HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Resolution 8789 (Litchfield Emporium Appeal)RESOLUTION NO. 8 7 8 9
RESOLUTION OF THE SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL
DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION OF OCTOBER 13,1992, RE: DENIAL WITHOUT
PREJUDICE OF APPLICATION FOR USE PERMIT AND PARKING
VARIANCE (UP92-6) - 721 EAST FRANCISCO BLVD., LITCHFIELD'S
EMPORIUM; IRVING LITCHFIELD, OWNER; PERRRY LITCHFIELD,
ATTORNEY, REP.; AP#14-204-11
WHEREAS, the applicant filed an application for a use permit for the multi-
purpose use of an existing building for a restaurant, bar, dancing, and charity
events, including bingo games, with beer and wine service, and
WHEREAS, staff determined that the application was incomplete as the site
plan submitted was not to scale and did not provide adequate parking for the
site and a traffic study was required to address peak hour traffic impacts, and
WHEREAS, the applicant's attorney, Perry Litchfield, submitted a letter
requesting a hearing and stating that the use and parking were grandfathered
rights, that the use would be modified to not operate between the hours of
4:00 to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays to avoid traffic impacts, and that a parking
variance was requested, and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 1992 the Planning Commission of the City of San
Rafael held a duly noticed meeting to consider the use permit and parking
variance, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received public testimony on this
item from the applicant and other interested parties, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed use is
not a grandfathered use as the previous use permit for a similar use
(Pepperland) expired in August 1973 and the building has subsequently been
used by a number of retail and warehouse uses under use permits and that
none of the previous use permits are valid as they have either expired or the
uses have ceased, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed use
does not have grandfathered parking rights as the previous entertainment
use on the site (Pepperland) required a variance for parking and that the
variance expired in August, 1973, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the parking variance and
found that there were not exceptional circumstances applying to the use, land
or building which did not apply to other land or buildings in the same
district, that the variance was not necessary for the preservation of substantial
property rights, that the granting of the variance might materially and
adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the area
and would be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or
improvements in the area as the site is already under parked, a shortage of
parking exists in the immediate neighborhood, and overflow parking of 120
cars would substantially impact streets, businesses, and other adjacent uses,
and
WHERAS, the Planning Commission denied the use permit for the
establishment of the proposed multi-purpose use without prejudice, and
found that under the circumstances of the particular case, that the proposed
ORIGINAL q,v
use would be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort and
general welfare of persons in the neighborhood of the proposed use and
would be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
neighborhood and to the general welfare of the city in that the project as
proposed made no provision for traffic or parking control or security and that
the site had insufficient parking for the existing and proposed use and the
use would cause an overflow of parking into the neighborhood and impact
streets, businesses and other adjacent uses, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission denied the permit without prejudice,
stating that it would consider a revised application with a detailed project
description, appropriate provisions for parking, an accurate site plan, and a
management program which addressed issues such as security and crowd
control, and
WHEREAS, the applicant's attorney, Perry Litchfield filed an appeal of the
Planning Commission's decision to the City Council, and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 1992 the City of San Rafael City Council held a
duly noticed public hearing and received public testimony on the appeal, and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the public testimony, the Planning
Department staff report, all correspondence, minutes of the Planning
Commission meeting, and the Planning Commission staff report, and
WHEREAS, the City Council made the following findings relevant to this
particular appeal:
1. The Planning Commission correctly found that the proposed use is
not a legal non -conforming use in that in 1970 the applicant
contended that the operation of a concert hall on the site was a
grandfathered use. No evidence was produced to verify the non-
conforming status. The applicant applied for and was granted a use
permit (UP71-4) for the use (Pepperland). The use permit expired in
1973. The site has been occupied by a number of retail and
warehouse uses in the intervening years under separate use permits.
These uses have ceased and there are no active use permits for the
building. The motel, located in other buildings on the site, opened
prior to the establishment of zoning regulations. In 1982 it expanded
under a use permit (UP81-80). The use permit for the motel does not
include any restaurant uses and does not apply to the building under
consideration (Litchfield's Emporium). Under Section 14.16.270 of
the zoning ordinance, if a non -conforming use ceases operation for a
continuous period of six months, it is considered abandoned and
must be used in accordance with the zoning regulations. The concert
use on the site operated under a use permit which ceased 19 years
ago and there have been no permitted uses in the building within
the last six months. The proposed use requires a use permit under
zoning regulations. The applicant presented no evidence to the
Planning Commission to substantiate his claim on a legal non-
conforming use. No further documentation was presented to the
City Council to substantiate the claim. The proposed use does not
have any status as a legal non -conforming use.
