serve a public convenience purpose for the area ..

2

2833 HONOLULU AVENUE 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NC. -:;up 2011-031

B. That the use and its associated structures and facilities will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the ei1Viroriment.

According to the Police Department, the property is located in a census tract where the recommended limit is for seven on-sale establishments. Currently there are 29 on-sale establishments in this tract, which denotes an over-concentration. of alcohol in this census tract. The previous business ("Montrose Collection") was one of the 29 ABC licenses in this tract. Based on Part 1 crime statistics for this census tract, in 2010 there were 112 crimes, 44 percent above the city wide average of 78. While there is a high

· crime rate in this area, according to the Police Department, most crimes are related to theft in local retail stores. in the area. The information submitted in the application clearly · states that fhe service of alcoholic beverages will be accessory to the primary restaurant use. A full-service restaurant is not anticipated to increase the need for police activity.

No pwblic facilities are located nearby. The closest public facilities are Crescenta Valley Park- .1.5 miles, Montrose Community Park- 1.3· miles, Montrose-Crescenta Library-0.6 miles, Fire Station No: 29- 0.6 miles, Sparr Heights Senior Center- 1.0 miles, and John C. Fremont Elementary School - 1.1 miles.· In addition, there is a preschool located across the street to the west and the closest churches are 0.6 miles away. A restaurant with alcohol sales, service and consumption has existed at the subject location since the mid-1960s. No evidence was presented that would indicate the proposal would be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment, if conditions are proposed and implemented.

C. That the use and facilities will not adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal dev\)lopment of surrounding pr.operty.

The use and facilities will not adversely affect or impede the normal development of · surrounding property. The Police Department and Neighborhood Services Division have reported that they have not received calls for service since the closure of the previous business. However, there are existing parking spaces on the project site that may not stay in a permanent usable configuration and affect the required parking. There are 11 existing parking spaces, perpendicular to the western edge of the building that do not have the required back-up space on the property. As a result of inadequate on-site backing area, these parking spaces rely on the adjacent property to the west for driveway access and turning radius. The subject property does not have a permanent right to use the adjacent property for these purposes, although the proposed restaurant is intended as a permanent use. The applicant has worked with the neighboring property owner to the west to record a temporary reciprocal access agreement addressing !Fie driveway, turning radius, and required backcup space for the parking spaces. As recorded, the temporary agreement shall terminate by a decision of either party (subject site property owner or neighboring property owner) to sell, redevelop, or build any new structure. The temporary nature of the reciproce1l access agreement Will not permanently resolve access to these parking spaces and as a result, there is not adeqLJate parking available on the project site. Therefore, the temporary access and parking arrangement would conflict with the normal development of both this property as well as the surrounding property. While a temporary parking and access solution may appear expedient, it is not a permanent solution to the proposed permanent use. .

3.

2833 HONOLULU AVENUI;: , CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Nl. CUP 2011-031 I


Adequate public and private facilities such as utilities and landscaping are provided for the proposed use; however, an adequate number of parking spaces and ddveway access are not provided. The applicant's site plan shows 26 parking spaces available to serve the site, if permanent access to these spaces is resolved. Eleven of the.26 . existing parking spaces, perpendicular to the western edge of the building, do not have the required back-up space on the property. As mentioned above, a portion of the access and required back-up are located on the adjacent property to the west. The applicant has provided recorded temporary reciprocal access agreement for permission

. to use adjacent property for access to and backing distance for the parking spaces . shown along the common driveway. However, for reasons noted above, this does not provide permanent provision of adequate parking and permanent traffic circulation .. ·

Prior to its expansion, the previous 438 square feet area was an office, which required 2. 7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for a requirement of one space. Upon expansion and change of use from an office to a full-service restaurant, said area requires ten spaces per 1, 000 square feet of floor area for a requirement of four spaces. Based on the above calculation, three additional spaces are required for the 438 square-. foot restaurant addition. Thus, an administrative exception for three spaces is considered, under a separate permit, which is the shortfall between the required parking for a full-service restaurant and the required parking for the office use.

