Loading...
SR-402-001 (45) C/ED:SF:DM Council Mtg: Santa Monica, ~"A tJJ 2 J 1991 2 9 1981 California L!02--00/ February 23, 1988 TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: city Staff SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Development Review 397 and Zoning Administrator Use Permit 5233-U, 1540 Second Street. Addition of a Drive-Through Lane and 240 Square Feet of Floor Area To An Existing Mc Donald I s Restaurant. Applicant\Appellant: Lardas Management, Inc. INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal of the applicant and deny Development Review 397 and Zoning Administrator Use Permit 5233-U for the construction of a drive-through lane and a 240 square foot addition to an existing McDonalds Restaurant. The Planning commission denied the project by a 4-1 vote, with one abstention and one absence, on November 16, 1987. The applicant is appealing that decision. BACKGROUND The drive-through addition is proposed for an existing McDonald's Restaurant on the northwest corner of Colorado Boulevard and Second street in the Downtown Frame Land Use District. The drive-through would replace a row of parking along the west side of the existing restaurant. Two hundred and forty square feet of floor area would be added to accommodate the drive-through windows and cashiers booths. The addition would include the construction of a block wall between the proposed drive-through lane and the existing parking lot. No other alterations are - 1 - ~.A ~ l) ~rJB MAR ~ 9 19b9 proposed for the exterior or interior of the recently remodeled restaurant. The proposed project would result in the loss of twenty parking spaces. Of the remaining forty spaces, ten would be compact and one would be handicap. Parking requirements would still be met. Existing points of ingress and egress would remain and no alterations are proposed for the overall circulation pattern of the parking lot. A parking plan has been approved by the Department of Parking and Traffic. The City's Traffic Engineer's comments regarding on-site circulation are noted below. He has raised concerns about turning movement conflicts between the drive-through and access driveways. Hours of operation of the proposed drive-through would be the same as the existing restaurant; 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, seven days a week. The proposed project was denied by the Planning Commission at their meeting of November 16,1987. The Commission's denial was based on inconsistencies with the C3 zoning requirements and Land Use Element policies. The Commission also expressed concerns regarding excess noise and traffic that could potentially be generated by a drive-through addition. The applicant subsequently appealed the Commission's denial based on the contention that the drive-through would not create excess traffic congestion or produce an increase of noise. Furthermore, the applicant has stated that there are many other traffic dominated uses in the area and to deny his application would be to treat his property unfairly. - 2 - The applicant originally proposed a drive-through with the initial application for construction of the restaurant in 1976. At that time the Planning Commission approved the restaurant with the condition that the drive-through portion of the plan be eliminated. Since the opening of the restaurant in 1977, the applicant has made several inquiries to staff regarding the feasibility of adding a drive-through facility. In response to each inquiry, staff has informed the applicant of the potential problems associated with a drive-through lane at the subject location. Most recently I in May of 1985, staff informed the applicant that the only mechanism by which they could pursue their proposal would be to submit for Planning Commission consideration of a Development Review and a Zoning Administrator Use Permit. ANALYSIS The Planning commission found at the November 16 meeting that the proposed project was inconsistent with the Land Use Element for the Downtown Frame Land Use District. specifically, Land Use Element Policy 1.3.4 states that in the Downtown areas, uses should ".. .be active pedestrian oriented (shop fronts, cultural activities, cafes, and other uses catering to walk-in traffic) in order to promote pedestrian activity at the ground floor. The Planning commission also found that the addition of a drive-through at the subject location would be inconsistent with the C3 section of the Municipal Code. One of the original conditions of approval allowing McDonald's to develop the site in 1977 was "... that the drive-through portion of the operation - 3 - shall be eliminated and all sales and services shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building in accordance with C3 regulations." The intent of the original approval for McDonald's appears to have been centered around the pedestrian use of the restaurant rather than a drive-through operation. The subject restaurant is located in a sensitive pedestrian oriented area of the city. Given the site I s close proximity to such pedestrian oriented activities as Santa Monica Place, Third street Mall, Santa Monica Pier, and Palisades Park, it is important that the restaurant continue to cater to a pedestrian based clientele. Furthermore, to allow a drive-through at this time would be inconsistent with the original approval for the restaurant granted in 1977. In addition to the aforementioned inconsistencies with the Municipal Code and the Land Use Element, the Planning commission also expressed concerns related to the site layout, increased traffic congestion and noise. Specifically, the drive-through addition and buffer wall could result in the creation of "blind corners" and conflicting traffic flow. Furthermore, the length of the drive-through lane does not appear sufficient to accommodate vehicles waiting in line whiCh may cause queuing problems and blockage of through traffic lanes. In addition to the problems associated with traffic flow, the proximity of the drive-through lane to the dining room entrance could create a hazard for pedestrians entering and exiting the building. - 4 - Concerns regarding potential traffic problems have also been expressed by the ci ty I S Traffic Engineer. Such concerns are related to potential problems associated with the proposed drive-through in conjunction with the existing two-way traffic flow of the parking lot. As proposed, traffic exiting the drive-through lane would be in direct conflict with traffic entering the parking lot off of Colorado Boulevard. Furthermore, vehicles waiting in line to order could potentially block parking spaces and back-up onto Second street. