SR-011387-12B
l. ~
tic 2--cPO 7"
/.2 -:8
JAN 1 3 1987
C/ED:RAS:KR:lw
Council Mtg: January 13, 1987
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and City council
FROM:
City staff
SUBJECT:
Appeal of
Development
2820 Main
Appellant:
Planning commission Decision Approving
Review 347a, Conditional Use Permit 43la,
street. Applicant: Wave Restaurant.
Councilmember Herbert Katz.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the city Council support the appeal
and deny Development Review 347a, Conditional Use Permit 431a for
the expansion of the Wave Restaurant on Main street from a 49
seat restaurant to an 85 seat restaurant with an on-site general
spirits license. Following a public hearing on November 10, 1986
the Planning Commission approved the applicant's request by a 4-3
vote.
BACKGROUND
On August 16, 1982 the Planning Commission approved DR 093 for
the remodel of the existing structures at this location for use
as a restaurant with an existing liquor license, a bakery and
flower mart. The Planning Commission also approved a Variance
(ZA 4567-Y) to allow the remodeling to occur without the
provision of parking. The property had previously been a bar and
restaurant with no parking other than undesignated parking in
front of the site for approximately four cars. This open area,
previously used informally for parking, was designed in the
approved project as a landscaped public park area.
- 1 -
/,l-3
JAN 1 3 1987
:: -- """
On November 22, 1984 the Planning staff approved an amendment to
DR 093 for the retention of the original footprint of the
project, and rehabilitation of the existing structures with the
exception of the building at the northeast corner of the site
which was proposed for demolition and reconstruction in order to
make it part of the larger building cluster (Exhibit A). The
conditions of approval for the amendment to DR 093 were
subsequently amended on February 19, 1985 (Exhibit B). In
administratively approving the amendment to DR 093, restaurant
seating was limited to 49 seats, not including fixed seating in
the public park area per the approved plans: valet parking was
required to be provided during restaurant hours: bicycle racks
were required: and hours of operation were limited to a closing
hour of midnight, Monday through Thursday and 1:00 A.M., Friday
through Saturday. The bar was limited to a closing hour of
midnight or whenever food services cease, whichever occurs first.
Subsequently 1 at their March 12-15, 1985 meeting, the Coastal
commission approved the project with the condition that four
parking spaces be provided through the purchase of four monthly
City parking permits for use at the pUblic parking lot to the
rear of the site.
On July 1, 1986 the applicants submitted Development Review and
Conditional Use Permit applications to increase their 49 seat
restaurant to 155 seats with an on-site general spirits license.
At the October 6, 1986 Planning commission hearing the applicants
withdrew this application and indicated that they would reapply
for an 85 seat restaurant.
- 2 -
.. {
On October 10, 1986 the applicants submitted new Development
Review and Conditional Use Permit applications to increase their
49 seat restaurant to 85 seats with an on-site general spirits
license. Planning staff recommended denial of this project based
upon the increase in traffic congestion and parking demand which
would occur as a result of this proj ect and which staff felt
could not be adequately accommodated in the area. Staff also
recommended denial of this project in that the additional seating
would intensify the use in a block which already has more than
two restaurants. On November 10, 1986 following a public hearing
the Planning commissioners on a 4-3 vote approved Development
Review 347a, Conditional Use Permit 431a, subject to the findings
and condi tions contained in the statement of Official Action
(Exhibit C).
An appeal of the Planning commisison determination was filed by
Councilmember Herbert Katz on November 17, 1986 (Exhibit D). The
appellants basis of appeal is the general lack of parking in the
area to support this expansion, the availability of parking for
this expansion on a long term basis and the proposed use of
parking spaces located at the Ehringer development at 3100 Main
street for this restaurant expansion.
ANALYSIS
As indicated in the November 10, 19B6 staff report the proposed
proj ect will require a parking variance to permit 7 required
parking spaces for the 36 additional seats to be located in a
private parking lot 150 feet north of the site. The applicants
- 3 -
.. '!
propose to provide 24 parking spaces in this lot with eight
spaces in tandem and service it through a valet parking system.
The Wave Restaurant currently leases this lot and provides valet
parking for its customers at a $2.00 charge. Additionally, as
evidenced from letters received, the Wave Restaurant permits
several retail businesses on Main street to park in this lot
during their business hours (Exhibit E).
The appellant has indicated his concern that the proposed parking
for the expansion could result in multiple overlay use of the
existing parking used by the restaurant. Planning staff supports
the appellant I s concern as it appears that by increasing the
restaurant seating capacity and utilizing the parking lot the
Wave and other businesses already use to meet the new parking
demand, some customers, either from the Wave Restaurant or the
other retail businesses, will be displaced from using this lot.
In response to this concern, the applicant indicated in their
public testimony at the Planning Commission hearing that they
intend to enter into a 20-year lease for 15 parking spaces at the
Ehringer development at 3100 Main street. They indicated that
these parking spaces are in excess of what the Ehringer
Development is required to have since Mr. Ehringer has indicated
that he does not intend to open a 130 seat restaurant in this
development as originally approved.
The appellant has indicated his concern that use of parking at
3100 Main street for the Wave Restaurant may result in problems,
considering the distance of the Wave Restaurant to this project
and the potential for a restaurant to open in the 3100 Main
- 4 -
~
street development in the future. Planning staff concurs with
the appellant's concerns since there are no long-term guarantees
that there will never be a restaurant in the Ehringer development
in the future which will be required to utilize these parking
spaces.
In approving the project, the Planning commission required that
valet parking be provided during all hours of operation and that
the valet parking shall utilize off-street parking within 750
feet of the restaurant. A total of 36 parking spaces shall be
provided, four of which may be by permit in City or County lots
and these four spaces may be located outside the 750 foot radius.
