PROJECT NO. 2005-50 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to consider an appeal of the Planning Board�s decision to approve a conditional use permit and a variance to operate a restaurant with incidental alcohol (California Chicken Caf�) in the MPC-3, Magnolia Park General Commercial zone. In connection with this conditional use permit the applicant, Andre de Montesquiou, requests approval of a parking variance for 20 parking spaces. The appeal was received from Penny Church who resides at 915 N. Niagara Street.   

BACKGROUND:

Property Location: The subject property is located at 2921 W. Magnolia Boulevard [Tract 7976 Lot 223, and Lot 224 (M.B.81-75-76)]. The parking lot for the subject building is located across the alley behind the subject property [Tract 7976 Lot 221 (M.B. 81-75-76)].

Zoning: The subject property is located within the MPC-3 zone, Magnolia Park General Commercial zone. The parking lot for the subject property is located in the R-1, Single Family Residential zone (Exhibit A-1).

General Plan Designation: The Land Use Element designates the property for limited commercial uses. �This designation is intended to provide land primarily for general commercial uses such as professional and business offices and the related commercial uses associated with this type of office development; the miscellaneous collection of individual stores located along street frontages; commercial enterprises providing food, goods and services to the surrounding residential areas; and mixed-use developments which combine compatible retail, office and residential uses.� The Land Use Element designates R-1 for residential use. Parking lot use is permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit.

Property Dimensions: The property is approximately 135 feet by 60 feet and has an area of approximately 8,100 square feet. The structure is approximately 85 feet by 60 feet and has an adjusted gross floor area of approximately 4,700 square feet. The building has an approximately 1,000 square foot mezzanine.

Street Classifications: Magnolia Boulevard is classified as a major arterial street. Niagara Street is classified as a local street. Magnolia Boulevard has a 90 foot right of way, a paved street width of 68 feet and a sidewalk width of 16 feet on the south side and a sidewalk width of 6 feet on the north side. Niagara has a 60 foot right of way, a paved street width of 36 feet and sidewalk widths of 12 feet.

Current Development of the Site: The property is currently improved with 5,100 gross square feet of floor area, including a one (1) story building with a 1,000 square foot mezzanine and a storage shed at the rear of the property. The storage shed and a porte-cochere sit on an approximately 2,400 square foot area. The building was the former Empire Furniture location. The building is currently vacant. The parking lot for this building is located north of the building separated by an alley. The parking lot is approximately 6,750 square feet and has 22 parking spaces. The entrance and exit to the parking lot is located on the alley side of the parking lot.   

Project Description: The applicant requests approval to operate a sit down high turnover restaurant. The restaurant will have seating for approximately 142 customers. The restaurant will be located in an approximately 4,700 adjusted square foot building. The project will include removal of a 1,000 square foot mezzanine and minor tenant improvements to the interior of the building. The project will also include the removal of the storage bin and the porte-cochere at the rear of the lot. This area will be improved with a small five (5) space parking lot. The parking lot for this site is located across the alley and has approximately 22 parking spaces. The total number of off-street parking spaces, with the addition of the five (5) space parking lot, will be 27. This is the applicant�s modified parking design after the Planning Board hearing (Exhibit B-2). The original site plan showed six (6) parking spaces in the area directly behind the building and 21 spaces in the parking lot across the alley. The parking lot currently has 22 parking spaces and is considered legal non-conforming. As such the parking lot can hold up to 22 parking spaces, which combined with the five (5) proposed spaces total 27 parking spaces on the site. The applicant has obtained a verbal agreement for use of five (5) parking spaces from the Burbank Federal Credit Union across the street at all times and use of the entire parking lot in the evening hours. In addition, the applicant is working with the owners of Goodyear and other businesses in the area to obtain additional parking spaces. This is further discussed on page 6 of this report.

Municipal Code Conformance:

Restaurant use in the MPC-3 zone is permitted with the approval of a conditional use permit (BMC 31-502). The required number of parking spaces for this use at this location is 47. The proposed site will be short by approximately 20 parking spaces. As such, approval of a variance would be required in order to operate a restaurant on the subject property.

