HomeMy WebLinkAbout38-Planning
~I~ OF SAN BERNARDQO ... REQuQT FOR COUNCIL ABtON
Dept:
R. ANN SIRACUSA,
Director of Planning
Planning Department
llEc'O~~~"q($~eal of Review of Plans
\S9S APR 22 k~ lioH 88-4
From:
Date: April 21, 1988
Synopsis of 'Previous Council action:
A
No Previous Council action taken - see attached Staff Report
RecommBndBd motion:
That the Mayor and Council deny the appeal or uphold the appeal
and designate proposal as a restaurant.
~J~~
R. ANN SIRACUSA, Director of Planning
Contact person:
R. Ann Siracusa
Phone: 384-5057
Supporting data attachBd: Staff Report & Attachments
Ward:
1
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. Descriotion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
.. ~ 1 X>.
CI,c OF SAN BBRNARDICo - REQUIIOT FOR COUNCIL ACOON
STAFF REPORT
SUBJE~
Appeal of Review of Plans No. 88-4, requesting approval of
project design in regards to designation as a restaurant vs.
a fast-food restaurant.
REOUEST
To proceed with project as originally proposed.,
ll~CJ.~BQIDm
The proposed project is to
(35' X 24') restaurant on
located at 1271 West 5th
Manufacturing) district.
construct
a 7,500
Street in
an 840
square
a C-M
square foot
foot parcel
(Commercial-
Review of Plans 88-4 was submitted January 2, 1988.
Deve lQP-WlJl!:.Ji'Y j..eli_ ~S>J!lJ!l.U.t.e.e_=-Fi!l>nI~.t" y _ ~.._l~Jl.8
The DRC continued the item to allow for site plan
redesign. DRC deemed the proposal to be a fast-food
restaurant and subject to Code Section 19.56.050(F) of
the San Bernardino Municipal Code parking requirements
of one space for each 60 square feet of gross floor alea
or 14 spaces.
~i!Yi!19PJ!li!P.t_~eyj.e~_CQIDIDi.t.tei!_=_~~_J.._~
DRC moved to deny the
requirement could not
requested continuance to
of restaurant definition.
project because the parking
be met, but the applicant
allow time for interpretation
DRC continued project.
1'1ADn.iDa.. C9J1lJ!1.bJ!l..u>p_ =_ tiA.r;:t;b_l~_~
Commission interpreted proposed use as a fast-food
restaurant.
Peyd9PMD.t_ Ri!Y j.ll.1fS9JD11l,il..tllL: _ tinpILll.L_Ull.
Denied approval of plans based on insufficient parking
for project.
The March 15, 1988 staff report to the Planning Commission
summarizes an investigation into the definition. of a
restaurant vs. a fast-food restaurant, and the contact nlade
with the City Attorney's office concerning this matter.
15~0264
.
e
o
o
o
Re: Review of Plans 88-4
April 20, 1988
Page 2
In general, fast-food restaurants are restaurants that
provide a small menu of low-priced pre-prepared foods that
customers may consume on the premises or take with them.
Fast food restaurants rely on large volumes of customers who
stay for short periods of time; they, therefore, locate on
major arterial roads, at freeway interchanges and in shopping
centers. Often situated in their own small buildings, they
may require larger parking lots than other 'restaurant
facilities to accommodate people waiting for orders in
addition to seated customers and staff.
At the present, the City has no adopted definition of a
restaurant vs. a fast-food restaurant, so guidelines on
design are impossible to give to the developer. The Planning
Commission has directed staff to formulate the appropriate
definitions.
91'T.H)l'1fLAVAIL~J.E TO ,TJUUmY91U~~PSQll~
1.
Uphold appeal and designate proposal as
(This would allow the review process to
reconsideration by the Development Review
a restaurant.
continue anc1
Commit tee. )
2. Deny appeal. (Applicant would have to redesign project
and resubn,i t for review and approval.)
RJo~COMMElIDbTI ON
Staff is opposed to this project being designated as a normal
"restaurant" when it is clearly a fast-food, drive-in type
restaurant proposal. That designation requires more parking
spaces as per Code requirements and is the point of
consideration that the developer disagrees with.