The Planning commission required a written report to be submitted
twice a year to the Director of Planning and the Parking and
Traffic Engineer to indicate where these parking spaces are
provided, the number of spaces in each location and the name and
address of the valet parking contractor. Should this report not
be received or off-street parking not be available, the applicant
shall be required to reduce the seating to a maximum of 49 seats
until such time as the report is received and/or off-street
parking is secured as the case may be. Planning staff maintains
that this type of condition of approval is not a good policy to
set on Main street in that the number of parking spaces required
by the Planning Commission is not based on any traffic analysis,
and since the Wave restaurant's parking situation is not unique,
this type of condition may encourage other restaurants on Main
street to be expanded without the provision of on-site parking.
- 5 -
~
Planning staff also has concerns about this project in terms of
carrying out an effective enforcement program. Prior to the
submission of a Development Review and Conditional Use Permit
application for this project the City and Coastal Commission
received complaints regarding the Wave Restaurant's operation.
The complaints focused on the restaurant's installation of
seating in excess of 49 seats without proper permits, and
automobiles being left in the valet parking drop-off area for
extended periods of time. A chronology of inspections and
actions concerning these complaints is outlined in the November
10, 1986 Planning Commission staff report (Exhibit F). Planning
staff maintains that approval of this project tends to negate the
previous enforcement actions taken concerning this restaurant and
sets a precedent for other potential Zoning Code violators.
Planning staff maintains that the proposed increase in seating at
the Wave Restaurant will result in increased traffic congestion
and a greater parking demand which cannot adequately be
accommodated in the area. Additionally, staff believes that
although the Wave Restaurant was llgrandfathered in" with 49 seats
because a restaurant was previously at this location, any
expansion in seating should not be permitted in that the use of
the restaurant will be intensified and there are already more
than two restaurants in this block.
CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY
Under the provisions of section 4, Ordinance 1321 and section
9148c (SMMC), the City Council may affirm, reverse or modify any
- 6 -
-:
determination of the Planning commission in regard to a
Development Review Permit and Conditional Use Permit and the
decision of the City council shall be final.
In approving an
application, the council on appeal must make appropriate findings
and may add conditions necessary to protect the public welfare.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have a
budget/fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
staff respectfully recommends that the city council grant the
appeal and deny the project as submitted and direct staff to
prepare appropriate findings for adoption at a subsequent Council
meeting, such findings to be based on those contained in the
March 3, 1986 staff report.
Prepared by: R. Ann siracusa, Director of Planning
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Karen Rosenberg, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
community and Economic Development Department
Exhibi ts : A) Attachment to the Application for
Administrative Approval of Amendment to DR 093
B) Amended conditions of Approval for
Administrative Approval of Amendment to DR 093
C) statement of Official Action
D) Letter of Appeal, Councilmember Herbert Katz
E) Letters from B-1 Gallery, Mudra, st. Matthews
Thrift Shop
F) Staff Report to Planning Commission, November
10, 1986
G) Staff Report to Planning commission, October 6,
1986
- 7 -
.,
~
EXHIBIT A
Attachment to ,the Application for Admin1strative A~proval of
Awendment to DR 093.
.j
;
J
DR 093 was approved on August 16, 1982 and received Architectural
Review Board approval in 1983. { .
.-
The original approval was for the remodel of the existing struc-
tures at the northwest corner of Main Street and Ashland Avenue
for use as a 49 seat patio/restaurant (with an existing liquor
license), bakery and flower mart. A parking variance was ap-
proved as well. The property had been a bar and restaurant for
many years with no parking other than undesignated parking for
approximately four cars. The open area previously used informal-
ly for parking was designed in the approved project for a public
landscaped park area.
I!:I
The request to amend DR 093 would preserve the original footprint
of the project through rehabilitation of the existing structures.
The structure at the northeast corner of the lot will be removed
and restructured as a part of the larger building cluster. The
buildings are surrounded by a wall which will integrate the
structures and define the space.
The resta~r~nt will not exceed 49 seats including those at the
bar/dining area. This project is not subject to review under the
new conditional use permit procedures since it was previously
approved for this use and the Alcoholic Beverage Control records
substantiated that a liquor license remained active on this prop-
erty since project approval and lapsed only briefly as the prop-
erty was sold in Aug1.lst 1984. The square footage increase is
less than 10%. In that the use is essentially the same as that
approved by the Planning Commission, the existing building will
be remodeled within approximately the same configuration and
square footage, and the same amount of public area and the permit
has not expired, the Director of Planning approves this amendment
as described above and shown on the attached plans subject to the
followlng conditions:
1. Total seating for the restaurant, bar and restaurant patio
shall not exceed 49 seats. Seating in the public park
area is not included in the 49 seat limitation.
2. Any increase in the intensity or change in proposed mode
of operation (as described in the attachment) shall neces-
sitate review by the Planning Commission and approval of a
Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the Ordinance requiring
Conditional Use Permits for alcohol outlets.
3. Valet parking shall be provided at no cost to customers of
the restaurant during restaurant hours. In addition, bike
racks shall be provided on site.
4. The bar area shall close at the same time as the res-
taurant meal service ceases and shall not exceed midnight.
- 1 -
)
.'
5.
The Arc......tectural Review Board, in ,-heir review, shall pay
particular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta-
tion and pedestrian amenities; scale and articulation of
design elements; exterior colors, textures and materials;
window treatment; glazing; and landscaping.
6. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Planning. An increase of more than 10%
of the square footage or a sign~ficant change in the ap-
proved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission
Review. Construction shall be in substantial conformance
with the plans submitted or as modified by the Planning
Commission, Architectural Review, Board or Director of
Planning.
7.
The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised within a period of one year from the effective
date of approval. Upon the written request of the appli-
cant, the Director of Planning may extend this period up
to an additional six months.
~
B. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
9. ReDuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
be screened in accordance with Sec. 91l7J.2-4 (SMMC). Re-
fuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
need.
10. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental~to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other
actions.
11. Street trees shall be relocated or provided as required in
a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code COrd. 1242
. CCS), per the specifications of the Department of Recre-
ation and Parks and the Department of General Services.