The intent of parking standards in the Zoning Code is to ensure that convenient parking is available for customers and that overtlow parking will not unduly impact nearby areas. Section 30.42.030.F requires that the review authorityconsider not whether Code requirements for parking spaces are met, but whether adequate parking is provided. As noted above, the proposal does not provide permanent provision of adequate parking and access to meet Code requirements, which are already substantially reduced due to the nonconforming status of the site, including the 11 compromised parking spaces. Therefore, as proposed, the new restaurant use fails to provide adequate parking facilities and traffic circulation for the expanded unpermitted area nor had any alternative been proposed, to satisfy the parking and access needs which is a consideration for granting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval of an alcohol permit [Section 30.42.030 (F)(4)].

· During the hearing, the property owner/applicant stated that he owned additional prGJperty with parking in the vicinity of the subject site. However; this parking cannot be · considered under this permit. The applicant may wish to investigate different entitlements, such as a parking use permit, as a way to permit consideration of off-site parking ..

4

2833 HONOLULU AVENUE 1 . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Nl CUP 2011-031

E .. That all the criteria set forth in Section 30.42.030 {F) to be considered in making the findings .in subsection A. through D. above have not been met and thoroughly considered.

1) That such use does not or will not tend to intensify or otherwise contribute to the adverse . impacts cin the surrounding area caused by ove·r concentration as described above in finding B.

2) That such use does not or will not tend to encourage or intensify crime within the district as described above in finding B. ·

3) That such use does not or will not adversely impact any other uses within the surrounding area (church, public or private schools. or college, day car facility, public park,.library, hospital or residential use) as described above in findings B.

4) . That the proposed use does not satisfy its transportation or parking needs as described above in findings C and D.

5) That the proposed use does or will serve a public necessity or public convenience purpose for the area as evidenced by the operation of this restaurant with alcoholic beverage on sale, consumption and service as described above in finding A·

J~~@D![e:§EJm~ln'~lg~];!Jf@~l't[~fo::[~r{[ff!J?gJlgl:lL!i::%~sTimffiJJ~~g~][~§!ffilrN:~~;~:~tlt~~!¥R~(~~~~ Under the provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code, Title 30, Chapter 30.62, any person affected by the above decision has the right to appeal said decision to the Planning Commission if it is believed that the decision is in error or that procedural errors have occurred, or if there is substantial new evidence which could·not have been reasonably presented.

It is strongly advised that appeals be filed early during the appeal period and in person so that imperfections/incompleteness may be corrected before the appeal period expires. Any appeal must be fil~,gn the prescribed forms within fifteen(15) days following the actual date of the decision. Information regarding appeals and appeal forms will be provided by the Building and Safety Division upon request and must be filed with the prescribed fee prior to expiration of the 15-day period, on or before JUNE 15, 2012, in the Building and Safety Division, 633 East Broadway, R.oom 1 01.

save you time and a trip ' jJiease note that some of our FO are available on line and may be downloaded. AGENDAS and other NOTICES are also posted on our website.

~tr~li~ft~Ml~it~~l~t,~~Ril!tll!!m:~ffi~-~~~l'JI~~lol~~~~tlll1f~!!m~1~!1~i~~~~i~tf~~~ ·. The applicant is further advised that all subsequent contacts with this office regarding this determination must be with the Case Planner (Ms. Villa Zemaitaitis at 818'937-8184) first and

5

2833 HONOLULU AVENUE . . CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Nt CUP 2011-031 I

. .

. then, the Planning Hearing Officer who acted on this case. This would include clarification, verification of condition compliance and plans or building pemrit applications, etc., and shall be· accomplished By Appointment Only, in order to assure that you receive service with a · minimum amount of waiting. You should advise any consultant representing you of this requirement as well.

Sincerely, .

( _..c~L···· /l . lr ~ · .. I

lw:tL.u11""~v Kristen Asp Planning Hearing Officer

KA:sm .· , · . . · . . . · CC: City Clerk; City Attorney's Dept. (G. van Muyden/M.Yun)·, Police Dept. (T.Feeley); Fire

Prevention Engineering Section-(D.Nickles); Community Development Dept.-( P.lanzafame/H.Malis); City Engineer; Dir. of Public Works Dept.; Water Section (RTakidin); Electric Section (M.Kelley/M.Jackson); Dir. of Parks, Recreation and Community Services Dept.(M.Stirdivant); Neighborhood Services Admin. (S.Delis/Rene Sad a); Integrated Wasie Management Admin. (D.Hartweii/T.Brady); Maintenance Services Sec,tion· Admin. (D. Hardgrove); Street and Field Services Admin.; Environmental Manage(Tlent (M.Oillataguerra);Traffic & Transportation Admin. (T.Mitchell); Sen Nazarian; Alcoholic Beverage Control (Vilma V.Rivera); and case planner- Vilia Zemaitaitis. ·