Prepared by: John Montgomery, AICP
Principal Planner
For: ,R. ANN SIRACUSA
Director of Planning
JM:cms
Attachment "A" - March 30, 1988 Appeal letter request.
Attachment "B" - March 22, 1988 DRC Decision.
Attachment "C" March 15, 1988 Planning Commission Staff
Repor t.
Attachment "D" - March 15, 1988 Planning Commission Minutes.
doc.miscellaneous
rp884appeal
4-20-88
. c 0
A"J P~{. ATTACHlo1ENTO ..
,.;Ju "'adlsm (:>eIlftlS .
l3uHdlnlt ()edanen
~71S<) I:..jlb lea...
l1ilhland. U <n~
March 30, 1988
.'
o
RCC~'\ ,'-, .
L.. :': - "_I
'" :-p~'
"f8 rr2 -1 P:; :[2
Honorable Mayor & Common Council
City Hall
300 North "0" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
. ~......
"8
,.1
- . -. ~..
We are formally requesting an appeal to the San Bernardino City
Council of the City of San Bernardino Planning Commission,
decision dated March 15, 1988, in regards to R.O.P. 88-4.
Enclosed iB correspendence between my firm, the Planning
Department and the Planning Commission. It is my client's
intention to operate a restaurant as the City of San Bernardino
Municipal Court allows.'
As this correspondence illustrates, we have earnestly sought
a clear definition as to why the Planning Department Btates our
proposed project is a "Drive-in" and not a "Restaurant" as \le
proposed. The Planning Commission in this decision did not
address our request for a definition or design guildelines, but
simply stated that it is a "Drive-in".
We have been willing to adapt our project to specific design
requirements of a restaurant; however, neither the Planning
Commission or Staff have afforded us that opportunity. Therefore,
~le feel the City of San Bernardino should allowuB to proceed
with our project as orinally proposed.
Sincerely.
~M~
Paul M. Madison
MADISON DESIGNS
) i )"i .}J,' _ '
.
e
o
o
o
ATTACh!1ENT "B"
300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA 92418
March 22, 1988
Mr. Paul M. Madison
27189 5th Street
Hi9hland, CA 92346
RE: Review of Plans No. 88-4
Dear Mr. Madison:
On March 17, 1988, the above Review of Plans application was reviewed by the
Development Review Committee. The following action was taken:
~ Denied based on the following:
Insufficent parking for project.
If the item was continued, it will be rescheduled for Development Review
Committee when a revised plan and/or additional information items have been
submitted to the Planning Department.
If you have any questions, please contact this office at (714) 384-5057.
SinCerelY~ '"
~'ld~
Mike Norton
Associate Planner
/kdm
cc: Mr. Mi ge 1 Hi nojosa
5965 Laura Lane
San Bernardino, CA
KIV RP88-4
i
~F'''~'' '1"-;.-:~,-,
~"~-'ii'" ".
~., \....,-_.,'."0. ,
-,....~: T '
.
e 0 ATTACHMENT '0
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO -
o
MEMORANDUM
To
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
CRITERIA FOR DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN
CLASSIFICATIONS OF RESTAURANTS RE:
From
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Subject
Date
RP 88-4
MARCH l5, 1988
Approvitd AGENDA ITEM 1I; 12
Date
1 . REQUEST
Mr. Paul Madison, applicant for Review of Plans 88-4,
requests the Planning Commission to establish the
criteria to distinguish between a RRestaurant (with or
without a lounge or entertainmentR, and RRestaurant -
drive-through, drive-in, walkupR (fast food). See
Attachments RAR, RBR, and RCR. The purpose of the
request is to determine parking standards for Review of
Plans 88-4.
2. BACKGROUND
Review of Plans 88-4 was submitted to the Planning
Department January 2, 1988. On February 5, 1988 the
item was before the Development Review Committee where
it was determined the project is a fast-food walkup
restaurant and parking was required based on San Ber-
nardino Municipal Code Section 19.56.050(F). The item
was continued to allow a redesign of the site plan to
include additional parking. The parking could not be
provided on the lot. On March 3, 1988 the Development
Reveiw Committee made a motion to deny the project,
however, the applicant requested continuance to allow
time for this interpretation.