Compliance with Municipal Code Requirements

Alcohol Sales: The subject property is located in Census Tract 3113, where there are five (5) licenses permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages for on-premise consumption currently in place. The proposed on-sale license will make six (6) for this census tract. The nearest business with an on-sale license is located at 3103 W. Magnolia Boulevard, The Monte Carlo restaurant, and 2623 W. Magnolia Blvd, Barfly Inc. These restaurants have a Type 41 license (On-Sale) Beer and Wine-Restaurant. According to the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC), more than four (4) licenses constitutes an over-concentration of on-sale licenses within this census tract. This tract is therefore categorized as over-concentrated by ABC (Exhibit C-8). However, ABC can still approve the project with an over-concentration designation.

Planning Board Deliberations and Decision: On August 22, 2005, the Planning Board held a public hearing to consider the request by the applicant. The Board voted 5-0 to approve the CUP and parking variance (Exhibit E-1 and E-2). This was after much discussion and public comment. There were seven (7) speakers in opposition to the project and 11 speakers in favor of the project. Those who opposed the project sited concerns about parking on residential streets by restaurant patrons, traffic increase, noise, litter, and property devaluation. The Planning Board believed there were compelling arguments on both sides. The speakers in favor of the project sited that a restaurant use is highly desired by the community, in that it would encourage pedestrian traffic, the use is better than alternative uses, the restaurant will revitalize the area, and restricted parking on Niagara Street will alleviate any parking problems.  The Board added Conditions of Approval Numbers 13 and 20-24 (Exhibit E-1) to address the concerns of the nearby residents that spoke in opposition to the application.

Appeals and Public Correspondence: Prior to the public hearing, staff received 12 e-mails and three (3) phone calls from nearby residents supporting the project, and three (3) letters and three (3) phone calls from nearby residents opposing the project (Exhibit F). Those who support the project mention that they have eaten at the restaurant and enjoyed the experience. They mention that it would be a positive addition to the neighborhood. Those opposing the project mention parking as their main concern. They also mention the noise from vehicles on the parking lot and disturbances from customers congregating in the parking lot.

Since the public hearing, additional correspondence has been received (Exhibit G).

Below is a discussion of the issues raised by the appellant.

ANALYSIS:

Surrounding Neighborhood: The subject property is located in the MPC-3, Magnolia Park General Commercial zone. Properties to the south, east and west are zoned MPC-3. These properties, which front Magnolia Boulevard, are characterized by retail sales and services, offices and restaurants. The properties to the north are zoned R-1. Separating the subject property and the R-1 zone is a 15 foot alley. Abutting the alley to the north is a parking lot which serves the subject site. Abutting the parking lot to the north and separated by a six (6) foot high masonry wall are single family homes.

Project Characteristics: The requested conditional use permit is to allow a restaurant with incidental alcohol in the MPC-3 zone. The requested parking variance is for 20 parking spaces. The basis for making a decision on a parking variance is whether or not the unmet parking requirement will have a detrimental impact on surrounding properties, and if the findings for a variance can be met.

Current parking conditions in surrounding area

A parking study of the Magnolia Park area was submitted by the applicant and conducted by Walker Parking Consultants. The study concluded that the parking in the area can meet the parking demand for restaurant use without displacing parkers who currently frequent local businesses. It is important to note that these parking spaces are located on private property and restaurant customers may be precluded from using these spaces. The survey showed moderate use of the parking lots in the area during the day and little to no use of the parking lots during the evening hours. The following parking lots were included in the parking study: Empire Furniture (subject site, 22 spaces), Jon�s Awnings and Blinds (4), Optometry (3), A-1 Auto Repair (5), A Better Way Cremation (8) and Goodyear (32). These parking lots are on the same side of the street and in close proximity to the proposed restaurant site (see Table A-1).

