Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout37-Planning & Building CITY' OF SAN BERARDINO - REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION From: Al Boughey, Director Appeal of denial of Conditional Su~~: Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance No. 91-08 Dept: Planning & Building Services Ode: January 9, 1992 Mayor and Common Council Meeting January 21, 1992 Synopsis of Previous Council action: December 16, 1991 That Mayor and Common Council continue the appeal, and direct staff to prepare alternative approaches other than Code Amendments, and return in thirty days with recommendations. Recommended motion: U'fJ~ . ~ure Al Boughey . Contact person: Al Boughey Supporting data attached: Staff Report Phone: 384-5357 Ward: 6 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: N/A Source: (Acct. No.) IAcct. Descriotionl Finance: Council Notes: 37 "'.. , vr oO:t""... Dtl:.nA""nWIAV - n~'-'I"'~~' rwn vw"''''v.~ ""'" Ilun .. , . . STAFF REPORT Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-28, and Variance No. 91-08, requesting approval of the Conditional Use Permit to permit the sales of beer and wine for off-site consumption, and a variance from Development Code Section 19.06.030 permitting a convenience store to be constructed on less than the minimum lot size, and a variance from Code Section 19.26 to permit a reduction in loading space requirements. Mayor and Common Council Meeting of January 21, 1992 BACKGROUND At the meeting of December 16, 1991, Council directed staff to prepare alternative approaches other than code amendments to allow for approval of this project, and return in thirty days with recommendations (refer to Mayor and Common'council Staff Report dated December 16, 1991 for background discussion of the specific project). ANALYSIS A matrix was developed by staff to show areas of concern for a convenience store with lor without alcohol at this location. Based on this information, the only options identified for project approval would be amending the Development Code to revise or delete the distance requirements, or amending the Code to expand the Variance section. The minimum lot size and minimum loading area issues could be resolved by variance. OPTIONS OPTION I: Development Code Amendment to Distance Requirements The Development Code minimum standards were established because of health and safety concerns. Basically, a concensus was developed during the Development Code workshops, that minimum standards should be set in order to improve current concerns associated with the detrimental effects of premises which are licensed for the off-site sales of alcohol. Public concerns frequently include vandalism, crime, deterioration of neighborhoods and the sales of alcohol to minors. Therefore, because there are minimum standards set, the code draws a line, or -0264 Page 2 . . . . a setpoint, which the City relies on as reasonable standards that hopefully, reduce potential impacts. with these given standards staff can not make the necessary findings that a proposal would not have detrimental impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION Staff recomends that the distance standards regarding the location of convenience stores not be amended. OPTION II: Development Code Amendment to the Variance section If the variance section of the Code were to be amended to allow for a reduction in distance standards, it would be difficult, with the minimum distance standards to make the findings that the granting of a variance would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Development Code addresses various concerns in the granting of a variance. The burden of proof to establish the evidence in support of the findings is the responsibility of the applicant. Findings for the granting of a variance may be made when there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, or that the strict application of the code deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property under identical district classification. The previous staff report outlined why there were no circumstances with regard to the physical characteristics subject property. These findings would not be altered they are not affected by the distance standards. special of the because Another concern in the granting of a variance is that it is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possiessed by other property and denied to the subject property. The findings in this circumstances would not be made, due to the ability of the property owner to continue to use and develop the property with alternative proposals. The granting of a variance in undeniably, constitute a special limitations upon other properties district in which such property is these circumstances would, privilege inconsistent with the in the vicinity and land use located. Other variance findings are concerned with the consistency of the project with the General Plan land use designation and would not be affected by distance requirements. These concerns with findings would be true for other similar proposals and not just this specific proposal. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Variance section of the Development Code not be amended. Mayor and Common page -; (:ounc.l..l... J,',Lt:;;c '--~.'::l . . RECOMMENDATION staff recommends that the distance standards for convenience stores not be amended and the the Variance section not be amended to include reductions to the distance requirements for convenience stores; AND staff recommends that the Mayor and Common council deny the appeal and deny conditional Use permit No. 91-28 and Variance No 91-08 based on the Findings of Fact contained in the staff Report to the planning commission dated November 6, 1991. prepared by: Attachment: Denise s. Moonier Assistant Planner for Al Boughey, AICP Director of planning and Building Services A _ convenience store Matrix B _ Mayor and Common council staff Report and backup dated December 16, 1991 . . . CONVENIENCE . STORES WITH ALCOHOL SALES CATEGORY DEV. CODE 19.060.030 (2) (b.) (F.) Mc-no INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE (MC-660) * Permitted Use Subject to distance standard/approved findings C.U.P. Subject to MC-nO/ P.C. Findings Subject to C.U.P. Section 19.26.020/ P.C. Findings Proximity To Does not meet standards Does not meet No distance Existing 4 stores within 1000 ft. V standards V standards Stores 4 stores within 1000 ft. To Does not meet standards V No distance No distance Religious 1 church within 500 ft. standards standards Instit- ution To Resid- Does not meet standards No distance No distances ential 2 within 100 ft. V standards standards Uses required to required to erect block erect block wall wall To Schools Meets distance requirements o within 500 ft. site Area Does not meet standard requires 10,000 sq. ft. v Parking/ Landscaping Meets parking requirements Meets landscaping require- ments Frontage on Meets standards a major street on secondary street Lighting Meets standard requirements Meets distance o within 1000 ft. Does not meet stan~ard . ./ requ~res y 10,000 sq. ft. Defers to 19.56 Section of Old Title 19 Meets standards Meets standards No distance standards No minimum lot area Meets minimum parking require- ments Title 19, 19.56.050(A) Meets standard requirements Meets standard requirements Attachment "A" . ?ublic ~estrooms rrash Enclosure Loading Area Saturation levels for premises which are licensed for off-site sales of alcohol ......I...I~.'-""~.............. ........- Variance No. 91-08 . . CONVENIENCE STORES WITH ALCOHOL SALES CONTINUED Meets standards Meets standard requirements Does not meet standards ~ No standards Findings mayor may not be made by P.C. * Referenced Title 19 of Municipal Code Meets standards Meets standards No standards No standards Meets standard requirements Meets 'standard requirements Meets Code Title 19 19.58.010 Findings for undue concentration as determined by P.C. CATEGORY . . CONVENIENCE STORES WITHOUT ALCOHOL SALES DEV. CODE MC-770 MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 19 D.R.C. approval (ROP) Permitted Use Proximity To Existing Stores Subject to subject to distance standards MC-770 Does not meet . /' standards v To Religious No distance Institutions standards To Residen- tial Uses To Schools site Area Meets distance requirements Meets distance standards Does not meet V standard requires 10,000 sq. ft. Does not meet No distance standards standards 4 stores within 1000 ft. V No distance standards No distance standards No distance standards requires a block wall No distance standards requires a block wall Meets distance No standards standards Does not meet No standards standard V No minimum lot area requires 10,000 sq. ft.