3. ANALYSIS
The entire issue of what constitutes a restaurant is
very complex. The San Bernardino Municipal Code does
not define restaurants nor distinguish between different
types of restaurants, except in the parking require-
ments, Section 19.56.0S0. City Planning staff, with in
put from the City Attorney's Office, puts forth the
following factors which affect the kind of restaurant
for the Planning Commission's consideration:
A. Size of kitchen area in comparison to eating/ser-
vice area; the preparation area for a sit~down type
restaurant is approximately 50\ of the floor area,
(generally a fast-food restaurant has a larger
preparation area).
B. Extent and type of menu.
.~
o
o
o
~,
~..
~-
7
To: The Planning Commission
Re: Review of Plans 88-4
March 15, 1988
Page 2
C. Volume of total gross receipts received from sales
for on-site and off-site consumption.
D. Type of service.
1. Drive through window.
2. Order at a table or counter?
3. Served by a waiter or a waitress?
4. Food served on standard plates with flatware
or in disposable packaging?
E. Manner and time of payment.
1. Is payment made when food is ordered?
2. Is food served, consumed, and then paid for?
3. Are credit cards accepted?
F. Consumption.
1. Where is the food consumed? Is it served at a
table? Taken to a Car? Taken home?
2. Are there enough seats to serve all those who
order food?
3. Is there aisle space for those who order food
to go?
G. Manner of food preparation.
1. Is food prepared and cooked on-site?
2. Is food packaged off-site and heated?
H. Hours of operation.
I. Length of time patrons take to consume food on-
site.
..
c:
o
o
o
To: The Planning Commission
Re: Review of Plans 88-4
March l5, 1988
Page 3
These and other factors represent the kinds of
considerations which must be considered in. defining
various types of restaurants. The type of restaurant
may affect parking requirements, traffic impacts, and
even acceptability in a given zone district.
~he applicant who requested the criteria was asked
information on Review of Plans 88-4 pertaining to these
considerations. The City Attorney's Office has placed
emphasis on table service and not on take-out.
4. REVIEW OF PLANS 88-4
The following reflects the nature of the proposed
application:
A. The kitchen and preparation area is 435 square
feet, or 56' of the total area.
B. The seating area is l40 square feet, or 16' of the
total area.
C. The service and circulation aisle is 175 square
feet, or 20' of the total area.
D. The restrooms, which are accessible only from the
exterior, are 90 square feet, or lO' of the total
area.
E. The counter ~ppears to be where orders are placed.
F. Hours of operation will be from ll:30 a.m. to 8:30
p.m.
G. There is no indication that waiters or waitresses
serve food.
H. There is no indication of the manner or type of
payment.
I.
There is no indication if
time the order is placed,
specific order, or if the
or meals.
food is prepared at the
or if it is provided to
menu is individual items
..
c
o
o
o
To: The Planning Commission
Re: Review of Plans 88-4
March 15, 1988
Page 4
The applicant was requested to submit a
regarding the operation, however, he
provide anything -in writing.
letter of intent
elected not to
5. CONCLUSION
The applicant requested distinguishing criteria for
different classifications of restaurants. The purpose
of the request was to evaluate parking standards for a
spec if ic proposal, Rev iew of Plans 88-4. .The proposal
is for an 840 square foot restaurant. Of the total
square footage, 16\ is seating area.
Due to the applicant's inability to provide information
on his project, and based on the criteria presented by
, the City Attorney's Office which is established in law
case history, the proposed 840 square foot restaurant is
a fast-food, walkup restaurant.
6. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission:
1. Discuss the criteria outlined in the analysis
portion of this memorandum;
2. Determine that the restaurant proposed in Review of
Plans 88-4 be considered to be a fast- food walkup
restaurant; and
3. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Intent to
amend the San Bernardino Municipal Code to include
definitions of the different types of restaurants.