6

CITY OF GLENDALE, CAiiFoRNIA COMMUNIT'f DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

Planning Divisi9n

May 31, 2012

Alfred Teichert c/o Alfred E. Teichert and Ramona C. Teichert Trust 2520 Countryside Lane La Crescenta, CA 91214

'

RE: 2833 HONOLULU AVENUE

633 EaSt BioaciwaY! Room 103

Glmdale, California 91206-4386:

(818)·548-2140 (818) 548-2144

· (818) 548-2115. Fax (818) 240-0392

www.'cLgieridale.~~.us ·

ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION CASE NO. PAE 2011-023 ( "Chandelier Restaurant")

(See: Conditional Use Permit PCUP 201 1-031) ·

Dear Mr. Teichert:

Pursuant to the provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code, Chapter30.44.07d, the Community Development Department has processed your application for an . Administrative Exception to add approximately 438 square feet for new ADA~compliant. restrooms without providing three additional parkirig spaces at a restaurant located at 2833 Honolulu Avenue (proposed "Chandelier Restaurant"), within a shopping center· addressed as 2831-2839 Honolulu Avenue, in the "C1"- Neighborhood Commercial Zone, described as Lots 12-17, and the East 5 Feet of Lot 18, Tract No. 6067, in the City of

. Glendale, County of Los Angeles.

ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATION: Categorical exemption.

~i'REoiFri~p/~qANDATED-FiiiloiNGS'}';;;,r"i;;, :::f;[:;;;i~}k;~;;'!;:_;-i;Sij~(t; .;;._·. iJPiiiTI\:~(!H;::f~l

After considering the evidence presented with respect to this application, the plans submitted therewith, the Hearing Officer has DENIED, your application based on the .· following findings:·

. . -

A. The granting of the exception will result in design improvements, or there are spac;e restrictions on the site that preclude full compliance with the Code_· · requirements without hardship. · ·

The applicantisrequesting a change ofuse of 438 square feet of adjacent office space to provide new handicap-accessible restrooms for the full~sE)rvice resta'urant which would require three additional parking spaces. The current proposal also involves .a Conditional Use Permit (PCUP 2011-031) request for the sales, servjce

2833 HONOLULU AVENUE . ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIO~ .SE NO. PAE 2011-023

(

and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages at a new full-service restaurant that was previously occupied by "Montrose Collection". Although related, this is a separate permit and is addressed through a separate decision letter.

The previous business ("Montrose Collection") had received approvals to expand the restaurant's floor area into the adjacent i ,2 i 0 square~foot space (office use) without providing the nine additional parking spac~s (Parking Reduction Permit Case No. PPR 2005-002). During its operation, fV!ontrose Collection had several code violations due to noncompliance with the original conditional use permit, parking reduction permit and zoning use certificate. The parking reduction permit and the· · zoning use certificate were ultimately revoked by the City Council and the then Zoning Administrator, respectively. Upon revocation of the previous parking reduction permit, the expansion and originally-approVed entitlements became' null and void. The business owner of Montrose Collection permanently ceased . operations on or about October 29, 2010.

The current applicant (the property owner), working in conjunction with a new . restaurant operator,. is proposing to establish a new full-service restaurant offering the on-site sales, service and consumption of alcoholic .beverages. The applicant is also proposing. a. 772 squarecfoot floor area reduction of the expanded restaurant area that was approved in 2005 and .later revoked. The expansion will now be 438 square feet and will consist of bathrooms and a small hallway leading to the new restrooms. The proposed total area with the new, reduced expansion will be 4,564 square feet. As proposed, the 438 square-foot expansion would result in a parking· shortfall of three spaces, according to Code. The remaining 794 square feet of the 1,210 square-foot expansion approved ili2005 will be converted back to an office tenant space.