No street tree shall be removed without the approval of
the Department of Recreation and Parks.
Date
't( 1.1 i 9J4
~,~
pa~l J. ,\Silvern
Dilecto~bf Planning
CW:nh DR093
- 2 -
. :/.
lI'
'.
EXHIBIJ: B
Amended Conditions of Ap?roval for Administrative Approval of
Amendment to DR 093.
1.
2.
3.
'.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
9.
--
Total seating for the restaurant, bar and restaurant patio
shall not exceed 49 seats. Fixed seating in the public
p.ark area per approved...plans shall not be included in the
49 seat limitation.
Valet parking shall be provided during restaurant hours.
In addition, bike racks shall b~ provided on site.
Permitted hours of operation: Rest~urant Monday-Thursday
until midnight Friday-Sunday until -":o'ne a.m. Bar Monday-
Sunday until midnight or whenever food service ceases,
whichever occurs first. Alcohol may be served in the res- 9
taurant in conjunction with meal service during all per-
mitted restaurant hours.
The Architectural Review Board, in their review, shall pay
particular attention to the project's pedestrian orienta-
tion and pedestrian amenities: scale and articulation of
design elements: exterior colors, textures and materials:
window treatment; glazing; and landscaping.
.
Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval
by the Director of Plann~ng. An increase of more than 10%
of the square footage or a significant change in the ap-
proved concept shall be subject to Planning Corrunlssion
Review. Construction shall be in substantial conformance
with the plans submitted or as modified by the Plann~ng
Commiss~on, Architectural Review Board or Director of
Planning.
The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised within a period of one year from the effective
date of approval. Upon the written request of the appli-
cant. the Director of Planning may extend this period up
to an additional six months.
The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
Refuse areas. storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
be screened in accordance with Sec. 9ll7J.2-4 (SMMC). Re-
fuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
need.
The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of lights, noise, activities. parking or other
actions.
- 1 -
J
)
10
10. Street' trees shall be relocated or provided as required in
a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code COrd. 1242
CCS), per the specifications of the Department of Recre-
ation and Parks and the Department of General Services.
No street tree shall be removed without the approval of
the Department of Recr~ation and Parks.
Cl (/1 /~S
Da te l ' I' ~
tf~::J.~l, ',,-
Paul J. 5ilve~~v~
Director of Planning
CW:nh ST093
-;;:...
"
"
9
, .
. .
"
- 2 -
EXHIBIT C
STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION
PROJECT
NUMBER: DR 347a, CUP 431a
LOCATION: 2820 Main street
APPLICANT: Wave Restaurant
REQUEST: To Permit the Expansion of an Existing Restaurant
to Over 50 Seats with a General spirits License
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
11/10/86
Date.
x
Approved based on the following findings and
subject to the conditions below.
Denied.
Other.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS
1. The development is consistent with the findings and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The physical location and placement of proposed structures
on the site are compatible with and relate harmoniously to
surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the restaurant
is currently operational, no physical alterations are pro-
posed for the structures and the existing low planter wall
at the front and south side of the site will be removed
per Condition 4 and outdoor public seating will be in-
stalled per Conditions 3 and 5 attached herein making the
open space area more public inviting.
3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities
for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development including off-street parking facilities
and access thereto in that per Condition 2 attached
herein, a minimum of 36 off-street parking spaces shall be
provided for restaurant use with valet parking available
during all hours of operation and the applicant shall pro-
vide the Director of Planning with documentation verifying
the provision of this parking in a manner set forth in
Condition 2.
- 1 -
4. The existing and/or proposed public and/or private health
and safety facilities (including, but not limited to,
sanitation, sewers, storm drains, fire protection devices,
protective services, and public utilities) will be ade-
quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro-
posed development.
5. The proposed development is consistent with the General
Plan of the city of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance
in that the project will conform to the height, bulk, use
and urban design policies for the Commercial Corridor as
specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and
conform to the appropriate CM2 standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance.
ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS
1. The proposed use and location are in accordance with good
zoning practice, in the pUblic interest, and necessary
that substantial justice be done in that the proj ect is
for the sales of general spirits incidental to the sales
and consumption of food served on the premises.
2. The proposed use is compatible with existing and potential
uses within the general area; traffic or parking
congestions will not result; the public health, safety,
and general welfare are protected; and no harm to
adjacent properties will result in that the use is allowed
in the CM2 zone, and valet parking will be provided during
restaurant hours to accommodate the parking demands
generated by the project.
3. The welfare of neighborhood residents will not be
adversely affected in that conditions of approval will be
required to mitigate the impact of parking by restaurant
customers in adjacent residential areas.
4. The change in the license will not contribute to an undue
concentration of alcohol outlets in the area in that this
restaurant has an existing general spirits license and no
change to the existing license classification is proposed
as a result of the increase in number of restaurant seats.
5. There will be no detrimental affect on nearby
residentially zoned neighborhoods considering the distance
of the alcohol outlet to residential buildings, churches,
schools, hospitals, playgrounds, parks, and other existing
alcohol outlets in that the restaurant has an existing
general spirits license, is not located in an area with a
large concentration of schools or churches and the
conditions for approval will minimize the potential affect
on adjacent residential uses.
- 2 -
I
CONDITIONS
1. The maximum number of fixed seats for the restaurant shall
be limited to 85 seats. No greater number of seats shall
be available for food or bar service without the amendment
of this CUP or the approval of a new CUP.
