TO:
Honorable Mayor Powell and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
David N. Carmany, City Manager
FROM:
Richard Thompson, Community Development Director
Angelica Ochoa, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:Title
Resolution No. 12-6403 Denying the Appeal of a Use Permit Amendment for an Existing Restaurant at 1605 North Sepulveda Boulevard (Hotdoggers).
ADOPT RESOLUTION 12-6403
Body
_____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Resolution 12-6403 (Attachment 1) denying a Use Permit Amendment for an Existing Restaurant at 1605 North Sepulveda Boulevard (Hotdoggers)
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications associated with the recommended action.
BACKGROUND:
The applicant, Hotdoggers, Inc. applied for a Use Permit Amendment on June 5, 2012, to request a change from the current conditions in Resolution No. 6322 to increase operating hours and beer and wine service, which requires a Use Permit Amendment per Section 10.84.100.A. of the Municipal Code. Specifically, the applicant requested to continue the 24-hour operation of the restaurant with beer and wine hours from 6:00 AM to 2:00 AM daily and remove the rear dining room addition. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 25, 2012, discussed and denied the project. On July 27, 2012, the applicant appealed to the City Council the Planning Commission's decision.
DISCUSSION:
The City Council held a public hearing at their regular meeting on September 4, 2012. Substantial public testimony was heard and letters were received both in support and opposition to the project. Those in opposition had concerns, specifically with the rear access from Oak Avenue after 10:00 PM, the chain required on Oak Avenue after 10:00 PM per the conditions in Resolution No. 6322, more businesses serving alcohol affecting the surrounding area, future tenants if more hours were given, and close proximity to residential.
The applicant, at the meeting, stated that he wanted flexibility and an increase in hours to have a successful business and wanted the patio removed from the approval and conditions in Resolution No. 6322 since it would not be built because of cost. Also, he requested that the City Council re-evaluate his project to increase operating hours and beer and wine service based on the patio being removed.
The City Council heard public testimony, discussed, and denied the project (4:1), upholding the Planning Commission denial. The City Council felt that the conditions listed in Resolution No. 6322 were evaluated and approved based on minimizing impacts to the residents and maintaining a family-style restaurant, not a bar. In addition, they agreed and supported the recommendation from the Police Department not to extend any hours. They felt that any increase in hours would impact the neighbors and were concerned since any future business owner would be permitted the same rights. They felt that the applicant should implement the existing approval before any revision and increase in hours would be considered. One City Council member wanted to grant the applicant flexibility in operating hours to encourage the success of the business.
A Resolution of Denial is attached for the City Council's approval prepared by the City Attorney.
CONCLUSION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution No. 12-6403 denying the applicant's appeal. The applicant has the right to build, but is not required to build the rear dining room addition and therefore, Resolution No. 6322 does not need to be amended if the applicant chooses not to build the rear dining room addition.
Attachment:
1. Resolution No. 12-6403
2. Resolution No. 6322 - Approved by City Council 07/05/2011