Prior to its expansion; the previoLis.438 square feet area was an office; which required 2.7 spaces per 1,000 square feet of floo.r area for a requirement of one space. Upon expansion and change of use from an office to a full-service restaurant, said area requires ten spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area for a requirement of four spaces. Based on the above calculation, three additional spaces are required for the 438 square-foot restaurant addition. ·· ·

The site is presently developed with an approximately 8,300 square-foot, multi-tenant commercial building with .on-site parking. The uses on the site include an office; the subjectresiaurant and a beauty salon. The applicant's site plan shows 26 parking spaces available to serve the site, if permanent access to 1 i spaces is resolved. There are 11 of the 26 existing parking spaces, perpendicular to the western edge of the building, that do not have the required back-up space on the property. As a result of inadequate on-site backing area, these. parking spaces rely on the adjacent· property to the .west for driveway access and turning radius. The subject property does not have a permanent right to use the adjacent property for these purposes, although the proposed project is intended as a permanent Lise. The lot is designed with two driveways, both accessed from Honolulu Avenue, and there is also access

. from the alley along the rear. The existing parking lot facilitates vehicular traffic

2

2833 HONOLULU AVENUE . ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIO~ 3E NO. PAE 2011-023

circulation from the westerly driveway to the easterly driveway without having to exit · the parking lot. Meanwhiie, the alley provides adequate drive aisle circulation for the parking spaces located between the subject building and those of the building to the

·west. · · ·

.Although the project is minor and the fully developed site presents space restrictions that would preclude adding three parking spaces, there are existing parking spaces on the project site that are not spaces which can be counted on staying in a · permanent usable configuration and affect the required parking. As was found with the associated Conditional Use Permit, the property is short 11 required parking

· spaces and therefore does not hilVe adequate parking available on the project site. Granting an Administrative Exception for three parking spaces would only continue to contribute to inadequate parking for the site ..

B. The granting of the exception will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in such zone or neighborhood in which the property is located.

While the 438 square-foot change of use from an office to a full-service restaurant expansion is minor and not providing the three additional parking spaces appears not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in the zone or neighborhood, an adequate number of parking spaces and driveway access are not provided. The 438 square-foot change of use and restaurant .expansion consists primarily of bathrooms for restaurant customers and employees. First constructed in 1953, the restaurant use has been in existence in thelsubject multi-tenant commercial center for several decades. As proposed, the expansion will not create additional seating or increase the proposed dining or lounge areas ..

As stated above, there are existing parking spaces. on the project site that are not. spaces which can be counted on staying in a permanent usable configuration and affect the required parking. There are 11 existing parking spaces, perpendicular to the. western edge of the building that do not have the required back-up. space on the property. As a result of inadequate on-site backing area, these parking spaces rely on the adjacent property to the west for driveway access and turning radius. The subjectproperty does not have a permanent right to use the adjacent property for these purposes, although the proposed restaurant is intended as a permanent use.

The applicant has worked with the neighboring property owner to the w~st to record a temporary reciprocal access agreement addressing the driveway; turning aisle, and required back-up space for the parking spaces. As recorded, the temporary agreement shall terminate by a decision of either party (subject site property owner or neighboring property owner) to sell, redevelop, or build any new structure. The temporary nature of the reciprocal access agreement will not permanently resolve

. access to these parking spaces and as a result, there is not adequate parking available on the project site. Therefore, the temporary access and parking arrangement would conflict with improvements of both this property as well as surrounding. property. ·

3

Z833 HONOLULU AVENUE. · ··ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTION. 3E NO. PAE 2011-023 (

C. The granting of the exception will not be contrary to the objectives of the applicable regulations. ·

The purpose of the .administrative exception procedure is to provide a simplified means for considering applications for minor deviations from the code standards; such as the 438 square-foot change of use from an office to a full-service restaurant without providing the additional three required parking spaces for the restaurant expansi_on. The expansion is for the provision of code-compliant restrooms. No additional seating area for the restaurant is proposed. The existing parking lot has been used by the existing uses on-site for many years.

However, as mentioned above, the proposal does not provide a permanent solution to parking and .access to meet Code requirements, which is already substantially reduced due to the nonconforming status of the site, including the 11 compromised parking spaces. The impacts of three parking spaces to be considered with this application compound the nonconformity of the property because of the 11 space shortfall of existing parking spaces. Therefore, granting an exception would contradict the intent of the Zoning Code that promotes public health, safety and general welfare. ·

· ·under the provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code, Title 30, Chapter 30.62, any person affected by the above decision has the right to appeal said decision to the

· Planning Commission if it is believed that the decision is in error or that procedural errors · have occurred, or if there is substantial new evidence which could not have been reasonably presented.