2. The applicant shall provide for valet parking to serve the
restaurant during all hours of operation. Such valet
parking shall have the use of off-street parking at
locations not more than 750 feet from the Restaurant,
which off-street parking shall provide for not less than
36 parking spaces, four of which may be by permit in City
or County lots, which need not be within 750 feet. The
applicant shall file a written report with the Director of
Planning (with a copy to the Parking and Traffic Engineer)
during the 30 days prior to January 31 and July 31 of each
year describing (a) the location of the parking spaces
required by this condition, (b) the number of spaces at
each such location, and (c) the name and address of the
valet parking contractor providing for valet parking. If
this written report is not received by the Director of
Planning in a timely manner, the Director of Planning
shall notify the applicant and require the number of fixed
seats on the premises to be reduced to 49 seats until such
time as the report is properly filed. If on any date the
applicant does not have off-street parking which meets the
terms of this condition, the applicant shall immediately
notify the Director of Planning and shall reduce the fixed
seats on the premises to 49 seats until such time as
additional parking in accordance with this permit is
secured.
3. The applicant shall construct or install six seats or
stools within the open space area of the property.
4. The applicant shall remove the low landscaping wall
located on the frontage along Ashland Avenue as shown on
the submitted drawing and shall connect the walkway on the
property to the sidewalk.
5. The applicant shall construct or install six seats or
stools facing Ashland Avenue in the area northeast of the
area in which the wall is removed under the terms of
Condition No.4.
6. The applicant shall convert one set of French doors within
the new seating area into an emergency fire door with
appropriate hardware and signage to the satisfaction of
the Building Department and Fire Department.
7. valet parking shall be provided during restaurant hours.
In addition, bicycle racks shall be provided on site.
- 3 -
8. Permitted hours of operation: Restaurant Monday-Thursday
until midnight, Friday-Sunday until one a.m. Bar
Monday-Sunday until midnight or whenever food service
ceases, whichever occurs first. Alcohol may be served in
the restaurant in conjunction with meal service during all
permitted restaurant hours.
9. The rights granted herein shall be effective only when
exercised within a period of one year from the effective
date of approval. Upon the written request of the
applicant, the Director of Planning may extend this period
up to an additional six months.
10. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements
regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set
forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24,
Part 2.
11.
Refuse areas,
be screened
Refuse areas
need.
storage areas and mechanical equipment shall
in accordance with Sec. 9ll7J.2-4 (SMMC).
shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site
12. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner
not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by
reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other
actions.
13. No alcoholic beverages shall be sold for consumption
beyond the premises. The applicant shall prohibit the
consumption of alcohol within the open space area of the
property. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant
to enforce this requirement.
14. street trees shall be maintained, relocated, provided or
replaced as required in a manner consistent with the
city's Tree Code (Ord. 1242 CCS), per the specifications
of the Department of Recreation and Parks and the
Department of General Servics. No street tree shall be
removed without the approval of the Department of
Recreation and Parks.
15. This Conditional Use Permit shall expire on December 31,
1991 and it shall be the owners responsibility to file a
new Conditional Use Permit application at least 120 days
prior to expiration of CUP 431a.
16. The applicant shall control noisy patrons leaving the
restaurant.
17. The primary use of the premises shall be for sit-down meal
service to patrons.
- 4 -
18. In order to maintain the primary use of the premises for
sit-down meal service, patrons shall not be permitted to
use the bar unless they are waiting to be seated for meal
services.
19. The premises shall maintain a kitchen or food-serving area
in which a variety of food is prepared and cooked on the
premises.
20. The premises shall serve food to patrons during all hours
the establishment is open for customers.
21. Take out service shall be only incidental to the primary
sit-down use.
22. No dancing or live entertainment shall be permitted on the
premises.
23. Final plans for any changes to exterior design,
landscaping, trash enclosures, and/or signage shall be
subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review
Board.
24. This determination shall not become effective for a period
of twenty days from the date of determination or, if ap-
pealed, until a final determination is made on the appeal.
25. Approval of this project shall be subject to approval of a
parking variance, ZA-5077-Y' and any conditions attached
therein.
VOTE
Ayes:
Nays:
Abstain:
Absent:
Burns, Israel, Latimer, Nelson
Farivar, Hecht, Perlman
I hereby certify that this statement of
accurately reflects the final determination
commission of the City of Santa Monica.
Official Action
of the Planning
signature
date
print name and title
KR:nh
STCUP431
12/2/86
- 5 -
filE CO~y
C(i~~g~
)
EXHIBIT D
I-
I
SIXTEEN EIGHTY FIVE MAIN STREET
SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401
Herbert Katz
Council Member
November 17, 1986
planning Division
1685 Main street, Room 212
Santa Monica, California 90401-3295
Re: CUP 431a and DR 347a
I would like to appeal the Planning Commission approval of
Conditional Use Permit 43la and Development Review for 2820 Main
street for the following reasons:
l. There is currently a lack of parking in the area and the
project proposal does not provide adequate assurance of a
long term parking commitment for the expansion,
2. The use of the Ehringer site parking is questionable- in terms
of distance from the restaurant and in terms of- possible
conflicts with required parking for a restaurant in that
project, and
3. The propdsed parking for the expansion could result in
mUltiple overlay use of the existing parking lot used by the
restaurant.
Please advise me when the appeal will be scheduled for public
hearing before the City council.
RAS
Katzapl
11/18/86
EXHIBIT E
2730 MAIN STREET. SANTA MONICA, CA 80405 . 213 392-8625
Octobe r 4, 1986
City of Santa Monica Planning CommisSion
C I t y Ha I I
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Planning CommisSion:
We are a bUSiness on Main Street, and although we do not lease
parking from Wave Restaurant, they al low us to park there durIng
the daytime. This greatly assists an already problematic parking
situation on Main Street.
Their cooperation benefits not only us, but our customers.
Sincerely,
~~~~
Robert J. Berman
Owner/Director
B-1 Gallery
Robert Berman Gallery
Robert Berman FIne Art
RB/kvk
cc: Wave Restaurant
EXHIBIT E
.
~U[)~A\
~44S ft'\A1p.w ~I.
54p.wT.4 MVM(;.4. CA. lJIJ41Jt1
10 whom It mal' concern:
This Is certify that M.udra Inc., rents from the Wave
l2enurant. three parklnQ spaces. _onth.y. at the rate of
$4()1I).OO per. month.