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION In acting on this appeal, the City Council may: 1) deny the appeal and deny Development Review 397 and Zoning Administrator Use Permit 5233-U with the findings contained in the November 16, 1987 Planning Commission staff report or with such findings as it deems appropriate; 2) uphold the appeal and approve the project with such findings and/or conditions as it deems appropriate; 3) otherwise approve, conditionally approve or deny the project as it deems appropriate. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. - 5 - RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Council deny the appeal and deny Development Review 397 and Zoning Administrator Use Permit 5233-U with the findings contained in the November 16, 1987 Planning Commission staff report. Prepared by: David Martin, Assistant Planner Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner Planning Division Community and Economic Development Department Attachments: A. Letter of Appeal by Rosario Perry. B. Nov. 16, 1987 Planning commission Staff Report. C. Nov. 16, 1987 Planning Commission Statement of Official Action. D. Project Plans. DM: PC/CCDR397 01/14/88 - 6 - I\ttOLhmcnt t\ LAW OFFICtS OF ROSARIO PERRY A PROFESSIONAl COIlPORAnON 'f\: 1112r3 CITY OF SP i A MONtC:- CITY Pl ANft; . ' nrn( :- OCEAN AVENUE LAW OFFICES 1333 OCEAN AVENUE SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90401 (213) 394.9831 "87 NOV 30 P 4 :44 November 30, 1987 Pe: Appeal of Planning Corr~i~cion Approval or DR 397, 1560 2nd Street, Sdnta ~onica, CA City of Santa Monica p!.uming Stat f/Department l6C5 l1uin Street rEnta Monica, California 90401 Dear Staff: On behalf of gr. Nick Ldruu5, 0rprator/Owner of the MacDon~l~'s reGtaurant located at 2nd a~d Colorado, r wish to file an appeal frOl:1 the Plann1ng Commission's decibion cf ~onday, November 16, 19P7. We are QPpealing the Planning Comrn~ss~on's f~ria] of 11T. Lardas's application for a drJ.ve-through because we feel trat the drive-through will not create excess traffic con- gestion nor w~ll it produce an increased level of ncise from the site. The traf:ic p:!.o.n apc overall design of the drive- through conforros to t:he requirements of the present ZOnl.hg use. There &l"e Inc..ny other trdffic domJ.nateC: U€€f." ifl tte neighborhoods surrounding ~iacDon,J.ld IS dnd to deny his appli- cc~ion would be to treat his property unta~rly. Under Sec- t:~CJri 9146A5, the City is required tC' pE'nnit the drJ.ve- through if adequate prot~ctton~ car. be provided to wake said drive-thr0u~h cc~putible with the uses in the C-3 a1bLr~ct. The application filed by Mr. Lardas has adequately nddressed ~h~ potentJ.al problems createu by such a drive-through and t~~~pfore should be approved. "e~~\r subrritted. ROSARIO PE~~ PF:EB Fr.closure (check) CLIN6A!LARDAS4l/2 A1tC\chmcnt '6 " ~, r ( 713 ......,......~ ..... CITY PLANNING DIVISION Community and Economic Development Department . - -~\i~~~ ""f... .. ~ ........----.---- ..-- - - ~~s:1.:;,;;~~~ - ~ _ ~~~...~--,..- :....-....:t, -. "" .. .. MEMORANDUM ...-:<.-~- -......... -=. .:'---;-... -.. ~~~ !;: :;I-~~ DATE: November 16, 1987 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission ....-~". FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: DR 397, ZA 5233-U, To Allow a Drive-Through Lane and Addition of 240 Sq. Ft. to an Existing McDonalds Restaurant for Drive-Through Windows and Cashier Booths. Address: Applicant: 1540 Second Street Lardas Management, Inc. SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject property is an existing McDonalds restaurant on a 37,500 sq.ft. parcel located on the northwest corner of Colorado Avenue and Second Street. surrounding uses consist of the two story Pacific Sands Motel to the north (C3), the Holiday Inn Hotel across Colorado Avenue to the south (C3), Santa Monica Place across Second street to the east (C3), and a two and three story, mixed use, retail/office/residential building across Ocean Court alley to the west (C3). Zoning District: Land Use District: C3 DOY-Into,.....n Frame Parcel Area: 150' x 250' = 37,500 Sq.Ft. PROPOSED PROJECT The applicant requests to add a drive-through facility to an existing McDonalds Restaurant. The drive-through would replace a row of parking along the west side of the existing restaurant. Two hundred and forty square feet of floor area would be added to accommodate the drive-through windm-ls and cashier booths. The addition would also include a block wall bebleen the proposed drive-through lane and the existing parking lot. No other al terations are proposed for the exterior or interior of the existing restaurant which has recently been remodeled. There are currently sixty parking spaces on site. The proposed drive-through would result in the loss of twenty spaces. Of the remaining forty spaces, ten would be compact and one would be handicap: Existing points of ingress and egress would remain and no alterations are proposed for the overall circulation pattern - 1 - ~. ( ( of the parking lot. A parking plan has been approved by the Department of Parking and Traffic. Hours of operation of the proposed drive-through would be the same as the existing ._ . ~estaurant - 6:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight, seven days a week. _, ~.r-#~-- _....~~"J:... ~ - -...