The parking study showed moderate to heavy usage of on-street parking during daytime hours and little to no usage during evening hours. The street surveyed was Magnolia Boulevard from Catalina Street to Niagara Street (see Table A-2).

Table A-1

Table A-2

Future parking conditions in the surrounding area

The proposed project will result in the addition of a five (5) space parking lot. These additional spaces will increase the total on-site parking spaces to 27. The Burbank Federal Credit Union (BFCU) has verbally agreed to allocate five (5) parking spaces for use by the employees, agents and customers of the proposed restaurant. These five (5) spaces will be available at all times. Under the agreement the entire BFCU parking lot will be available to the restaurant Monday through Thursday from 5:00 p.m. to 8:30 a.m., Friday 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 a.m., and all day Saturday and Sunday. The BFCU is located kitty corner to the proposed site and contains 68 parking spaces. The agreement shall be for a period of five (5) years starting July 30, 2005 (Exhibit B-3). It is worth noting that the BFCU will not agree to sign a parking covenant binding the parking spaces to the restaurant. As such, the parking agreement between the restaurant and the BFCU cannot be a condition of approval. The parking variance is for 20 parking spaces even though the additional parking spaces will reduce the deficit to 15 spaces.

In April 2005, the City Council approved a shared parking agreement with the Burbank Community Church that would allow neighboring businesses to utilize the parking lot for employee and customer parking. The parking lot is located at 3310 W. Magnolia Blvd. This parking lot has 52 parking spaces, of which 40 will be available to the businesses in the district and the public, Monday through Saturday, starting in October 2005. These spaces will be available as two (2) hour parking except by permit. The applicant has indicated a willingness to purchase parking permits for employees once the lot is operational. 

As part of a street improvement project by the City of Burbank, on-street angled parking is planned for Niagara Street next to the proposed restaurant site. This diagonal parking will be available to the public in October 2005. As part of the project, 11 angled spaces will replace eight (8) parallel parking spaces. This will result in an increase of three (3) on-street parking spaces. This will increase the on-street parking spaces available to restaurant customers. The City is also in the process of creating a Business Improvement District (BID) for the Magnolia Park area.  If approved, the funds collected will help fund other parking improvements such as creating parking lots and increasing the number of diagonal parking areas.  Diagonal parking areas are being proposed across from the restaurant at Catalina Street and the Magnolia Park area which includes one at Frederic Street and one at Screenland Drive.

The applicant is working with the owners of the Goodyear parking lot to obtain additional parking spaces. The Goodyear parking lot is located on the same block as the subject site. The applicant is working with neighboring property owners to secure additional parking spaces.

Anticipated Project Impact on Parking

The proposed restaurant will increase the parking demand in the surrounding area during lunch time and evening hours. Some spillover parking into the neighboring residential areas may occur during daytime hours. The greatest impact is expected to occur during lunch time hours, when most neighboring residents are at their place of employment. A large portion of the service provided by the restaurant will be lunch time deliveries to neighboring business and residents in the area. The restaurant customer base is expected to come from nearby businesses and residents in the neighborhood, many of which would be expected to walk to the restaurant. These factors should serve to reduce the parking demand during the daytime hours. The addition of angled parking on Niagara Street in the future will further reduce potential spill over parking into residential neighborhoods. No impact on neighboring residential properties is expected in the evening hours, as there is a substantial amount of on-street parking available as well as full use of the BFCU parking lot. The neighboring residents are not expected to be affected by the restaurant�s parking demand in the evening when most residents will be in there homes.  

Aesthetics and Safety

The proposed building is vacant and is not visually appealing. Because the parking lot is not continuously utilized there is potential for littering and loitering on the property. The proposed project would improve the appearance of the site and the parking lot. The design complies with MPC-3 standards which promote pedestrian friendly commercial buildings.