"
~
-f
EXHIBIT E
ST. MATTHEW'S THRli'T SHOP
2812 :r..iAIN STREET, SANTA MOKICA, CA 90405 / (213) 396-9776
/o-7'-yC
4U771J'7~)
~ 4J~~'
~/. .ed y~.~.
- ~/b~j :::i;-- ~~
-)~ ~
/
~j V- ~ /Z.-L ~
./
~ r"::;t YL~";~ ~
L:c- ~~ ~ ~I /r~
~~~-,"/~r.~
~~ ~~~
~~~~Yz~
~ ~~::z:- ~ ~
~.
1J::LhO
~
EXHIBIT F
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
November 10, 1986
TO:
The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM:
R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
SUBJECT:
DR 347a, CUP 431a, To Permit the Expansion of an
Existing Restaurant to OVer 50 Seats with a General
Spirits License.
Address:
Applicant:
2820 Main street
Wave Restaurant
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 5,700 sq. ft. parcel located at the
northwest corner of Main Street and Ashland Avenue having a
frontage of 75 feet. Surrounding uses consist of retail and
office uses (CM2) to the north, retail and office uses (CM2) to
the south, retail and office uses (CM2) to the east and public
parking (R4A) to the west.
Zoning District: CM2
Land Use District: Commercial Corridor
Parcel Area:
75' X 76'
PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant is proposing to expand the Wave Restaurant on Main
street, currently with 49 seats, to an 85 seat restaurant with an
on-site general spirits license. All seating will be located
within the building. Food and alcohol will be provided
throughout the restaurant. Proposed hours of operation are 11:30
a.m. to 1:00 a.m. The restaurant currently has an on-site
general spirits license. Under Ordinance 1321 (CCS) Development
Review is required in that the restaurant is over 50 seats.
Additionally, under Ordinance 1319 (CCS), a Conditional Use
permi t is required in that the number of restaurant seats is
being expanded by more than 25%. A Conditional Use Permit is
also required per Section 9119B4d of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code, in that the restaurant is proposed to have over 50 seats.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code and
General Plan in that a parking variance will be required to
- 1 -
permit the required parking for the
located at a lot 150' north of the site.
additional seats
(Attachment A).
to
be
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the provls10ns of CEQA,
City of Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation (Class 1
(21)).
FEES
The proj ect is exempt
program contained in
Element.
from the Housing
the adopted Land
and
Use
Parks Mitigation
and Circulation
ANALYSIS
Background and Prior Actions
On August 16, 1982 the Planning Commission approved DR 093 for
the remodel of the existing structures at this location for use
as a restaurant with an existing liquor license, a bakery and
flower mart. The Planning Commission also approved ZA 4567-Y to
allow the remodeling to occur without the provision of parking.
The property had previously been a bar and restaurant with no
parking other than undesignated parking in front of the site for
approximately four cars. This open area, previously used
informally for parking was designed in the approved project as a
landscaped public park area.
On November 27, 1984 Planning staff approved an amendment to DR
093 for the retention of the original footprint of the project,
and rehabilitation of the existing structures with the exception
of the building at the northeast corner of the site which was
proposed for demolition and reconstruction in order to make it
part of the larger building cluster (Attachment B). As part of
the Administrative Approval the conditions of approval were
amended on February 19, 1985 (Attachment C). Staff found that a
Condi tional Use Permit was not required for this proj ect under
Ordinance 1319 (CCS) since an alcohol license was previously
approved for the project and the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Records substantiated that a liquor license remained active at
this site since DR 093 was originally approved except for a brief
lapse when the property was sold in August 1984. In
administratively approving the amendment to DR 093, restaurant
seating was limited to 49 seats, not including fixed seating in
the public park area per the approved plans, valet parking was
required to be provided during restaurant hours, bicycle racks
were required and hours of operation were limited to a closing
hour of midnight Monday-Thursday and one a.m. Friday-Saturday.
The bar was limited to a Closing hour of midnight or whenever
food service ceases, whichever occurs first. The project
subsequently received approval by the Architectural Review Board
on January 16, 1985. At their meeting on March 12-15, 1985, the
Coastal Commission approved this project with the condition that
- 2 -
four parking spaces be provided through the purchase of four
monthly City parking permits for use at the public parking lot to
the rear of the site.
The applicant's original proposal was to increase their 49 seat
restaurant to 155 seats with an on-site general spirits license.
At the October 6, 1986 Planning Commission Meeting the applicants
withdrew this application and indicated that they would reapply
for an 85 seat restaurant as currently proposed.
Over the past several months, the city and the Coastal Commission
have received several complaints regarding the Wave Restaurant's
operation. These complaints have focused on the restaurant' 5
installation of seating in excess of 49 seats without proper
permits, and automobiles being left in the valet parking drop-off
area for extended periods of time. The following outline
provides a chronology of inspections and actions which have been
made by the Planning Division concerning complaints regarding
violation of the seating in the restaurant.
April 8, 1986:
April 25, 1986:
April 28, 1986:
May 6, 1986:
May 11, 1986:
May 14, 1986:
June 6, 1986:
June 18, 1986:
June 20, 1986:
June 24, 1986:
Inspection; over 60 seats provided in
dining area.
Inspection;
dining area;
President.
over 60 seats provided in
meeting with Michael Condon,
Notification letter to Mr. Condon regarding
seating violations and requirement for
bicycle racks per conditions of approval.
Meeting with restaurant attorney and Mr.
Condon at restaurant. Mr. Condon agrees to
having 43 seats in main dining area and 6
seats in bar area (plus 2 employee seats)
and no seating on back patio area.
Inspection; over 60 seats in main dining
area plus tables and chairs in bar area.
Second violation letter sent to Mr. Condon
regarding seating violations.
Inspection; complied with 49 seat capacity.
Inspection; over 60 seats in main dining
area, 13 seats on patio.
Third violation letter sent to Mr. Condon
regarding seating violations.
Inspection; over 60 seats in main dining
area, tables and chairs on back patio, over
6 chairs in bar area.