Respectfully submitted,
R. ANN SIRACUSA
Director of Planning
~1'( -
Michael Norton
Associate Planner
MN:cms
pcagenda
RP884memo
03-10-88
.
e
nTACHMENT "A" n
_adls()n VeslMS
l3ulldlnlUleslctnen.
1171S() 1::. liU. Street
, lihthland. (;4 ~6
o
February 24, 1988
City of San Bernardino
Planning Department
300 North "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
ATTN: Ed Gundy
RE: R.O.P. 88-4
Dear Sir:
In reference to this response of my letter dated February 8.
1988, it is still unclear to me what or what is not a restaurant?
I wish to enlist the planning commission to review my original
request, this letter, and the Planning Department's response
dated February 15, 1988. I wish to design this project wi thin
the design requirments of a restaurant. I have listed my
questions to your department's response as follows:
Item #1: Are waiter/waitresses required to define an
easting establishment as a restaurant?
I tem In. 3. 4: Shall we submi t the copy of the menue to
determine the type of restaurant my client intends to
operate. ,
Item #5: This is the most vauge design condition of all.
I am totally lost on this one.
I wish to have the review process continued until such
time the planning commission has rendered its interpretation
and sufficient time to make revisions (if any) to our
proposed restaurant design ~nd/or gather any other
information necessary to provide an acceptable proposal
for approval as a restaurant.
Sincerely,
r02~
Paul M. Madison
MADISON DESIGNS
.
e
~O
ATTACHMENT~"
(
o
ERN ARD IN 0 300 NORTH "0" STREET. SAN BERNARDINO. CALIFORNIA 9241B
.
February IS, 1988
Mr. Paul M. Madison
27189 Fifth Street
Hi9hland, CA 92346
RE: Review of Plans No. 88-4
Dear Mr. Madison:
Upon consultation with the City Attorney's office, the above reference project
is a drive-in type restaurant that requires one parkin9 space per sixty square
feet of gross floor area because:
- It appears no waitresses are required.
- Choice of menu.
- Individual price menu.
- Meal provided to order.
- Tables - sufficient place to sit while anticipating your meal.
If you wish a Planning Commission interpretation, the fee is $50.00.
If you have any questiuns, please do not hesitate to contact me at (714) 384-5057.
Respectfully,
""",;L..
Mi chae I Norton
Associate Planner
/kdm
KIV RP88-4
"
QadiS()n DeS..Qs
lJundinlll)eslll1ers
,2'71891:. liU, Street
l1u2hland. U fl;J.'"
o
/'
ATTACHMENT "C"
February 8, 1988
City of San Bernardino
P1anninc Department
300 North D Street
San Bernardino, CA 92410
Attn: Ed Gundy
Re: R.O.P. 88-4
Dear Sir:
,
I am submitting this letter to request a clear determination
as to why our proposed restaurant does not fall into the category
of a "restaurant" but rather a "drive-in" in regards to site
design and parking requirements.
It is my clients intention to operate a "sit-down" type eating
establishment with fixed seating as shown on the plans submitted
for review.
In light of the vague definitions and the contradicting in-
formation I have received from the City Planning Staff, I wish to have
the review process continued until such time my request has been
addressed and a clear definition has been established.
To my knowledge I have provided all the information necessary
to process this application as a restaurant. However, if I can
clarify or further describe our proposed project or the type of
business my client intends to conduct, please contact my office
at 714-862-1340.
Sin~eraly,
/U(,~ Jl J(CW~
Paul M. Madison
Madison Designs
--0 0 ATTACHMENTO.
CITY OF S!N BERNARDINO -
o
I\IIEMORANDUM
To
R. ANN SIRACUSA, Director
Plannin9 Department
Definition of Restaurant
From DENNIS A. BARLOW
Sr.Asst.City Atty
Date Marc:h 2, 1988
Subject
ApprllVlId
Date
The question has arisen as to what constitutes a restaurant for
the purposes of San Bernardino Municipal Code Section 19.56.050
Subsections "E" and "F". Subsection "E" outlines the parking
requirements for restaurants (with or without lounge or
entertainment) and Subsection "F" specifies the requirements
for drive-through, drive-in, or walk-up restaurants. The
question arises because the parking requir,ments are
significantly less under Subsection "E" than under Subsection
"F". There are no definitions in the Code for these terms.