Noise

The primary sources of noise for the restaurant would be the pedestrian activity of patrons and employees, deliveries, and trash disposal/pick-ups. The distance between the residential homes and the entrance to the restaurant, where the majority of the noise emanate, is approximately 100 feet. There would be a small parking lot, a 15 foot alley, another parking lot and a six (6) foot high masonry wall between the subject building and the residential neighborhood. These features would greatly reduce the level of noise that would reach the adjacent residential property. It is staff�s assessment that any noise impact to the surrounding neighborhood would be minimal due to the features of the property. The serving of beer and wine will be incidental to the restaurant use and is not anticipated to create the potential nuisances that a bar or nightclub might have.

Traffic

Magnolia Boulevard is classified as a major arterial street and Niagara Street is classified as a local street. These streets based on their classification and traffic volumes are expected to accommodate the increase in traffic that would be generated by the restaurant.

Hours of Operation

The Burbank Municipal Code limits business hours to 6:00 a.m. to midnight unless a CUP is approved. The applicant has indicated that the hours of operation will be, Monday through Friday, 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., Saturday 12:00 p.m. to 10 p.m., closed Sunday.

Magnolia Park Community Advisory Committee Recommendation

The committee is comprised of residents from the Magnolia Park District and business owners with locations along Magnolia Boulevard and Hollywood Way. The proposed project was presented to the committee on June 16, 2005 (Exhibit B-5). Eight (8) of the committee members voted to recommend that the Planning Board approve the Conditional Use Permit and Variance applications with 27 parking spaces instead of the required 47 spaces. Two (2) committee members abstained and no members opposed the project.

The committee, during its deliberations, cited the recent Magnolia Park Action Plan that was approved by the City Council. The Committee spent six months on the formation of the Action Plan, which is based on the findings of the focus group meetings and resident neighborhood survey. The Action Plan specifically expressed the desires of the neighborhood to facilitate the re-tenanting of commercial properties with desired retail uses, particularly restaurant uses. Further, the committee cited the Action Plan recommendation to study the existing parking supply and develop a parking management plan that addresses customer versus employee parking. The Community Church shared parking agreement is one of the actions that has been taken to provide more employee parking, thus freeing up on-street spaces for customers (customers may utilize this parking lot as well). 

As part of the Magnolia Park Action Plan the residents in the Magnolia Park District were surveyed and 90% indicated that they would walk from home to patronize a restaurant use on Magnolia Blvd. This is the number one use that residents indicated why they would patronize Magnolia Boulevard (Exhibit B-8).

Issues Raised by the Appellant

While the appellant did not go into much detail regarding her reasons for appealing the project on the appeal form, she did state her reasons for appealing the project in great detail at a meeting held after the appeal was filed. The meeting was held at the request of the appellant, Penny Church, her husband Tony Church, and Mr. and Mrs. Macris who live in close proximity to the subject site. The staff present included Jeremy Ochsenbein, Senior Planner, Jack Lynch, Senior Redevelopment Project Manager and Abo Velasco, Assistant Planner. The reasons that follow were given by the applicant during the meeting. All issues brought up by the appellant are discussed with staff comments in italics.

1) There are too many restaurants in the area, we don�t need another one. There are two (2) restaurants within four (4) blocks of the subject site, Monte Carlo and Tony�s Bella Vista. The proposed restaurant mainly serves chicken which is different than the Italian meals the others serve (Exhibit H). The Magnolia Park Action Plan concluded that the residents in the area desire a restaurant in this area. There are other commercial corridors that have this situation.

2) It would increase traffic congestion in the area especially at lunch time. The trip generation caused by the restaurant is too much for the area. Based upon the Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation handbook (ITE) a restaurant that operates in a completely auto-oriented environment is expected to generate approximately 598 daily trips and 52 p.m. peak trips. Magnolia Boulevard is a major arterial street and is expected to accommodate the traffic generated by this use. Restaurant use may increase pedestrian activity in the area thereby reducing vehicular trips to the site. In addition the applicant has stated that the restaurant delivery service will take up a large percentage of the business operations, which combines trips into one vehicle in and out.