~~... MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed project is inconsistent with the Municipal Code. The use is not a permitted use specifically identified in the C3 zone. Therefore a Use Permit, under section 9l46A5 (SMMC) would be required to allow a C4 use in the C3 zone. Furthermore, the use is not a permitted use specifically identified in the Downtown Frame District of the Land Use Element. Therefore the Planning Commission would have to find that the proposed use is consistant with the General Plan. A Development Review is required under Ordinance 1321 to determine if the use is appropriate in the Downtown Frame. CEQA STATUS This project is categorically exempt from the prov~s~ons of CEQA, City of Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation (Class 1.5). FEES The project is not subject to any development fees. ANALYSIS The proposed project is located in the Downtown Frame Land Use Element district. The addition of a drive-through to the existing McDonalds restaurant would not be consistant with the policies and objectives of the Land Use Element for this particular district. Specifically, Land Use Element policy 1.3.4 states that in the Downtown Areas,. uses shquld II... be active pedestrian oriented (shop fronts, cultural activities, cafes, and other uses catering to walk-in traffic) in order to promote pedestrian activity at the ground floorll. In reviewing the case history on this project, staff finds that one of the original conditions of approval allowing McDonalds to develop this site in 1977 was "...that the drive-through portion of the operation shall be eliminated and all sales and services shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building in accordance with C3 regulationsll. The intent of the original approval for McDonalds appears to have been centered around the pedestrian use of the restaurant rather than a drive-through operation. The subject restaurant is located in -a sensitive pedestrian oriented area of the City. Given the site's close proximity to such pedestrian activites as Santa Monica Place, Third Street Mall, Santa Monica Pier, and Palisades Park, it is important that the restaurant continue to cater to a pedestrian based clientale. Furthermore, to allow a - 2 - " ( ( drive-through service at this time would be inconsistent with the original approval for the restaurant granted in 1977. In addition to the above mentioned concerns, the proposed -t'<io~....o""-<= - . modifications appear to present potential problems in regard to 5ite layout and design. Specifically, the drive-through addition and buffer wall may result in the creation of "blind corners" and conflicting traffic flow. Furthermore, the length of the drive-through lane does not appear sufficient to accommodate vehicles waiting in line which may cause queueing problems and blockage of through traffic lanes. In addition to the problems ,.. associated with traffic flow, the proximity of the drive-through to the dining room entrance could create a hazard for pedestrians entering and exiting the building. ~ : -.I' Jo - .. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission denies DR 397 and ZA 5233-U with the following findings: FINDINGS 1. The development is inconsistent 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 incompatible with and do not relate harmo- niously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods in that the Downtown Frame Land Use Element encourages uses that are pedestrian oriented in order to promote pedestrian activi- ty. Furthermore the C3 zoning regulations state that all sales and services shall be conducted entirely within an enclosed building. 3. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities for both- pedestrian and automobile traffic will be inade- quate to .accommodate the anticipated results of the pro- posed development including off-street parking facilities and access thereto in that the existing parking currently appears to be insufficient at peak operating hours and the existing two-way traffic flow, combined with the proposed drive-through could result in potential hazards for pedestrians as well as motorists. 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 inade- quate to accommodate the anticipated results of the pro- posed development. 5. The proposed development is inconsistent with the General Plan of the city of Santa Monica and the zoning Ordinance i~ that the project will not conform to the height, bulk, use and urban design policies for the Do~mtown Frame as specified in the Land Use Element of the General Plan and - 3 - .. ( ( will not conform to the appropriate C3 standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. ..("::..~-::....-""'L"'~"'-" Prepared by: David Martin, Assistant Planner DM:nh DR397 11/09/87 Attachments: A. Letter from Applicant Regarding Use Permit Application. B. Letter from Applicant Regarding Development Review. C. Letter from steve Graham dated 9/9/87. D. Findings and Determination Dated 7/26/76 on ZA 245-U. - 4 - ~ . ( ( PLfu~NI~G CO~NISSION ... ........~~~+.~ ""':-~-- - ~--=-~ - APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPHENT REVIEW i: .... ~ ...~~~~ ~ ,,~ - r~- - 1540 2nd Street ATTACH.'1ENT ,. - I .no.. ... ..e.'i. __*,= ~-'~~How the proposed use and improvements will meet the re~uired findings specified in the attached "Development Review/Slte Review Submission Requirements." During the past ten years. zonlng authorities have denied several requests for approval of a drive through addition to the restaurant located at 1540 2nd Street in Santa Monlca. These past refusals have been based upon assumptlons and grounds that are no longer valld ln 1987. It is time to take a fresh look at the Sltuation. For example. since the lnitial denial in 1976, the restaurant itself has been built. Other new buildings have been constructed in the area. and the physical nature of the ~eighborhood has changed. New noise suppresslon technologles have been implenented. And the area surrounding the restaurant has become automobile orlented, not pedestrlan oriented. due to the nature of the location and to the preferences of Santa Monica resldents. Look at the nelghborhood. All of the propertles ln the area are automobl1e based: Two motels; an auto repalr garage; one very large, multl-story ~~ll parking garage; the ~,D Corporatlon park1ng lot; the Santa Monlca Freeway; several commercial develop~ents that rely on valet parking. Most of the landscaping in the neighborhood is done in concrete. On the other hand, constructed before some of the other bu~ldlngs were even approved and built, the restaurant is now the only green, grassy oasis 1n the concrete area. Well managed, operatlng since 1977, with a recently and very expensively remodeled interior dining area, it has become the only important contributor to pedestrian traffic in the immediate neighborhood. All other important projects are primarily automoblle based. As discussed below. approval of a hidden. well landscaped. noise suppressed drive through facility w111 not change this pedestrian ( ( , . 