- 3 -
July 1, 1986:
Applicant files Development Review and
Conditional Use Permit to expand seating to
155 seats.
PROPOSED INCREASE IN SEATING
As proposed, the existing restaurant of 49 seats would be
increased to 85 seats. The majority of the additional seating
will be located in the covered patio areas where there is
currently no seating. Both the Building Department and Fire
Department have indicated that if restaurant seating is expanded
into the large patio area facing Main Street an exterior door for
use by the public will have to be provided in this area.
As proposed, the proj ect will require a parking variance to
permit 7 required parking spaces for the 36 additional seats to
be located in a private parking lot located 150' to the north of
the site. This parking lot would be serviced through a valet
parking system and a total of 24 parking spaces would be provided
wi th eight tandem spaces. Al though this lot does not provide
required parking for any businesses on Main Street, other
businesses, as evidenced from letters received (Exhibit D), and
the Wave Restaurant currently use the lot. Therefore, it is
possible that current users would be displaced if the Wave
Restaurant were granted a parking variance to lease this parking
for the additional seating. Under the city's on-street Valet
Parking Program, businesses which are permitted on-street valet
parking zones are required to lease private off-street parking
spaces for the valet attendants to use. The Wave Restaurant
currently complies with this requirement by leasing and utilizing
parking at the same lot which they propose to lease for their
proposed additional seating. Therefore it would appear that by
increasing the seating capacity and utilizing this lot to satisfy
the parking requirement, the Wave Restaurant would be displacing
its own customers who currently use this lot. Additionally,
there are no guarantees that the applicants will be able to lease
this parking lot for the life of the project.
In approving a Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant over 50
seats on Main Street, the Planning Commission must make the
findings that the use is compatible with existing and potential
uses in the area and traffic or parking congestion will not
result. Planning staff feels that the approval of any additional
restaurant seats at this location could result in increased
traffic and parking congestion by virtue of the limited amount of
available parking in the area.
As outlined in the October 7th Planning Commission staff report,
the City I S Parking and Traffic Engineer has indicated that the
restaurant's existing on-street valet parking zone at Main Street
and Ashland Avenue currently operates at capacity during peak
times and any increase in seating would likely create serious
congestion problems at this location.
- 4 -
As proposed, the increase in seating at this restaurant will
result in an increase in patronage and intensity of use, thereby
making the restaurant less of a neighborhood serving
establishment and more regional serving in character.
Under Section 91l9B. 4. d this restaurant is located in Block 4
which extends from Ashland Avenue to Hill Street. Currently
there are a total of six restaurants in this block. Although the
Wave Restaurant was "grandfathered in" with 49 seats because a
restaurant had previously been at this location, Planning staff
maintains that any seating expansion should not be permitted in
that the use of the restaurant will be intensified and there are
already more than two restaurants in this block.
SURROUNDING ALCOHOL OUTLETS AND POPULATION STATISTICS
within a 500' radius of the site there are four restaurants with
on-sale beer and wine licenses, three restaurants with on-sale
general spirits licenses, one business with an off-sale beer and
wine license and one business with an off-sale general license.
There are also four on-sale general spirits licenses for public
premises (Attachment E). In that the Wave Restaurant is
currently operating with a general spirits license, approval of
this project would not result in a new alcohol outlet but would
resul t in an increase in the number of customers who could be
served alcohol in the area.
Based on the 1980 census there is a residential population of
1,294 people within a 500 foot radius of the project. The
Alcohol Beverage Control guidelines state than an
overconcentration of alcohol outlets may occur if the area has
more than one establishment with an on-sale license for each 800
residents. In that this restaurant currently is operating with
an alcohol license and this area already has an overconcentration
of alcohol outlets based upon the ABC I s guidelines, Planning
staff does not feel that it would be appropriate or good planning
practice to permit this restaurant to expand its seating and thus
expand its alcohol service in the area.
CONCLUSION
The proposed increase in seating at the Wave Restaurant would
resul t in increased traffic congestion and a greater parking
demand which Planning staff does not believe can adequately be
accommodated in the area. Planning staff also maintains that the
Wave Restaurant was originally approved for 49 seats in that a
restaurant had previously been located at this site and should
not be permitted to expand its number of seats in that there
already are more than two restaurants in this block and any
seating increase will result in its use being intensified.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning staff respectfully recommends that DR 347a and CUP 431a
be denied with the following findings for denial.
- 5 -
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
l. The development is inconsistent with the findings and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities
for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will not be
adequate to accommodate the anticipated results of the
proposed development including off-street parking facili-
ties and access thereto in that parking for the additional
seating cannot be accommodated on-site and therefore a
parking variance will be required and an increase in con-
gestion at the on-street valet parking zone would result.
3. The proposed development is inconsistent with the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance
in that the project does not conform to the appropriate
CM2 standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance in that a
parking variance will be required. Additionally, the Main
street Ordinance encourages neighborhood oriented uses,
limits the number of restaurants per block and requires a
Conditional Use Permit to limit the number of restaurants
over 50 seats.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR INCREASE IN
SEATING
1. The proposed use and location are not in accordance with
good zoning practice, in the public interest and not
necessary in that the proposal includes a 36 seat increase
in restaurant seating without the provision of on-site
parking to accommodate this increase.
2. The proposed use is not compatible with existing and po-
tential uses within the general area, traffic or parking
congestion will result, the public health, safety and
general wel fare are not protected and harm to adj acent
properties could result in that there are already more
than two restaurants in this block and the increase in
seating would contribute to the existing parking problems
in the area.
ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
1. The proposed use and location are not in accordance with
good zoning practice, in the public interest, or necessary
in that the increase number of seats will result in in-
creased alcohol service within an area already adequately
serviced by alcohol outlets.
2. The proposed use is not compatible with existing and po-
tential uses within the general area; traffic or parking
congestion will result; the public health, safety, and
general wel fare not are protected; and harm to adj acent
properties will result based on the analysis and other
findings contained in this report.