3) The increase in traffic will make it dangerous for children in the neighborhood crossing the streets. Along Catalina between Magnolia Boulevard and Chandler Boulevard are speed bumps designed to prevent autos from traveling at high speeds. Niagara Street and Catalina Street run into the Chandler Boulevard bike path. Customers are not likely to use these streets as routes to the proposed restaurant.

4) The restaurant would increase noise in the area, which could continue past 10:00 p.m. Condition of approval No. 3 prohibits outside activity by the restaurant outside of the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Condition No. 14 prohibits any noise from the restaurant to reach levels which would disturb the neighbors. Noise generated by the restaurant is not expected to reach levels that would not be expected from typical commercial uses along Magnolia Boulevard.

5) Litter and the number of rodents would increase. Condition of approval No. 17 requires that the area around the trash bin be kept clear of trash and debris and that adequate trash pick-ups be scheduled. The Health Department regulates restaurants to ensure that there are no rodent or cleanliness problems.

6) The property values will go down. There is no evidence to suggest that property values will go down. The surrounding property is commercially adjacent and a restaurant use could move in to the area at any time with the approval of a CUP.

7) Delivery trucks will block the alley. Vehicles are prohibited from parking in the alley and vehicle owners may be cited if found to be parked there. The applicant has expressed a willingness to have deliveries take place on Magnolia Boulevard.

8) There is not enough parking on site to meet the parking demand from the restaurant. Customers will park on neighboring residential streets. It is possible that restaurant customers will park on the neighboring residential streets if they cannot find an open stall in the parking lot. They may park on residential streets searching for shade for their vehicles. Customers may also park across the street at the Burbank Federal Credit Union where the applicant has a verbal agreement to use five (5) spaces during daytime hours and use of the entire lot in the evening hours. In any case, staff agrees that there is insufficient parking on the site and that this shortfall may impact neighboring residential properties.

Applicant survey of the area

On September 16 through September 18, 2005 the applicant surveyed residents in the neighboring residential area, and he circulated a petition (Exhibit I). The area surveyed was Niagara Street from Magnolia Boulevard to Chandler Boulevard. Of the 39 homes on this stretch of Niagara Street, 24 residents signed the petition in favor of the project, one (1) was neutral, three (3) abstained, four (4) were unable to be contacted, one (1) was against the project and six (6) were assumed to be against the project and were not contacted. The six (6) that were not contacted live in close proximity to the project site and include the appellant. Of the 35 residents (not including the four (4) residents that could not be contacted and who�s opinion on the project is unknown) 69% signed the petition, 20% were against the project and 11% were neutral.

Department Comments: The subject application was routed to City departments and divisions for review and comment. All code related comments from the departments and divisions (Exhibits C-1 through C-4) are required.  The following comments are of particular note:

The Police Department commented that they do not oppose the parking variance; however, they did express concern over parking congestion in the area.

The Redevelopment Agency staff is in favor of restaurant use at the subject site. The project is not in a Redevelopment project area; however, it is located in the Magnolia Park District, and is therefore subject to comments from the Magnolia Park Community Advisory Committee, via Agency/City Staff.

The Public Works Engineering Division had the following comments:

• Dedicate to the City for street right-of-way a 10� wide portion of the property adjacent to Magnolia Blvd where dedication is required. [MBC 26-106].

• Offer to dedicate a portion of the property to achieve a 15-foot corner radius at the property corners of Magnolia Blvd and Niagara St. [BMC 26-106].

• Offer to dedicate to the City for street right-of-way the southerly portion of the property adjacent to alley frontage lying within 10 feet of alley centerline [BMC 26-106].

• Offer to dedicate to the City for street right-of-way the northerly portion of the property adjacent to alley frontage lying within 10 feet of alley centerline [BMC 26-106]

The dedication for 2�6� on the northerly portion of the property adjacent to the alley frontage would reduce the parking stalls dimensions. This dedication will reduce the dimensions of the 10 parking stalls next to the alley making them even more substandard. The length of the parking stalls would be reduced to 15�6�. This would reduce the maneuverability of vehicles inside the parking lot.

