Pasadena’s Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday is scheduled to hear an appeal of a Modification to Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the property at 1253 East Colorado Blvd. and an adjoining parking lot, at 1217 E. Colorado Blvd., which the City’s Hearing Officer disapproved at a public hearing last April.
The project applicant had submitted a Modification to CUP to allow a banquet hall, in conjunction with the approved Adult Day Care land use (CUP #6740), in the address that’s within the East Colorado Specific Plan, Commercial General, Mid-City sub-district zoning district.
A staff report prepared by Luis Rocha, Zoning Administrator, showed the proposed use would occupy the same commercial space as the approved Adult Day Care use, and only interior modifications are proposed in order to accommodate the new use as club, lodge and private meeting hall.
The applicant was also applying to extend the hours of operation, after the original request to operate from 3 p.m. to 2 a.m., in lieu of the permitted hours of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m. daily, was disapproved. The new hours requested will be from 3 to 11 p.m. on Thursdays, 3 p.m. to 12 midnight on Fridays and Saturdays, and 3 to 9 p.m. on Sundays.
The Modification to CUP was accompanied by two minor CUP requests, one to allow shared parking on-site between the previously approved Adult Day Care use and the proposed Club, Lodge and Private Meeting Hall use, and off-site between the proposed land use and the commercial off-street parking lot at 1217 E. Colorado Blvd.; and the other to allow valet parking at that parking lot.
Comments from previous hearings and deliberations on the project, including inputs from the Pasadena Police Department and other City departments that looked at the project, pointed to potential noise disturbances and traffic congestion that could impact the safety and general welfare of residents around the area and persons working in the immediate neighborhood of the site.
A police department report submitted earlier in the process pointed to “all the modifications requested” as potentially having “a dire affect to the abutting residential properties” and providing “an undue nuisance to nearby residents.”
In the appeal, the applicant stated the project has gained support from a majority of the neighboring residents in the area, and will show signatures when required.