1540 2nd Street Development Rev~ew Attachment Page Two ~ ~ -_"'f1lII...~L~--: ...... orientation or involvement. In fact, it can be expected to increase pedestrian interest, since customer lines will be shorter, since more grassy spaces will be added, and since current access will not be any different. . ._ ~_~ In addition, to deny the type of facility planned might even be ~""=\vM:,"",~"'" - ~ considered discriminatory in 1987, in the light of the basic automobile orientation of the area, the basic pedestrian design orientation of the restaurant. and the newly planned RAND Corporation multi-story parking garage to be located across the street. To provlde a more detailed perspective, the discuSSlon that follows considers a br~ef h~story of project applicat~ons, the physical nature of the area around the restaurant, and findlngs under Development Rev~ew examination. As the facts and flndlngs lndlcate, approval should be granted. The well landscaped. hldden. and nOlse suppressed dr~ve through faci11ty wlll meet the objectlves and policles of the General Plan and Land Use Element; malnta1n the amblance of the nelghborhood and its attract1veness to out of town visitors; help pedestrian walk in customers; and be of beneflt to the people of Santa Monlca. An Historical Perspectlve When an in~tial request for approval was sub~ltted with plans for the restaurant in 1976. it was denled because the expressed intent of zoning planners was to keep the entire neighborhood "pedestrian or~ented" and to keep the restaurant from bec0111ing "autamoblle dependent. II In addition to these objections, there also was reliance on one single objecting letter. The letter stated that the writers were "appalled" by the "vast" amount of parking that might be necessary to service the restaurant, and they voiced honest concern about traffic, ecology, and the "garish architectural style and plastic atmosphere on whlch fast food seems 'to thrive." The writers added that '~1cDonald's are exceedingly ugly, and would b; intrusive and out of character in the C-3 zone," and they called attention to a McDonald's restaurant located 1n Westwood V~llage: "This is a successful operation which is totally dependent upon pedestrian ( ( , , 1540 2nd Street Development Review Attachment Page Three _~_,~"_~h traffic 'and which seems to function well without golden arches." --, ~-~t that time, it should be noted, the restaurant had not been built, the indoor Santa Monica Mall and its multi-story parking garage had not been constructed, and other automobile oriented developments . . ',.<- in the neighborhood had not been approved. .....~o;.~ According to the files, a second verbal or written request for zoning approval was made in 1985, and it was again denied. Th1s time the reasons given were the Downtown pedestrian orientation of the Santa Monica General Plan, spec~fically Land Use Element Policy 1.3.4; the Traffic Eng1neer's reservations about queing; potential noise issues; and that s1ng1e 1976 objecting letter. These issues are not very appropriate in 1987. F1rst, propertles in the neighborhood are now automobile based and oriented, as discussed above. The restaurant is the major pedestrlan orlented develop~ent, and that fact will not change with the addition of a drive through facllity. Well landscaped, hidden by a seven foot wall, using nOlse suppression devices, the dr1ve through add1tion can be expected to have Ilttle impact on nelghborhood pedestrian orientat1on. In fact, because customer service lines will be shorter after addit~on of the fac11lty, as discussed below, more pedestrians wll1 want to come to the restaurant. Second, this time traf~ic pattern arrange~ents have been informally approved by Ray Davis, Santa Monica Traff1c Engineer. Mr. Dav1s required six to ten 1mportant changes in the applicant's or1g1nal bluepr1nts, and ~ ~-, the applicant has accepted all of them as helpful. Third~ the applicant plans to address any potent1al noise problems directly, reducing the n01se levels by use of nOlse suppression devices and by a seven foot wall. It is also comm1tted to spend up to $5,000 to hire a consultant, such as BB~ Laboratories, Inc., if required by excessive noise levels. See the infornation enclosed about BB~ Laborator1es, Inc., as an example. The app11cant will comply w1th all Santa Mon1ca noise code regulations. Fourth-, as to "ugliness" and "garishness": the restaurant has not become the "ugly" element in the neighborhood. Just the Oppos1te has occurred. It has become a green, flower filled oasis, with lts grassy landscaping and sparkling, newly remodeled interior. The rest of the automobile based neighborhood has been landscaped in concrete. Addition ._"O:""~!t-t~..-~-~ ( ( . . 1540 2nd Street Development Review Attachment Page Four of the planned. hidden. well landscaped. noise suppressed drive through facility will not change this fact. nor will it change the ambience of the area. Today. the restaurant represents excellence in the ne1ghborhood, and - . ,>".... ~. _04>.'0<".........., the applicant plans to maintain that quality after a drive through add1tion is built, including the expensively remodeled interior and the green, grassy landscaping. Fifth. compare the restaurant at 1540 2nd Street with the McDonald's located 1n Westwood. as suggested by the letter writers in 1976. Those early fears have been completely unfounded. The Westwood McDonald's has "golden arches," is dreary. and it is often empty. while the Santa Monica restaurant richly sparkles inside. and it is stead11y busy. Sixth, early fears about "vast" parking requirements were premature. The restaurant has only a relatively small park1ng lot, espec1ally when compared to the large. mult1-story Mall park1ng garage and the Rill~D Corporat1on parking lot faC11ities located across the street. Even the writers, as