- 6 -
3. The welfare of neighborhood residents may be adversely
affected based on the analysis and other findings con-
tained in this report.
Prepared by: Karen Rosenberg, Associate Planner
c.
Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance
Attachment to the Application for Administra-
tive Approval of Amendment to DR 093.
Amended Conditions of Approval for Administra-
tive Approval to DR 093.
Letters from Nature's Own, st. Matthew's
Thrift Shop, Mudra, B-1 Gallery.
Alcohol Outlets
Attachments: A.
B.
D.
E.
KR:ca
DR347a
11/03/86
- 7 -
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
category Municipal Code
proposed Use CM2: Permts Rest-
aurants Over 50
Seats With
Conditional Use
Permit
parking No Parking
Required For
Existing' 49
Seats 36 Ad-
ditional Seats
@ 1:5 - 7
Parking Spaces
Required.
Land Use
Element
Same as
Municipal Code
Same as
Municipal Code
- 8 -
Project
155 Seat Rest-
aurant with
Alcohol Service
None Provided
On-Site,
Requires
Parking
Variance
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 6, 1986
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: R. Ann siracusa, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: DR 347, CUP 431, To Permit the Expansion of an Existing
Restaurant to Over 50 Seats with a General Spirits
License.
Address:
Applicant:
2820 Main street
Wave Restaurant
SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a 5,700 sq.ft. parcel located at the
northwest corner of Main Street and Ashland Avenue having a
frontage of 75 feet. Surrounding uses consist of retail and
office uses (CM2) to the north, retail and office uses (CM2) to
the south, retail and office uses (CM2) to the east and public
parking (R4A) to the west.
Zoning District:
Land Use District:
CM2
Commercial Corridor
Parcel Area:
75' X 76'
PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant is proposing to expand The Wave Restaurant on Main
street, currently with 49 seats, to a 155 seat restaurant with an
on-sale general spirits license. Forty of the proposed
additional seats will be located in the outdoor area in front of
the building. Food and alcohol will be provided throughout the
restaurant. Proposed hours of operation are 11:30 a.m. to 1:00
a.m. The restaurant currently has an on-sale general spirits
license. Under Ordinance 1321 (CCS) Development Review is
required in that the restaurant is over 50 seats. Additionally,
under Ordinance 1319 (CCS) a Conditional Use Permit is required
in that the number of restaurant seats is being expanded by more
than 25%. A Conditional Use Permit is also required per section
9l19B4d of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, in that the
restaurant is proposed to have over 50 seats.
- 1 -
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The proposed project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code and
General Plan in that a parking variance will be required to
permit the required parking for the additional seats to be
located at a lot 150' north of the site with eight spaces in
tandem and operated through a valet system (Attachment A).
CEQA STATUS
The project is categorically exempt from the provls10ns of CEQA,
City of Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation (Class 1
(21) ) .
FEES
The proj ect is exempt
program contained in
Element.
from the Housing and Parks Hi tigation
the adopted Land Use and Circulation
ANALYSIS
Background and Prior Actions
On August 16, 1982 the Planning commission approved DR 093 for
the remodel of the existing structures at this location for use
as a restaurant with an existing I iquor license, a bakery and
flower mart. The Planning Commission also approved ZA 4567-Y to
allow the remodeling to occur without the provision of parking.
The property had been a bar and restaurant for many years with no
parking other than undesignated parking in front of the site for
approximately four cars. This open area, previously used
informally for parking was designed in the approved project as a
landscaped public park area.
On November 27, 1984 Planning staff approved an amendment to DR
093 for the retention of the original footprint of the project,
and rehabilitation of the existing structures with the exception
of the building at the northeast corner of the site which was
proposed for demolition and reconstruction in order to make it
part of the larger building cluster (Attachment B). As part of
the Administrative Approval the conditions of approval were
amended on February 19, 1985 (Attachment C). Staff found that a
Condi tional Use Parmi t was not required for this proj ect under
ordinance 1319 (CCS) since an alcohol license was previously
approved for the proj ect and the Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Records substantiated that a liquor license remained active at
this site since DR 093 was originally approved except for a brief
lapse when the property was sold in August 1984. In
administratively approving the amendment to DR 093, restaurant
seating was limited to 49 seats, not including fixed seating in
the public park area per the approved plans, valet parking was
required to be provided during restaurant hours, bicycle racks
were required and hours of operation were limited to a closing
hour of midnight Monday-Thursday and one a.m. Friday-Saturday.
- 2 -
The bar was limited to a closing hour of midnight or whenever
food service ceases, whichever occurs first. The project
subsequently received approval by the Architectural Review Board
on January 16, 1985. At their meeting on March 12-15, 1985, the
Coastal commission approved this project with the condition that
four parking spaces be provided through the purchase of four
monthly City parking permits for use at the public parking lot to
the rear of the site. According to the City's Parking and
Traffic Engineer, the applicant has never purchased the 4 monthly
city parking permits and therefore is in violation of the Coastal
Permit.
Proposed Increase in Seating
As proposed, the existing restaurant of 49 seats would be
increased to 155 seats. This represents more than a 200%
increase in seating. Forty of the seats are proposed to be
located in front of the building within the area of the project
which was originally approved as a public park area. Planning
staff feels that the original intent of this public park area
should be preserved and therefore does not support the proposal
to permit outdoor restaurant seating within or adjacent to this
area.
As proposed, the project will require a parking variance to
permit 21 required parking spaces for the 106 additional seats to
be located in a private parking lot located ISO' to the north of
the site. This parking lot would be serviced through a valet
parking system and a total of 24 parking spaces would be provided
wi th eight tandem spaces. Al though this lot does not provide
required parking for any businesses on Main street, other
businesses including the Wave Restaurant use the lot. Therefore,
Planning staff believes that current users would be displaced if
the Wave Restaurant were granted a variance and took over a lease
for the entire site. Under the City's on-street Valet Parking
Program, businesses which are permitted on-street valet parking
zones are required to lease private off-street parking spaces.
