HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Item- Background info Regarding El Patio Restauurant, A nonconforming use -
AZUSA
INFORMATION
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROY BRUCKNER, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
VIA: RICK COLE, CITY MANAGER
DATE: MAY 20, 2002
SUBJECT: BACKGROUND INFORMATION REGARDING EL PATIO RESTAURANT, A
NONCONFORMING USE
BACKGROUND
The current business owners, Mary Ulmer, Elena Hernandez, and Joe Jara, represented by their Realtor
Jerry Baker, have requested to address the City Council regarding the land use status of their long-time
business El Patio Restaurant, at 347 N. San Gabriel Ave. Staff has met with Mr. Baker two weeks ago,to
explain the background and options. However, the owners are still interested in addressing the City
Council. The City Clerk has scheduled them on the Agenda under "Public Participation". This
memorandum is intended to give the Council some background information on this matter.
As was the case recently with Azusa Pawnshop, El Patio Restaurant is also a nonconforming use. It is
nonconforming in that it is a commercial use in a residential zone (now R3-O). Unlike the Azusa
Pawnshop, however, the property owner was aware of the nonconforming use status back in 1982.
The owners would like to sell their restaurant, and in researching the files, the following was found as to
the history of the restaurant:
March 5, 1956 - Building was permit issued for demolition of a residence, and construction of a
new restaurant. The permit showed zoning to be C-1, and final inspection
signed-off on November 21, 1956. -
August 4, 1982 - Conditional Use Permit C-277 was granted for a beer and wine license, and
waiver of Section 19.040.050, for expansion of a nonconforming use. This
section provides for nonconforming uses under certain conditions,to continue for
a period of 20 years after 1956, and requires a C.U.P. for expansion of
nonconforming uses.
While we have been unable to determine exactly when the restaurant became nonconforming, by virtue
V II / %/
1 1 6/7/
of the filing of the C.U.P. in 1982 for expansion of a nonconforming use, it can be concluded that it was
nonconforming at that time, and the 20-year amortization period has lapsed.
The options are few at this point in time, which have been discussed with Mr. Baker. They include:
1. Applying for the maximum possible time extension, and/or
2. Wait to see what comes out of the New General Plan and Development Code. Current thinking is
that the new regulations would allow a limited amount of compatible mixed uses,particularly if they
are neighborhood-serving. While a decision regarding this matter cannot be made at this point, it
may well be that the restaurant could become a permitted use with the adoption of the future
proposed new regulations.
2