reasonable and thoughtful people, would readily note that the fears expressed in 1976 have not materialized, and that the results have been very d1fferent and very posit1ve. As it is clear~ the franchisee appl1cant does care about the neighborhood, afrout its restaurant. and about the expressed concerns of planners and the people of Santa Mon1ca. It w111 maintain the same care and respect for the add1tion of a drive through fac11ity. - ~.. -:~ ~ The Phys~cal Environment Although the neighborhood was to have developed w1th a pedestr1an orientation during the past ten years, it actually has become automob11e based and oriented. As mentioned previously, the restaurant is surrounded by two motels; an auto repair garage; one very large. mult1-story Mall parking garage; the Rfu~D Corporation park1ng lot; the Santa Monica Freeway; and several commerc1al developments that rely on valet parking. Most oj the landscaping around these proJects is Concrete. In the early morning and after dark, moreover, almost all of the traffic in the area arrives by automobile. due to pedestrian fears about safety. due to the closing of businesses and offices. ~ ( ( . , 1540 2nd Street Development Review Attachment Page five - .r;~r-..-I;......,,~.. ~- and due to the remoteness of entertainment facilities. Nearby stores and commercial establishments all close by 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and by 6:00 p.m. on veekends_ It is un11kely that plans to add 3,000 additional movie seats to the "-~~~~Broadway part of the Mall will change th1s situation or add any pedestrian traffic, since most people will not walk several blocks at night in the dark through the area to eat at the restaurant. In the automobile oriented neighborhood, the restaurant remains the main pedestrian design oriented attraction, and the drive through facility will not change that fact. Furthermore, as an expression of confidence that pedestr1an traffic wlll continue to grow, during the past year the app11cant has 1nvested approximately $200,000 to remodel the interior, provlding a sparkling, invit1ng dining area. But the restaurant also has a substantial automoblle based clientele, in addition to its walk in custo~ers. Many of these customers stop, order ins1de, and then take purchases out, creatlng long customer llnes and mak1ng n01se openlng and clos1ng car doors 1n the process. The addition of a landscaped. hldden, noise suppressed drlve through facility will serV1ce many of these drive in take out customers, reduclng inside service lines and providing more room for pedestrlan walk in traff1c. Noise levels too should be improved, because people w11l be remainlng in their cars, although, as noted 1n the Noise Element of the General Plan, bus and other transportation nOlse probably exceeds the ambient nOlse at the restaurant in any case. Because of the nature of the planned faci11ty, pedestrian design orientation and access will be maintained. and even more grassy space will be added. The restaurant will continue to remain a centerpiece in the neighborhood. Discussion of Findings 1. Th: project is consistent with the findings and purpose of Ordinance 1321. The apparent purpose of the ordinance is to insure that development continues to be consistent with the General Plan whlle planning and zoning regulations are under reviev. Under sections 2(d) and (4), it specifies interim procedures that require an application for Development Review in this ( ( . I 1540 2nd Street Development Review Attachment Page Six ..:;;:' ~d-.;...~--- ". ~ case. Findings of fact must be given in accord with sections (c) (1) through (c)(7). These are addressed below. To avoid dup11cation. since requirements given in Section (4) are the same as those given on the Development Review Application. an appropriate _......."'_,.."'~, discussion will follow according to the Application format. and as will become evident. the addition of a hidden. well landscaped noise suppressed drive through facility will certainly be consistent with the find1ngs and purpose of the ordinance. 2. The structure of the facility will be co~pat1ble with and relate harmon1ously to surrounding s1tes and ne1ghborhoods. Today. instead of being the "garish" place feared by some planners in 1976. the restaurant at 1540 2nd Street is the major green. grassy oasis in an otherwise concrete, automob1le based area. The neighborhood 1S a commercial one. and it is almost empty after business and store hours have ended. Even people visiting the beach and the Ocean Park area normally arive by autonobile, and they too usually depart by dark. The drive through fac1l1ty, hidden by a landscaped seven foot wall, n01se suppressed. and located on current parking lot space, w1ll not change the area or its amb1ance. Instead, it w11l add more grassy space. Traffic flow is expected to rema1n the same. and pedestr1an access to the restaurantCwill not be changed. There might be somewhat more act1v1ty after dark. but that act1vity is an Ob]ect1ve of the Land Use Element for the Downtown Frame area. 3. Rights of Way and Fac1lities for pedestrian and automob1le traff1c will accommodate the results of the proJect. According to the plans subm1tted. dr1ve through facility traff1c w1ll enter on 2nd Street and depart on Colorado Avenue. and all traff1c must turn right onto Colorado. According to the Circulat10n Element. both Colorado Avenue and 2nd Street are important arteries. and they are supposed to accommodate at least 31.000 cars per day, much more than is normally expected at that location. . Because most of the expected drive through addition automobile traffic is expected to be from current customers during busy hours. or from additional customers during quiet after dark hours. no~al traffic patterns are not ( ( . J 1540 2nd Street Development Review Attachment Page Seven _r~~~~~ -.-expected to be affected. Parking spaces will be limited to forty. _:-::~',.~ ;:_ ~ Ray Davis, Santa Monica Traffic Engineer, has examined the proposed project plans, and he has informally approved them after requiring six to ten significant changes. The appllcant has accepted all of those modifications as very helpful. ... .......~1"~....tt~ or- --~_)t~~.