Loading...
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 -