The Public Works Traffic Engineer had the following comment: The existing parking lot north of alley is considerably substandard with eight foot wide parking spaces, 15 and 12.5 feet long. Functionally only ten or twelve vehicles would use the area in what would amount to tandem parking (14 maximum). Applicant shall re-stripe the parking lot to provide nine foot wide stalls, 18 feet long with 40 degree angle parking, double loaded aisle, and accessed from Niagara Street by a new driveway apron, thereby providing 17 parking spaces. An alternative is to provide tandem parking which would provide 28 parking spaces, and some landscaping. The proposed parking lot south of alley shall require 9�-4� wide stalls, 18 feet long with a 24 foot minimum backup distance. Parking stalls against a fence or wall shall be a minimum ten feet wide [BMC 31-1401 & 31-1417].

The parking lot is legal non-conforming at this time. Improving of the parking lot to current code will result in the loss of approximately 4 parking spaces. This would be detrimental to the surrounding neighborhood.

A primary transmission pole currently exists at the north end of the subject lot. This pole will impede the entry of vehicles into the proposed parking lot at the rear of the property. This power pole will have to be relocated at the property owner�s expense.

Environmental Status: This item has been determined to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15301of the State CEQA Guidelines pertaining to interior or exterior alterations (Exhibit D).

CONCLUSION:

It is staff's assessment that three (3) of the four (4) findings required for approval of a variance, can not be made for this project.

Requirements for Granting of a Variance

(1)   There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or to the intended use that do not apply generally to other property or classes of use in the same vicinity and zone.

There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity and zone.  The subject properties are rectangular lots, but are similar to the many other commercial properties in the City of Burbank.  There is no other circumstance, such as topography, which would create an unusual circumstance necessitating a variance. The property�s existing configurations make it difficult, if not impossible, to incorporate more parking at the site, but this situation is not a unique circumstance in the City of Burbank. The size, shape or location of the lots do not preclude the provision of parking, rather the existing design of the buildings upon the properties is the limiting factor. Many other existing commercial properties in Burbank are not permitted to have a restaurant use because they lack the required parking.

(2)   The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, possessed by other property owners under like conditions in the same vicinity and zone but which is denied to the property in question.

There is not a substantial property right which is possessed by other property owners and denied to the applicant with regard to restaurant uses. The lack of required parking restricts the property owners� ability to have a restaurant use. Other property owners who have similar existing properties are also restricted by parking requirements and can not have a restaurant. If the property owner provided the required parking, they would be permitted to have a restaurant use. However, there are also many properties in Burbank with restaurants that were �grandfathered� under old parking codes and therefore are permitted to have restaurants without the required code parking.

(3)   The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.

Granting of this variance will not be materially detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located. Overall, the use is compatible with the surrounding uses. Nevertheless, this variance may have positive and negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. The addition of a restaurant may positively impact the surrounding neighborhood by encouraging pedestrian activity along Magnolia Avenue. Although, an addition of a restaurant may negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood by increasing the demand for parking at peak hours at the site and thus reducing the amount of available parking. Patrons who are unable to find parking at the site may park in the residential neighborhood.

(4)   The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the objectives of the General Plan.

The objectives of the General Plan note that a goal of commercial development shall be �to create convenient and functional commercial facilities scaled to meet the needs of the area in which they are located.� The addition of a restaurant to the Magnolia Park District would provide for a local eating establishment and may improve the economic vitality of the entire district. However, the plan also notes that an overall land use goal is to achieve and maintain adequate off-street parking for all developments. This variance may not maintain an adequate supply of off-street parking and thus may be contrary to the objectives of the general plan.

It is staff's assessment that one (1) of the six (6) findings required for approval of a conditional use permit can not be made for this project.

Requirements for Granting of a Conditional Use Permit

(1)    The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by Chapter 31 of the Burbank Municipal Code.