- Facilities for pedestrians are expected to become more available after the drlve through facility is completed, since the interior of the restaurant will be less crowded as customer service lines shorten. and as more take out customers use the drive through addition. There will be no changes in pedestr1an access to the restaurant. 4. Adequate Health and Safety facllities will accompany the drive through addition as needed, lncludlng sanltatlon, utl1itles. fire protection devlces, etc. All necessary health and safety facilities requlred to meet Santa Monlca code requlrements will be provided by the applicant. Trash pick up will be provided around the facility at least tWlce per day. Customer safety will be increased in the late evenlng and early ~ornlng hours, because many customers will not have to leave thelr cars for serVlce. The office of the Cit~ Attorney has been consulted about the drive through facility, and members of his staff have lnformally noted that they do not object to the additlon. 5. The proposed drive through facility is consistent with the General Plan and wlth the Zonlng Ordinance, in that it conforns to the hei~ht. bulk, use, and urban design pol~cles for the land use district as spec if led in the Land Use Ele~ent and 1n that it confOrMS to the approprlate standards contaloed in the Zonlog Ordlnance. The project is located in the Downtown Frame in a corrnercial area zoned in the C-3 category. There-will be no significant changes in height or bulk when the drive through facility is added, and the building contours will continue to . present their "human scale" elements. Street frontage will continue offering Itpedestrian scale" features. The restaurant now offers both of these attributes. and there will be no change with the hidden, noise suppressed, well landscaped ( ( , I 1540 2nd Street Development Review Attachment Page Eight ~ """~~ ;:;. -~ I:.'--.....,..~~~- "__" drive througQ facility. Use objectives and policies are governed by Land Use Element Section 1.3 for the Downtown Frame area, and these objectives and policies will be enhanced by the drive through facility. ,,~, -~~ First. the Objective expressed in Section 1.3 is to tlsupport the greatest concentration of activity" in the Downtown Core and Frame areas. Policies expressed in Section 1.3.1 encourage "uses and activ1ties which create activity in both the daytime and evening hours." Policies expressed in Section 1.3.2 state that the Do~~to~~ area should be a pr1mary location for commercial use, including "uses that serve out of to~'Il vis:l.tors and uses that encourage street activ1ty after normal business hours." In applicable Policy Section 1.3.4. the language distinguishes between the Dow~ Core and the Downtown Frame areas, and it notes with spec:l.f1c reference to the DO~'Iltown Frame area that planners should require "pedestrian oriented design features for all ground floor street frontage," in contrast to more stringent restr1ct10ns for the Downtov.'!). Core area. In the Core area, for instance, street frontage should be "act1ve pedestrian use," rather than be only equipped with "design features." Addition of a restaurant dr1ve through facility will meet all of the requirements of these objectives and policies, and 1t w1ll help further then. For example, the ne1ghborhood normally becomes empty after business and commercial hours, and the drive through addition will 1ncrease activ1ty at that time and after dark, as encouraged in Sections 1.3.1 and 1.3.2. It will also help attract out of town V1s1tors. In addition, although Section 1.3.4 motivates planners to requlre "pedestrian oriented design features,1t it does not require them to be exclus~ve features. If it did, the two notels, the auto repa:l.r garage, and other developments in the Downtown Frame m:l.ght have to be abandoned. There would be no way to justify the automobile or1ented and based neighborhood. Wl~n respect to the restaurant, it currently has the most pedestrian design or~ented features in the neighborhood, and these features w11l not be affected by the drive through facility. But after hours activity and out or town visitor activity will be helped and encouraged. The project very much conforms to Land Use Element Objectives and Policies under the Downtown Section 1.3, and it enhances them as well. . \ ( ( ~ ..-........... ---~ 1540 2nd Street Development ReVlew Attachment Page Nine In the Downtown area, the Land Use Element plan features urban design that will cause the Downtown Core and Frame to be the focus of day and night activity. Its aim is to "encourage a sense of human scale and pedestrl.an -'-I "V"r\o~.~""""'" character," and it is recDmmended that the city require "pedestrian orl.ented design qualities" be featured in the Downtown Frame area. But agal.n, it does not require that these qualities be exclusive. If it dld, many current developments would have to be terml.nated in the Colorado and SecDnd Street area. Human scale and pedestrian orl.ented design qualities are featured now at the restaurant at 1540 2nd Street, although they are not featured at many adjacent properties. And, as discussed prevlously, the quall.ties wl.II not change wlth the addition Df a well landscaped, hldden, nOl.se suppressed drlve through facility located on current parklng IDt space. After installation of the drlve through facl11ty, the restaurant wll1 still remain pedestrian oriented, the only pedestrlan orlented development in the autornoblle based and oriented nel.ghborhood. Pedestr1an access and other features will remaln the same. Land use and urban deslgn objectives and reCOMmendations will still be followed. Finally, there will be approprl.ate conformance with Zonlng Ordlnance standards, including requirements for C-3 coremercial areas, as modifled by the C-4 Use Permit, such as restrlctlons on slgns, helght. and yard frontage. The appllcation for Development Revlew should be approved. The addltion of a well landscaped, hidden, noise suppressed drlve through facillty at 1540 2nd Street will readily conform to helght, bulk, use, and design requirements for the Downtown Frame area as ind2cated in the Santa ~onica Land Use Element plan, and it will conform with proper Zoning Ordinance prov1sions. The addition will also be consistent with the requlrements of Ordinance 1321, compatible with the automobile oriented neighborhood, retaln current pedestrian oriented features and appeal, be acconmodative for pedestrian and automobile traffic, and have adequate health and safety features. A drIve through facllity will increase availability of interior pedestrlan service, increase after hours activity and safety, and aid out of town visitors, while it retains the green, grassy oasis ambiance and newly remodeled interior of the attractive restaurant it will accompany. .'1 ( ( ... t. . 