In reviewing the various cases I found the following listed
criteria to define a restaurant:
1. Individually priced menu items (Hodqson v.
ARA Services. Inc. (DC Va) 392 F.Supp. 1167,
1173) .
2. Choice of menu (Hodqson VL-AFA Services. Inc.
(DC Va) 392 F.Supp. l167, 1l730.
3. Waiters/waitresses (Fulway Corp. v. Liqqett
Druq Co., l48 NYS 2d 222, 230).
4. Tables (In re Bowers (DC Cal.) 33 F.Supp. 965,
966) .
5. Meals ,provided to order (In re Bowers (DC Cal.)
33 F.Supp. 965, 966).
To the above I would add that there should generally be
sufficient tables to seat the anticipated patrons, and that the
emphasis should be on table service and not on take-out.
Certainly, an establishment which meets all of the above
criteria would be a restaurant. However, if one or more of the
criteria are not met, the Planning Commission could still
determine, in light of all the surrounding facts and
circumstances, that a business :is a restaurant and not a fast-
food establishment or some other variation.
.
.
R. ANN SIftACUSA
Ma,rch 2, 1918
Page Two
In arriving at the appropriate definition, the courts have
concluded that in the absence of definitions to the contrary
contained in planning and zoning ordinances for purposes of
determining permitted land use of property under zoning
classification, what constitutes a -restaurant- as opposed to a
nonpermitted -drive-in- is determined by considering the common
and ordinary meaning of these terms, liberally construed in
favor of permitted use. (See Ederer v. Board of Zonin9
A9geal~, 248 N.E. 2d. 234, 248, and Spieeia v. Abat., 207 N.E.
234, 235, 236.)
DENNIS A. ARLOW
Sr. Asst. City Attorney
DAB:cm
.
o
o ATTACHMENT O'
o
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commia.ion Meeting Minutes of 3/15/88
Page 8
Commissioner Lopel made a motion to
Declaration for environmental impact
88-2. The motion was seconded
unanimoua1y.
ITEM NO. 11
recommend adoption of the Negative
and approval of Change of Zone No.
by Commissioner Stone and carried
Appeal of ~.~i.~ of Plans No. 88-6 -- Appeal of Development Review
Committee's denial of Review of Plans No. 88-6, for the construction of
a 17,854 square foot metal building addition to an existing 10,000
square foot building located on 1.76 acres located at 420 South "E"
Street in the C-M Commercial-Manufacturing zone.
Owner: Stockwell & Binney
Applicant: penco Builders
Ward: 1
Scott Wright presented comments as contained in the staff report dated
March 15, 1988. Mr. Wright noted that the site is within the overlay
district for the Central City South Redevelopment Project Area and
design guidelines indicate that aluminum or other metal panels are not
permitted as elevation materials. He stated that the existing struc-
ture pre-dates these guidelines. Mr. Wright stated that staff
recommends denial of the appeal and that the Commission uphold the
decision of the Development Review Committee.
In response to questions, Attorney Brue stated that the Planning
Commission has no authority to override the guidelines of the overlay
district.
The applicant was not present. There was no one in the audience to
speak to this item. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Lindseth made a motion to deny
decision of the Development Review Committee
Plans No. 88-6. The motion was seconded
carried unanimously.
the
for
by
appeal and uphold the
denial of Review of
Commissioner Cole and
ITm NO. l2
F.i!gyU~_JS>L Determination QL~ur ia foxJ)lliiI\.J.I\9_ AuB.estaur ant
Request for Planning Commission to determine the criteria for defining
a restaurant (with or without a lounge or entertainment) and a restau-
rant-drive-through, drive-in, and walk-up (fast food restaurant).