It is strongly advised that appeals be filed early during the appeal period and in person so that imperfections/incompleteness may be corrected before the appeal period expires. Any appeal must be filed on the prescribed forms within fifteen (15) days following the actual date of the decision. Information regarding appeals and appeal forms will be provided by the Building and Safety Division upon request and must be filed with the prescribed fee prior to expiration ofthe 15~day period, on or before JUNE 15, 2012, in the Building and Safety Division, 633 East Broadway, Room 101.

To save you time and a trip - please note thCit some of our FORMS are available on line and may be downloaded. AGENDAS and other NOTICES are also posted on our website.

The Applicant is further advised that all subsequenf contacts with this office regarding · . this determination must be with the Case Planner first and then, the Hearing Officer who

4

2833 HONOLULU AVENUE ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIOI'i 3E NO. PAE20ii-023

acted on this case, Th.is would include clarification, verification of condition compliance and plans or building permit applications, etc., _and shall be accomplished By Appointmer)t Only, in order to assure that you receive service vyith a minimum amount ofwaiting. You should advise any consultantrepresenting you of this requirement as well. .

Should you have any questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to contact the case planner, Viii a Zemaitaitis during normal business hours at (818) 937-8154, between 7:3q a.m. to 3:30p.m.

Sincerely,

l(/1-. (l .• . u cXB"'-_).-~---"'zjvr ·

Kristen Asp ·Senior Planner

KA:VZEMAIT AITI S: sm

CC: City Clerk; City Attorney's Dept. (G. van Muyden/M.Yun); Police Dept. (T.Feeiey); Fire · Prevention Engineering Section-(D.Nickles); Community Development Dept.-( P.Lanzafame/H.Maiis); City Engineer; .Dir. of Public Works Dept.; Water Section (R.Takidin); Electric Section (M.Keiiey/M.Jackson); Dir. of Parks, Recreation and Community Services Dept.(M.Stirdivant); Neighborhood Services Admin. (S .. Delis/Rene Sai:Ia); Integrated Waste Management Admin. (D.Hartweil/T.Brady); Maintenance Services Section Admin. (D.Hardgrove); Street and Field Services Admin.; Environmental Managemeni (M.Oillataguerra);Traffc & Transportation Admin. (T.Mitcheii);.Aicoholic Beverage Control (Vilma V.Rivera); Sen Nazari·an; and case planner- Vilia Zemaitaitis. . · .

. , 5

~----------------------·---------EXBTBIT 6.

APPEAL (cor)

Submit 3 copies of this application to the Permit Services Center at 633 E. j Broadway, Rm. 101, Glendale, California, 91206 alonq with the required fee. ·

~---·-Please PRINT or TYPE all information

PART 1- NOTICE TO APPELLANT (Please read carefully)

A. This form must be prepared, and 3 copies filed, within 15 days of the date of the decision being appealed. B. Every question must be answered. G. If a question does not apply, you must answer "does not apply" or words to that effect. D. Failure to properly fill out this notice or faii>Jre to make a sufficient statement of a case in this notice, even if in fact

you have valid and sound grounds for appeal, may cause your appeal to be dismissed forthwith. E. Attach additional pages for long answers. F. Prior to completing this form, read the Glendale Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.88 Uniform Appeal Procedure on

the City's webpage at www.cLglendale.ca.us/gmc/2.88.asp

PART2-APPELLANT INFORMATION

A. Mr. Allred (First Name)

B. 2510 countryside Lane (Street Address) Phone Number)

La Crescenta (City)

PART3-APPEAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Teichert (Last Name)

CA (State)

91214 (Zip Code)

818-249-7180 (Area Code-

A. State the name or title of the board, commission or officer from which this appeal is taken kristen Asp (hearing -office of planning department .

B. · Were you given written notice ofthe action, ruling or determination from which this appeal is taken? Yes 0 No D If "Yes," attach a copy of the written notice and write the date you received it here May 31st 2012 II "No," give the following information concerning your receipt of notice of the action", ""ru7.1i"'ng..;.:_;o"'r d'7e"':t--er-m""'in-a-:t.,..io_n_: --Dale Time Location Manner--------

C. State generally what kind of permit, variance, ruling, determination or other action was the basis for the decision from which the appeal is taken Conditional use permit (CUP) lor sales,service and consumption of alcoholic beverages in the restaurant (Montrose Chandelier) located at 2833 Honolulu Ave Verdugo City , 91046

D. State the specific permission or relief that was originally sought from the board, commission, or officer granting a conditional use permit for sale, service, and consumption of alcoholic beverages at the restaurant (Montrose Chandeti located at 2833 Honolulu Ave, Verdugo City 91046.