11 r J PLAN~ING AND ZONING DIVISIO~ " ...........-y ~ Community and Economic Development Department USE PEfu~IT APPLICATIO~ 1540 2nd Street ATTACHHENT DESCRIBE IN DETAIL how the proposed use and improvements are to be designed and operated so as to be 1) compatible with eXlstlng uses III the nelghborhood and 2) non-detrlmental to nel~hboring propertles. resldents. and businesses: During the past ten years. zonlng authoritles have denled several requests for approval of a drlve through addition to the restaurant located at 1540 2nd Street in Santa Honica. These past refusals have been based upon assumptions and grounds that are no longer vaild in 1987. It is tlme to take a fresh look at the situatlon. For example. since the inltlal denlal in 1976. the restaurant ltself has been built. Other new bU1ld1ngs have been constructed 1n the area. and the physical nature of the nelghborhood has changed. Xew nOlse suppression technologies have been implemented. And the area surrounding the restaurant has become automobile orlented, not pedestrian orlented. due to the nature of the location and due to the preferences of Santa Monlca - residents. Look at the neighborhood. All of the propertles in the area are automobile based: Two motels; an auto repalr garage; one very large. multl-story Mall parking garage; the RAND Corporation parking lot; the Santa Monica Freeway; several commerclal developments that rely on valet parking. Most of the landscaping 1n the neighborhood is done ln concrete. On the other hand. constructed before some of the other buildings were even approved and built. the restaurant is now the only green, grassy oasis in the concrete area. Well managed, operating since 1977, with a recently and very expensively remodeled interior dinlng area. it has become the only important contributor to pedestrian traffic in the inmed1ate neighborhood. All other important projects are primarily automobl1e based. As discussed below, approval of a hidden. well landscaped. naise suppressed drive through facility will not change this pedestrian orientation ( (- l' I . / 1540 2nd Street Use Perm~t Attachment Page Two ,f "f--~:- ~. or involvement. In fact. it can be expected to increase pedestrian interest. since customer service lines will be shorter. more grassy spaces will be added. and current access will not be any different. In addition. to deny the type of facility planned might even be considered discriminatory in 1987. in the light of the basic automobile orientation of the area and the newly planned R&~D Corporation multi-story parking garage to be located across the street. To provide a more detailed perspective, the discussion that follows considers a brlef history of proJect applications, the physical nature of che area around the restaurant. and findings about nelghborhood use compatibility and about non-detrlmental effects on the nelghborhood, residents, and businesses. As the facts and f2ndings lnd2cate, approval for a Use Perm2t should be granted. The well landscaped, hidden, and nOlse suppressed drive through facillty w~ll be compatlble wlth eXlstlng nelghborhood uses, and it will be non-detrlwental to nelghborlng propert2es, resldents. and businesses. As it has been deslgned, and as it wlll be operated, It will malntain the ambience of the neighborhood, help pedestrlan walk in custoners, not affect residents, offer additlonal serVlces for nelghborhood businesses, _.and__be of_benefit to the people of Santa Xonlca and to outslde visltors. An Historical Perspectlve ..._;--~....- =~-- ~en an initial request for approval was submltted wlth plans for r- ~~~~~est:urant in 1976, it was den led because the expressed intent of zonlng -'planners 'was to keep the entlre ne~ghborhood "pedestrian orlented" and - tcj""keep the'-restaurant from becoming "automobile dependent." In addition to these objectlons, there also was rellance on one single obJecting letter. The letter stated that the writers were "appalled" by the "vast" amount of parking that might be necessary to serVlce the restaurant, and they vOlced honest concern about trafflc, ecology, and - the "garish architectural style and plastic atmosphere on which fast food seems to thrive." The writers added that uMcDonald's are exceedingly ugly, and would be intrusive and out of character in the C-3 zone," and they called attention to a MCDonald's restaurant located in Westwood Village: r~hlS .' (- ( ,/ 1540 2nd Street Use Permit Attachment Page Three . ,~. - .... is a successful operation which is totally dependent upon pedestrian traffic and which seems to function well without golden arches." At that time, it should be noted. the restaurant had not been constructed, the indoor Santa Monica Mall and its multi story parking garage had not been constructed, and other automobile oriented developments in the neighborhood had not been approved. According to the files, a second verbal or written request for zoning approval was made in 1985, and it was again denied. This t1me the reasons given were the Downtown pedestrian or1entat1on of the Santa Monica General Plan, specifically Land Use Element Policy 1.3.4; the Traff1c Eng1neer's reservat10ns about queing; potential n01se issues; and that s1ngle 1976 Ob]ect1ng letter. These past 1ssues are not very appropr1ate 1n 1987. F1rst, propert1es in the ne1ghborhood are now automob11e based and or1ented, as discussed above. The restaurant is the major pedestrian or1ented development, and that fact will not change with the add1t1on of a dr1ve through fac111ty. Well landscaped, hidden by a seven foot wall, uS1ng n01se suppress~on deV1ces. the dr1ve through add1t1on can be expected to have l~ttle 1mpact on neighborhood