1968 339- 485 _ 1-8 to 4-15-1968

Browse Search

Appeal of I. and B. GINESI and K.R. GINESI from denial by Planning Commission of their application for a Use Permit to allow 31 required off-stre&t parking spaces, for a restaurant to be located separately on an adjoining motel site at 2610 El Camino Real (Algiers Motel and Southern Restaurant) containing 2.54 acres more or less, West corner of El Camino Real and Carlos Avenue, in a "CG" District (General Com- mercial District) presented for consideration. It was reported Planning Commission had denied the application of the owners to re -arrange their parking to permit 31 parking spaces for their restaurant to be placed in the area of their motel. John H. Tallett, Attorney representing appellants, owners of the property in this matter, presented copies of proposed development plans for the site to Council members and also copies of a communication from Joe Bracco, lessee and operator of the Southern Restaurant, which would be affected by pro- posed rearrangement of parking facilities, stating he believed the present proposal for rearrangement of parking to be a better plan than the present one and recommending approval of the access proposal by the appellants over that recommended by the Planning Commission as being more beneficial to his restaurant operation. (communication read in full) Mr. Tallett advised this total property containing both motel and restaurant was under the one ownership of the appellants only, but reviewed reasons why property had been split under the assessment district which had been imposed when Carlos Avenue had been cut through. He advised appellants had been assured Carlos Avenue extension would make possible a further development of their rear parcel facing this street and it was for this reason rearrangement of the parking is necessary. It had been presented to the Planning Staff for approval in order to secure advance agreement that plan acceptable and technical objections would not be raised after property owners had spent substantial sums to carry out their proposed development. Mr. Tallett questioned need for and jurisdiction of City in requiring a Use Permit for rearrangement of the parking as his review of City ordinances did not reveal such necessity. He stated all requirements had been complied with concerning parking. He reviewed objections by Planning Staff as to access and parking in front of motel and restaurant which he felt to be differences of opinion without substantiating legal authority under City ordinances. Discussion held concerning fact the Planning Staff is concerned that this property is divided into two parcels, and problems which would result should parcels be sold separately after rearrangement of parking. Staff was also questioned as to legality of the Use Permit procedure as applied to this specific plan. Mr. Tallett advised property owners had offered to eliminate property division so that eventuality of separate sale of property not possible, unless adequate parking is approved by City, if this would satisfy the objection of Staff to proposed parking plans. City Attorney advised it was his opinion that Use Permit procedures in this matter had not been necessary as no basis for its requirements in evidence so long as all requirements of ordinances had been met, and doubted Council's authority to act on such matter. He stated it would be his recommendation that zoning permit procedure be followed and recommended Council deny use permit because of lack of authority to grant same and direct the Staff to issue an appropriate zoning permit. Council questioned possibility of denying permission to allow frontage parking spaces as proposed along along E1 Camino and was advised it was not possible to deny such right under this zoning district. After further discussion of the appropriate action to be taken by Council, Council- man Petersen moved to deny the Use Permit and recommend that applicant remove the A 8V