HomeMy WebLinkAbout37-Planning and Building
1
1JI .
CITY OF SAN BERaRDINO -
REQUEST ~R COUNCIL ACTION
From: Al Boughey, Director
~: Planning & Building Services
D~: January 9, 1992
. Appeal of denial of Conditional
Su~~: Use Permit No. 91-28 and Variance
No. 91-08
~~yor 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.
Racommended motion:
Al
Contact person: Al Boughey
Supponing data attached: Staff Report
Phone: 384-5357
Ward:
6
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount: N / A
Source: (Acct. No.1
(Acct. Descriotionl
Finance:
Council Notes:
--
"".. . ",r ~A.n Dl:.ftftA.ftlol.n\,l - n...\II\,I....... r",n ,",,,,\,In,,,,.... A"" Ilun
..
,
o
o
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
.
,
o
o
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.
~commNDATION
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 these circumstances would,
undeniably, constitute a special privilege inconsistent with the
limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and land use
district in which such property is 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.
~COMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Variance section of the Development Code
not be amended.
Mayor and Common counc.l.... ,',cc~~.."
fage ,;
o
o
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.
Attachment:
Denise S. Moonier
Assistant Planner
for Ai 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
prepared by:
.
.
o
WITH ALCOHOL SALES
CATEGORY
o
CONVENIENCE STORES
DEV. CODE 19.060.030
(2)(b.)(F.)
MC-77 0
INTERIM URGENCY
ORDINANCE
(MC-660) *
Permitted
Use
Subject to distance
standard/approved findings
C.U.P.
Subject to
MC-77 0/
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 V
requ~res
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
=l.estrooms
rrash
Enclosure
Loading Area
saturation
levels for
premises
which are
licensed for
off-site
sales of
alcohol
......\.,.I.i..'-'"...'--~.._-
Variance No. 91-08
o
o
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
o 0
CONVENIENCE STORES WITHOUT ALCOHOL SALES
DEV. CODE
MC-77 0
MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 19
D.R.C. approval (ROP)
Permitted
Use
Proximity
To Existing
stores
Subject to
distance standards
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.
Subject to
MC-77 0
Does not meet No distance standards
standards 4
stores within
1000 ft. V
No distance
standards
No distance
standards
requires a
block wall
No distance standards
No distance standards
requires a block wall
Meets distance No standards
standards
Does not meet
standard V
requires
10,000 sq. ft.
No standards
No minimum lot area