The Wave Restaurant currently complies with this requirement by
leasing and utilizing parking at the same lot which they propose
to lease for their proposed additional seating. Therefore, it
would appear that by increasing their seating and utilizing the
parking lot to satisfy the parking requirement, the Wave
Restaurant would be displacing its own customers who currently
use this lot. Furthermore, in approving a Conditional Use Permit
for a restaurant over 50 seats on Main street, the Planning
commission must make the findings that the use is compatible with
existing and potential uses in the area and traffic or parking
congestion will not result. Planning staff feels that the
approval of additional restaurant seats at this location could
result in increased traffic and parking congestion by virtue of
the limted amount of available parking in the area.
Additionally, as proposed, there are no guarantees that the lease
of the parking lot will run with the life of the project.
According to the city's Parking and Traffic Engineer, the
restaurant's existing on-street valet parking zone at Main Street
- 3 -
and Ashland Avenue currently operates at capacity during peak
times and any increase in seating would likely create serious
congestion problems at this location.
As proposed, the increase in seating at this restaurant will
result in an increase in patronage and intensity of use thereby
making the restaurant more of a regional serving establishment
rather than neighborhood serving. Under section 9ll9B4. d this
restaurant is located in Block 4 which extends from Ashland
Avenue to Hill street. Currently there are a total of six
restaurants in this block. Al though the Wave Restaurant was
"grandfathered in" because a restaurant had previously been at
this location, Planning staff feels that any expansion in seating
should not be permitted in that there already are more than two
restaurants in this block.
Surrounding Alcohol Outlets and population Statistics
Within a 500' radius of the site there are four restaurants with
on-sale beer and wine licenses, three restaurants with on-sale
general spirits licenses, one business with an off-sale beer and
wine license and one business with an off-sale general license.
There are also four on-sale general spirits licenses for public
premises (Attachment D). In that the Wave Restaurant is
currently operating with a general spirits license, approval of
this project would not result in a new alcohol outlet but would
resul t in an increase in the number of customers who could be
served alcohol in the area.
Based on the 1980 census there is a residential population of
1, 294 people wi thin a 500 foot radius of the proj ect. The
Alcohol Beverage Control guidelines state than an
overconcentration of alcohol outlets may occur if the area has
more than one establishment with an on-sale license for each 800
residents. In that this restaurant currently is operating with
an alcohol license and this area already has an overconcentration
of alcohol outlets based upon the ABC's guidelines, Planning
staff does not feel that it would be appropriate or good planning
practice to permit this restaurant to expand its seating and thus
expand its alcohol service in the area.
Over the past several months, the City and the Coastal Commission
have received several complaints regarding the Wave Restaurant's
operation. These complaints have focused on the restaurant's
installation of seating in excess of 49 seats without proper
permits, and automobiles being left in the valet parking drop-off
area for extended periods of time.
Conclusion
The proposed increase in seating at the Wave Restaurant would
result in an increased parking demand which Planning staff feels
cannot be adequately accommodated in the area without causing the
displacement of other businesses from the parking lot that Wave
would use if granted a parking variance. Additionally, Planning
staff feels that the proposed outdoor dining area in front of the
- 4 -
restaurant infringes upon the public park area in front of the
restaurant which was part of the previously approved project.
RECOMMENDATION
planning staff respectfully recommends that DR 347, CUP 431 be
denied with the following findings for denial.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
I. The development is inconsistent with the findings and pur-
pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below.
2. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities
for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will not be
adequate to accommodate the anticipated results of the
proposed development including off-street parking facili-
ties and access thereto in that parking for the additional
seating cannot be accommodated on-si te and therefore a
parking variance will be required and an increase in con-
gestion at the on-street valet parking zone would result.
3. The proposed development is inconsistent with the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance
in that the proj ect does not conform to the appropriate
CM2 standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance in that a
parking variance will be required. Additionally, the Main
Street Ordinance encourages neighborhood oriented uses,
limits the number of restaurants per block and requires a
Conditional Use Permit to limit the number of restaurants
over 50 seats.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR INCREASE IN
SEATING
1. The proposed use and location are not in accordance with
good zoning practice, in the public interest and not
necessary in that the proposal represents over a 200% in-
crease in restaurant seating without the provision of on-
site parking to accommodate this increase and includes an
outdoor dining area which will infringe upon the area in
front of the building designed for use by the public as a
public park area.
2. The proposed use is not compatible with existing and po-
tential uses within the general area, traffic or parking
congestion will result, the public health, safety and
general welfare are not protected and harm to adj acent
properties could result in that there are already more
than two restaurants in this block and the increase in
seating would contribute to the existing parking problems
in the area.
- 5 -
,
ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS FOR DENIAL
1. The proposed use and location are not in accordance with
good zoning practice, in the public interest, or necessary
in that the increase number of seats will result in in-
creased alcohol service wthin an area already adequately
serviced by alcohol outlets.
2. The proposed use is not compatible with existing and
potential uses within the general area; traffic or parking
congestion will result: the pUblic health, safety, and
general welfare not are protected: and harm to adjacent
properties will result based on the analysis and other
findings contained in this report.
3.
The welfare of neighborhood residents may be
affected based on the analysis and other
contained in this report.
adversely
findings
Prepared by: Karen Rosenberg, Associate Planner
KR: nh
DR347
09/30/86
- 6 -
.
ATTACHMENT A
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
category
Proposed Use
Parking
Municipal Code
CM2: Permits
Restaurants
Over 50 Seats
With
Conditional Use
Permit
No Parking
Required For
Existing 49
Seats
106 Additional
Seats @ 1:5= 21
Parking Spaces
Required
Land Use
Element
Same as
Municipal Code
Same as
Municipal Code
- 7 -
Project
155 Seat
Restaurant with
Alcohol Service
None Provided
On-site Requires
Parking variance