Burbank Municipal Code Section 31-502 requires a conditional use permit for a restaurant    with incidental alcohol in an MPC-3 zone.

(2)    The use is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located.

The proposed use is not expected to be detrimental to uses in the zone it is to be located in. Restaurant use is not expected to create noise in excess of what is expected for a commercial zone. Magnolia Boulevard is major arterial and it should be able to accommodate the increase in traffic as a result of restaurant use. Parking demand may increase as a result of the proposed project and this may impact neighboring businesses. The applicant has several restaurants which operate much like the proposed restaurant. These restaurants have operated successfully for several years, and appear to work well with the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed use is controlled and monitored by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as well as the attached Conditions of Approval. Beer and wine service is unlikely to change the nature of the business, since it is incidental to food services.

(3)    The use will be compatible with other uses on the same lot, and in the general area in which the use is proposed to be located

There are other restaurants in the area and this use would increase pedestrian activity which compliments the uses in the area. The fa�ade of the improvements to the building will be compatible with the structures in the area. According to a survey conducted for the Magnolia Park Action plan, restaurant use was at the top of the list as uses the residents in the area would patronize. There are other restaurants in the area as well as retail stores. The use will allow the established restaurant to better serve the needs of its patrons by giving them a choice of supplementing their meals with beer and wine service.

(4)    The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and all of the yards, setbacks, walls, landscaping, and other features required to adjust the use to the existing future uses permitted in the neighborhood.

The proposed location for the restaurant meets setback and landscaping requirements. The parking lot that serves the subject building is legal non-conforming in regards to setback, landscaping and parking stall requirements. The parking lot is not large enough to accommodate the number of parking spaces required for restaurant use.

(5)    The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use.

The existing transportation infrastructure is adequate to support the type and quantity of traffic generated at the subject site. Magnolia Boulevard is a major arterial street easily capable of accommodating the increase in traffic that may occur as a result of this project. The project site does not meet current parking standards for restaurant use and may impact on-street parking in the area.

(6)    The conditions imposed are necessary to protect the public health, convenience, safety, and welfare.

If approved, the proposed conditions of approval are intended to mitigate potential negative impacts on the community that might result from the proposed use.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff believes that, with adequate parking, this project would be a positive addition to the Magnolia Park District. It is consistent with the Magnolia Park Action Plan and would increase pedestrian activity. However, because the parking requirement cannot be met staff recommends that the City Council approve the appeal and overturn the Planning Boards decision to approve Project No. 2005- 50, a Conditional Use Permit and Variance.

LIST OF EXHIBITS:

Exhibit A-1 - mZoning and Fair Political Practices Act Compliance Map

 A-2 - Public Notice

Exhibit - B-1      CUP and Variance Application Package

B - Site Plan

B-3 - Floor Plan

B-4 - Magnolia Park Parking Survey             

B-5 - Minutes of the Magnolia Park Community Advisory Committee June 16, 2005

B-6 - Photo of site

B-7 - Parking agreement between BFCU and the California Chicken Caf�

B-8 - Magnolia Park Action Plan

Exhibit C-1      Police Department Review Comments

C-2      Public Works Department Review Comments

C-3      Burbank Water and Power Review Comments

C-4      Burbank Fire Department Review Comments

C-5      Building Division Review Comments

C-6      Park, Recreation and Community Services Department Review Comments

C-7      Redevelopment Agency Review Comments

C-8      Restaurants with Incidental Alcohol Map

Exhibit D - Public Notice of Environmental Decision

Exhibit  E-1- Planning Board Resolution No. 2996

E-2 - Draft Planning Board minutes dated 8/22/05

Exhibit F - Public correspondence received prior to the Planning Board hearing

Exhibit  G - Public correspondence received since the Planning Board hearing

Exhibit  H - California Chicken Caf� Menu

Exhibit  I - Applicant survey of neighborhood

Exhibit  J - Appeal application

go to the top