uses, bus1nesses, or resldents. Second, thlS time traff1c pattern arrangements have been 1nformally approved by Ray Davis, Santa Monlca Trafflc Eng1neer. }[r. DaV1S requ1red six to ten impo~tant changes in the appllcant's orig1nal bluepr1nts, and the applicant has accepted all of them as helpful. Thlrd, the applicant plans to address any potential n01se problems directly, reducing the noise levels by use of nOlse suppression devlces and by a seven foot wall. It also is committed to spend up to $5,000 working with a consultant such as BB~ Laborator1es; Inc. See the information enclosed about BBN Laboratories, Inc. as an example. Fourth, as to "ugliness" and "gar1shness": the restaurant has not become the "ugly" element in the nf'ighborhood. Just the reverse has occurred. It has become a green, flower filled oasis, with its grassy landscaping and spark11ng, newly remodeled inter1or. The rest of the automobile based neighborhood has been landscaped in concrete. Addition of the planned hidden, well landscaped, noise suppressed drive through facility will not change this fact. nor will it change the ambience of the area. .' ( ( , . 1540 2nd Street Use Permit Attachment Page Four :,. -'";.-"--'"" Today. the restaurant represents excellence in the neighborhood. and the applicant plans to maintain that quality after a drive through addition is built, including the expensively remodeled interior and the green. grassy landscaping. Fifth, compare the restaurant at 1540 2nd Street with the McDonald's located in Westwood, as suggested by the letter writers in 1976. Those early fears have been completely unfounded. The Westwood McDonald's has lIgolden arches,1I is dreary, and is often empty, while the Santa Monica restaurant richly sparkles inside, and it is steadily busy. Sl.xth, early fears about "vast" parking requirements were pr~~ture. The restaurant has only a relatively small parking lot, especially when compare to the large, multi story Mall parking garage and the RAND Corporation parking lot facilities located across the street. Even the WT1ters. as reasonable. thoughtful people, would read11y note that the fears expressed 1n 1976 have not materl.all.zed, and that the results have been very different and very positive. As it is clear, the franchisee applicant does care about the nel.ghborhood, about it I S restaurant, and about the expressed concern of planners and the people of Santa Monl.ca. It will ma~ntal.n the same care and respect for the addltion of a drive through facility. The Physical Environflent Although the neighborhood was to have developed with a pedestrl.an orientation during the past ten years, it actually has become automobl.le based. As mentioned previously, the restaurant is surrounded by two motels; an auto repair garage; one very large, multi story Mall parking garage; the FUU~D Corporatl.on parking lot; the Santa Monl.ca Freeway; and several commercial developments that rely on valet parkl.ng. Most of the landscaping around these projects is concrete. In the early morning and after dark, moreover. almost all of the traffic in the area arrives by automobile, due to pedestrian fears about safety, due to the closing of businesses and offices, and due to the remoteness of entertainment facilities. Nearby stores and commercial establishments all close by 9:00 p.m. on weekdays and by 6:00 p.m. on weekends. .' , ' " ~ -~ ...... ( .? I ... 1540 2nd Street Use Permit Attachment Page Five It is unlikely that plans to add 3.000 additional movie seats to the Broadway part of the Mall will change this situation or wlll add any pedestrian traffic, since most people will not ~alk several blocks at night after dark through the area to eat at the restaurant. In the automobile oriented neighborhood. the restaurant remains the main pedestrian design oriented attraction. and the drive through facility will not change that fact. Furthermore. as an expression of confidence that pedestrian traffic will continue to grow, during the past year the applicant has invested approximately $200.000 to remodel the interior, providing a sparkllng. inviting dining area. But the restaurant also has a substantial autoIDob11e based clientele. in addltion to its walk in customers. Many of these customers stop, enter and order inslde, and then take purchases out, creatlng long customer lines and making noise opening and closlng car doors ln the process. The addition of the landscaped, hldden. noise suppressed drlve through facility wlll serVlce many of these drive 1n take out customers, reducing inslde service lines and providlng more room for pedestrlan walk in traffic. Noise levels too should be improved. because people wl11 be remaining in their cars, although, as noted in the ~Olse Elenent of the General Plan, bus and other transportatlon noise probably exceeds the ambient noise. at the restaurant ln any case. Because of the nature of the planned fac1lity, pedestrlan attract10n and access w1ll be mainta1ned, and even more grassy space will be added. The restaurant will remain a centerplece in the nelghborhood. Discussion of Findings 1. The proposed use and improvements w11l be desl~ned and operated so as to be compatlble w1th eX1sting uses 1n the neighborhood. In reality today. the restaurant at 1540 2nd Street stands as a grassy oasis in an automobile oriented neighborhood. As discussed prev1ously, other p~operties in the area are automobile based: Two motels. an auto repair garage; the large. multi story Mall parking garage; the RAND Corporation parking lot; the Santa Monica Freeway; and several commercial developments that rely on valet parking. Most of the landscaping 1s done krtctch YVlcrrt L STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION PROJECT NUMBER: DR 397, ZA 5233-U LOCATION: 1540 Second Street APPLICANT: Lardas Management REQUEST: To add a drive-through facility to an existing McDonalds Restaurant. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 11/16/87 Date. x Approved based on the follo~ing findings and subject to the conditions below. Denied. Other. VOTE Ayes: Nays: Abstain: Absent: pyne Farivar, Hecht, Mechur, Perlman Nelson Lambert ~ 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 STDR397 DM:nh 12/01/87 - 1 - - ~~~