E. Were you the party seeking the relief that was originally sought? Yes 0 NoD If "No,' what is your relationship to the permit, variance, ruling, determination or other action referred to in "5"?

F. Does this matter involve real property? Yes 0 NoD lf"Yes," give the address, or describe the real property affected 2833 Honolulu Ave, Verdugo City 91046 If "Yes,' what is your ownership interest in the real property affected? Owner of the restaurant.

D-15 (Rev. 312009) Page I of2

PART4-STATEMENT OF ERROR

A. Do you contend that there was a violation of a specific provision of laW, which forms the basis for this appeal? ~0~0 . If "Yes," state each specific provision of law that you contend was violated

B. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of law given in answer 1)? Yes D No 0 lf"Yes," state indicate which provisions, and state specifically each act that was in excess of authority

C. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law given in answer 1)? Yes D No 0 If "Yes," state which provision, and the specific duty that it failed to exercise -------------

. D. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision? Yes 0 NoD If "Yes," state each such fact, and for each fact, state how it should have chan~ed the act, determination, or ruling Consideration of conditions applied to grant the conditional use permit . by ment1oned consideration the conditional use permit would have been approved and granted the conditions attached to it .

E. Do you contend that the evidence before the board, commission or officer was insufficient or inadequate to support its action, determination or ruling or any specific finding in support thereof? Yes 0 No 0 If "Yes," state what evidence was necessary, but lacking

F. Do you contend that you have new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which If considered should change the act, determination or ruling? Yes 0 NoD · If "Yes," state each new material fact not previously presented to the board, commission or officer. For each fact state why it was not available, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and previously presented by the appellant. Adjacent property owners have come to an agreement to sign a new easement. A definite Five {5) years easement, that will prevent any future redevelopment for Five (5) years and will not be affected by selling any of the propertieS.

Statement of additional facts related to the appeal We have come to an understanding that the only issue that has caused the denial of this permit was related to the easement, and by providing a new easement the decision must be overturned. We have complied with all planning department's requirements.

The foregoing statements contained in PARTS 2, 3, and 4 above, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Appellant's Signature Date Signed

FOR STAFF USE ONLY

Date received in Permit Services Center --"'(,.'1-/-'t'-(f!f-,/_jlc:Z.::.___ Received by _'v_'~=----- Date Stamp

Fee paid 'f I'!;":)-?_ lp 'f- Receipt No. I?:}-() 1..5

D-15 (Rev. 3/2009) Page 2 of 2

r!llll rUflll

------·--------------APPEAL

Supmit 3 copies of this application to the Permit Services Center at 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 101, Glendale, California, 91206 alonq with the required fee.

Please PRINT or TYPE all information

PART 1-NOTICE TO APPELLANT (Please read carefully)

A. This form must be prepared, and 3 copies filed, within 15 days of the date of the decision being appealed. B. Every question must be answered. c. If a question does not apply, you must answer "does not apply" or words to that effect. D. Failure to properly fill out this notice or failure to make a sufficient statement of a case In this notice, even if in fact

you have valid and sound grounds for appeal, may cause your appeal to be dismissed forthwith. E. Attach additional pages for long answers. F. Prior to completing this form, read the Glendale Municipal Code, Title 2, Chapter 2.88 Uniform Appeal Procedure on

the City's webpage at www.ci.glendale.ca.us/gmcl2.88.asp

PART2-APPELLANT INFORMATION

A Alfred (First Name)

B. 2520 Countryside Lane, (Street Address) Phone Number)

La Crescenta , (City)

PART3-APPEAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Teichert (Last Name)

CA (State)

91214 (Zip Code)

818-249-7180 (Area Code-

A. State the name or title of the board, commission or officer from which this appeal is taken Kristen ASP (hearing • officer of planning department) ·

B. Were you given written notice of the action, ruling or determination from which this appeal is taken? Yes 0 No D If "Yes," attach a copy of the written notice and write the date you received it here :.:.m::::a~yl.:::3.:.:1s:::tf~2::;:0.:c12:_-,--,;----lf "No,' give the following Information concerning your receipt of notice of the action, ruling or determination: Date Time Location Manner--------

c. State generally what kind of permit, variance, ruling, determination or other action was the basis for the decision from which the appeal is taken Administrative exception(A.E) permit to add 438 square feet for ADA-compliant restrooms without providing three additional parking spaces.