Sandra Paulsen presented comments, noting that this item is a request
from an applicant on a project which was denied by the Development
Review Committee because parking was inadequate for a fast food restau-
rant. Ms. Paulsen stated that the applicant requested that criteria be
established for fast food restaurants. She noted criteria that should
be considered such as size of kitchen in relation to size of eating
area, extent and type of menu, volume of total gross receipts, type of
~
o
o
o
o
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/15/88
Page 9
service, manner of preparation of food, hours of operation, length of
time needed to consume food.
MS. Paulsen stated that the applicant's proposal (noted in detail in
the memorandum to the Planning Commission dated March 15, 1988) shows
56 percent kitchen area, a counter where orders are placed and no
indication of waiters or waitresses. Ms. Paulsen stated that staff
recommends that the Planning Commission discuss criteria, determine
that the proposed restaurant is a fast food walk-up and direct staff to
prepare a resolution of intention to amend the Code to include defini-
tions of different types of restaurants.
Commissioners discussed criteria. Commissioner Lopez commented that in
most restaurants you order your food from a waitress and pay after you
eat, most fast food restaurants have a bigger working area than seating
area. Commissioners Lindseth and Stone felt they should stay away from
percentages of floor area to determine type of restaurant. Commis-
sioner Lindseth felt that determination of type of restaurant should be
based upon type of payment, how food is to be served, access to rest-
rooms and intent of customer to consume food on or off site.
Commissioners commented on the applicant's proposal. Commissioner
Lopez felt it was a fast food restaurant because restrooms are to be on
the outside. Commissioner Lindseth concurred, stating that the size of
the food preparation area, seating area, area for circulation and
service, accessibility to restrooms, and no indication of waiter or
waitress service indicate a fast food restaurant.
Mrs. Siracusa stated that, if the applicant's proposed restaurant is
determined to be a fast food restaurant then they must adhere to a
higher parking standard because there is a high turn-over rate for such
uses. Staff is asked for a determination from the Commission so that
the proper parking ratio can be used.
It was the consensus of the Commission to allow the applicant to speak.
Mr. Paul Madison, applicant for Review of Plans No. 88-4, asked what he
could do to the building to make it a restaurant. Mr. Madison stated
that his client indicates that he would be providing a waiter and it is
not to be a drive-through restaurant since they can't fit a drive-
through on the site. Mr. Madison did not know how food would be
packaged.
Commissioner Lindseth felt the proposal appeared to be for a fast food
type restaurant.
Commissioner Lindseth made a motion that the restaurant proposed in
Review of Plans No. 88-4 is considered to be a fast food restaurant.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lopez and carried with all but
the abstention of Commissioner Cole.
~ ~
~
o
o
o
City of San Bernardino
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 3/15/88
Page 10
After the vote, Commissioner Lindseth commented that he was concerned
that people will have difficulty in establishing businesses.
It was the consensus of the Commission that staff be directed to
prepare research on a definition of restaurants and present it to the
Commission at their next meeting.
* * *
Commissioner Nierman commented briefly on the League of ~alifornia
Cities Planning Commissioners Institute held March 9 through 11, 1988
in Anaheim. He noted that comments from other City Planning Commis-
sioners and Directors in regard to properly managing growth were very
interesting. He noted their caution to be very careful of growth
control and management of growth control.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned by a motion
from Commissioner Corona, seconded by Commissioner Lopez and unani-
mously carried, to the next meeting of the Planning Commission to be
held on March 29, 1988, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City
Hall. 8:15 p.m.//
-
.
~-
-
-
o
o
o
RECE!VED-Clry CLER!<
'88 APR 28 P 4 :50
April 28, 1988
Ms. Evelyn Wilcox
Mayor City of San Bernardino
City Hall
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Re: Restaurant on 5th street
east of Mt. Vernon
on south side of 5th.
In reference to the appeal council meeting set for May 2, 1988 @
2:00 PM. I am requesting a continuance over to May 16, 1988 @
2:00 PM. I was not notified of this meeting until today @ 3:00 PM
by our architect who inturn had just been notified by Shawna Clark.
Miguel Hinojosa is out of town and is not even aware of this date.
Regards,
~6~
Ana Hinojosa-Barbosa on behalf of
Miguel Hinojosa
cc: Paul Madison Jr.
Madison Design
o
.3y