2. The Planning Commission correctly found that the use did not have
grandfathered parking rights. Section 14.18.240 of zoning ordinance
sets forth standards for grandfathered parking. Any change in the
intensity of use requires the provision of adequate parking.
Grandfathered parking does not exist for the live entertainment uses
and other uses proposed. The previous concert use on the site
- 2 -
required a parking variance as it could not meet parking standards.
The variance (V71-1) expired in 1973. The previous warehouse and
retail uses on the site required 20-30 spaces; these would be
recognized as grandfathered parking rights. The proposed use
requires 157 spaces. No documentation was presented to the
Planning Commission to validate the claim for grandfathered
parking. No further documentation was presented to the City
Council to substantiate the claim. The site does not have sufficient
grandfathered parking rights for the proposed use.
3. The Planning Commission's action did not amount to an
unreasonable and unjustified taking of property without just
compensation as the applicant has the right to submit a revised
application with a complete project description, an accurate site plan,
a management plan, and provisions for parking for the Planning
Commission's consideration. Other uses could be considered on the
property consistent with the historic parking rights of the site.
4. The applicant was not denied due process or a fair hearing as the
meeting was duly noticed and, based on the minutes of the meeting,
the applicant, Irving Litchfield, was allowed to give lengthy
testimony to the Planning Commission.
5. The Commission did not act in excess of its jurisdiction or abuse its
discretion and its decision was supported by the evidence and
findings. The letter from the applicant's attorney dated July 21, 1992
requested that the matter be set for the Commission's consideration
and requested a variance. The letter also contended that the
applicant had grandfathered rights as to the use and parking. The
letter was included in the staff report. The letter did not contain any
evidence to support the contention of grandfathered rights. The staff
report contained a detailed discussion of these issues and copies of all
previous permits for the property. The applicant was given every
opportunity to address these issues as evidenced by the minutes and
record. The Commission considered all written and oral testimony
in making its decision. The notice, findings and action of the
Commission are supported by the written and oral documentation it
considered. The applicant and his attorney did not present any
written documentation or oral testimony to the City Council to
substantiate the claims of inadequate findings, inadequate notice,
lack of a fair hearing, or abuse of discretion.
6. The Planning Commission properly denied the parking variance in
that there are not exceptional circumstances applying to the use, land
or building which did not apply to other land or buildings in the
same district. The building is located on a developed site in a built
up area and is similar to adjacent development. The applicant did
not present any evidence outlining any special circumstances which
are applicable to the site. The variance is not necessary for the
preservation of substantial property rights in that other uses could be
operated on the site consistent with the grandfathered parking rights.
The granting of the appeal and approval of the variance might
materially and adversely affect the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the area and would be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the area
as the site is already under parked as it appears there are 85 marked
spaces for the complex where 95 spaces would be required for the
motel use, a shortage of parking exists in the immediate
neighborhood, and overflow parking of 120 cars would substantially
impact streets, businesses, and other adjacent uses.
K
7. Granting the appeal and approving the use permit, would, under the
circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health,
safety, peace, morals, comfort and general welfare of persons in the
neighborhood of the proposed use and would be detrimental or
injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and
to the general welfare of the city in that the project as proposed
makes no provision for traffic or parking control or security and the
site has insufficient parking for the existing and proposed use and
the use would cause an overflow of parking into the neighborhood
and impact streets, businesses and other adjacent uses.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the San Rafael City Council
hereby denies the appeal without prejudice and upholds the decision of the
Planning Commission denying without prejudice the application for a use
permit and parking variance for multi-purpose use of the Litchfield
Emporium building for a restaurant, bar, dancing, and charity events,
including bingo games, with beer and wine service.
The foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of San Rafael on the 7th day of December, 1992 and
adopted by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS : Breiner, Cohen, Shippey, Thayer &
Mayor Boro
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS : None
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS : None
JEAN M. LEONCI NI, City Clerk
- 4 -