D. State the specific permission or relief that was originally sought from the board, commission, or officer Granting an administrative exception permit to add 438 square foot for ADA- compliant rest rooms without providing three parking spaces for the restaurant Montrose Chandelier located at 2833 Honolulu Ave

E. Were you the party seeking the relief that was originally sought? Yes 0 NoD If "No," what is your relationship to the permit, variance, ruling, determination or other action referred to in "5"?

F. Does this matter involve real property? Yes 0 NoD If "Yes," give the address, or describe the real property affected 2833 Honolulu Ave, verugo city Ca 91046 If "Yes," what is your ownership interest in the real property affected? ---------------

D-'15 (Rev, 312009) Page I of2

PART4-STATEMENT OF ERROR

A. Do you contend that there was a violation of a specific provision of law, which forms the basis for this appeal? Yes D No[!] If "Yes," state each specific provision of law that you contend was violated

B. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of law given in answer 1)? Yes D No 0 If "Yes," state Indicate which provisions, and state specifically each act that was in excess of authority

C. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law given In answer 1)? Yes D No 0 If "Yes," state which provision, and the specific duty that itfailed to exercise -------------

D. Do you contend that the board, commission or officer refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision? Yes 0 NoD If "Yes," state each such fact, and for each fact, state how it should have changed the act, determination, or ruling Lack of consideration that permit could have been granted approval by placing conditions, connected to the easement

E. Do you contend that the evidence before the board, commission or officer was insufficient or inadequate to support its action, determination or ruling or any specific finding in support thereof? Yes D No 0 If "Yes," state what evidence was necessary, but lacking --------------------

F. Do you contend that you have new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination or ruling? Yes 0 NoD If "Yes," state each new material fact not previously presented to. the board, commission or officer. For each fact state why it was not available, or with the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been discovered and previously presented by the apJ?.ellant. Adjacent property owners agreed to sign new easement with a definite -Five (5) years easement that will prevent any redevelopment, and sale of 'lOY of the properties will not effect the easement

Statement of additional facts related to the appeal we have come to understanding that the only Issue that caused the denial of our permit was the easement related issue that has been changed. we have compiled with all planning department requirements that were needed.

The foregoing statements contained in PARTS 2, 3, and 4 above, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Appellant's Name (please print) Mr. Alfred Teichert

Appellant's Signature Date Signed

FOR STAFF USE ONLY

Date received in Permit Services Center_--";(e;/-/,_i'-"-11/'-'1'-'Z.~-__ Received by_v_b __ _ Date Stamp

Fee paid 4100 0-- Receipt No. _._1'5<LLh~2L"':l'---

D-iS (Rev. 3/2009) Page 2 of2

Jim and Nancy Kenagy 11728 Riviera Pl. NE Seattle, W A 98125

Planning Commissioners Community Development Department 633 East Broadway, Room 103 Glendale, CA 91206

Dear Commissioners:

206-361-2206

27 June 2012

EXHIBIT 7.

I am writing on behalf of the Kenagy family ownership of the property at 2849 Honolulu Ave., consisting of the following individuals (as trustees): myself; my wife, Nancy Kenagy; and my aunt, Helen Kenagy.

I am informing you by this letter of our intention to enter a binding agreement with the ownership of2839 Honolulu Ave. (Fred and Ramona Teichert) to provide a terminable easement with a period of five years for vehicular access across one another's properties in order to allow parking on the two respective properties.

I trust you will inform us, upon outcome of the appeal hearing, if and when all other pending conditions have been met so that we can move forward to execute and record the agreement.

Sincerely yours,

George James Kenagy

'·:·

I~

I~ ' ' I I

EXHIBIT B.

ALLEY

----125'-3" ----------------··· .. -----: .~~~~~~~~~ --- --- - --- - - ----------,,-::__-· <5'-i1"~ 1W-11" --!===--;:;;--== --- J~-4" ==-~~·-:__·~::=-----~=-- _:_=. . ~~=~j

-----,--~=====r- 155.00' I TRASH AREA -J- - ±ell- -----,_ -r:r ---:----! ____ . - ......_.__.. t I .;;

! I ' ;~ :~

' l I : I

t-====1 17

b

Tl \ I ' ' I ! ; ! . ! 1

; ;

GLENDALE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING ... · PDF fileglendale community...

Documents

Transcript of GLENDALE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING ... · PDF fileglendale community...