Planning Department 168 North Edwards Street Post Office Drawer L Independence, California 93526

Transcription

1 Planning Department 168 North Edwards Street Post Office Drawer L Independence, California Phone: (760) FAX: (760) inyoplanning@ Inyocounty.us AGENDA ITEM NO.: 7 (Action Item Public Hearing) PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: October 28, 2009 SUBJECT: Variance # /Lee s Frontier EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Applicant Lee Keller is requesting a variance to front yard setback requirements in order to construct a patio seating enclosure for customers of his business, Lee s Frontier (a Chevron gas station and store/deli), located south of Lone Pine at 1900 S. Main Street. The patio enclosure would be located to the front of the existing store with an (approximately) three-foot setback from the front property line, where a 25-foot setback is normally required. PROJECT INFORMATION Supervisorial District: Applicants: Landowners: Fifth Lee Keller Lee Keller Address/ Community: 1900 S. Main Street, Lone Pine, CA A.P.N.: General Plan: Zoning: RC (Retail Commercial) C-2 (Highway Services & Tourist Commercial)

2 Size of Parcel: 1 acre Surrounding Land Use: Location: Use: Gen. Plan Designation Site Gas station-storedeli RC (Retail Commercial) North East Open space/pasture Gardner s Lumber & Equipment Rental OSR (Open Space & Recreation) HC (Heavy Commercial); RC (Retail Commercial) Zoning South Caltrans facility PF (Public Facility) P (Public) West Open OSR (Open Space & space/pasture Recreation) C-2 (Highway Services & Tourist Commercial), 1-acre minimum lot size, D- District (Architectural Design Control) RR (Rural Residential), 10-acre minimum lot size, MH (Mobile Home) overlay C-4 (Heavy Commercial), 1-acre minimum lot size, Design Review Zone & C-2 (Highway Services and Tourist Commercial), 1-acre minimum lot size, D-District (Architectural Design Control) RR (Rural Residential), 10-acre minimum lot size, MH (Mobil Home) Overlay Zone Requested Action: Recommended Action: Alternatives: An (approximately) 22-foot Variance from the 25-foot front yard setback requirement for property zoned C-2 (Highway Services & Tourist Commercial). Deny the Variance, in accordance with the Findings outlined by staff. 1.) Approve the Variance. 2.) Continue the public hearing to a date certain and provide specific direction to staff regarding additional information and analysis. Project Planner: Tanda Gretz STAFF ANALYSIS Site Characteristics The site is a fully developed commercial property that includes a gas station, a store/deli, with some outdoor seating outside the building and at picnic tables to the rear of the property (next to a small corral). The property is flat, with no topographical or physical constraints. The 2

3 property is covered with impervious surfaces with the exception of the outdoor eating area and corral to the rear of the property. Need for Patio Enclosure As noted above, Lee s Frontier includes a store/deli, in addition to the gas station facilities. There is no seating inside the store, although there is some existing outdoor seating available immediately outside the store under the eaves of the building. In addition, there is a large grassy area to the rear of the property near the corral which is used for outdoor seating, but only has 1-2 picnic tables located on it at this time. There would be adequate room for additional outdoor seating in this location. The applicant states he desires the patio enclosure in order to provide additional seating for patrons. Development Standards for the C-2 Zone The following are the basic development standards for the C-2 Zone: Front yard setback: 25 feet Side yard setback: 0 Rear yard setback: 0 (20 feet if adjacent to residential) Maximum height of buildings: 40 feet, or 3 stories Parking Requirements Should the proposed patio enclosure be approved, some existing parking spaces that currently exist to the front of the store will be lost. However, more than enough adequate parking would still remain on the site. C-2 zoning requires 1 space for every 300 sq.ft. of usable floor space. Calculations for the site are as follow: Store/deli building square footage: 1,618 Patio enclosure square footage: 460 Parking spaces provided on site: 18 1,918 (building & patio sq. ft.) 300 sq. ft. = 7 total parking spaces required on site 3

4 Comments by Caltrans Attachment #7 is a letter from Caltrans stating that the original plans submitted for the project do not accurately reflect the location of the property boundary/highway 395 right-of-way. The applicant has been unable to revise their site plans to reflect Caltrans comments regarding the correct location of the property boundary. Caltrans also requests, as a condition for the project should it be approved, that the applicant apply for two Caltrans encroachment permits: A retroactive permit for the two driveways that already exist on site, and for which no encroachment permits were applied for or granted in the past. A permit for any construction activities that might temporarily need to take place within the Highway 395 right-of-way while the construction of the patio enclosure is taking place. Contel/Verizon Easement County A.P.N. maps show a 10-foot Contel (which is now Verizon) easement along the front property boundary of the site and 40 feet into the CALTRANS right of way. Typically, easements need to be kept clear of structures, and no building should take place within them. However, as noted in the from Verizon staff person Myles McMullen in the Attachment to this staff report, Verizon has inspected this easement and found that the actual/physical telecommunication cable is located in the CALTRANS portion of the easement, and not in the portion of the easement on the Lee s Frontier property. As a result, should Verizon ever need to access the cable they would not need to disturb ground on the Lee s Frontier property. As noted in the , Verizon says they are not opposed to the project. Lone Pine Architectural Design Review The project site is located in the Lone Pine Architectural Design Review Overlay Zone. Should your Commission approve the project, the applicant would be required to go on and have the project reviewed and approved by the Lone Pine Architectural Design Review Board. Other Issues: Accessory Structures & Exceptions to Front Yard Setbacks As noted above, the required setback for structures in the C-2 zone is 25 feet. Section , Front Yard Exceptions, of the Inyo County Zoning Ordinance allows some exceptions to front yard setback requirements. However, the outlined exceptions apply only to properties that are immediately adjacent to one another, and only when one or more of the properties do NOT meet the full required front yard setbacks. This type of situation would not seem to apply to the current situation, in that the properties on either side of Lee s frontier are 4

5 not developed with structures, and the Gardner Lumber facility across the street appears to meet its required front yard setbacks. Alternatively, it may be argued that the proposed patio enclosure is an accessory structure to the main store/deli building. For such an argument, the Inyo County Zoning Ordinance states that no accessory building shall occupy any part of a required front yard (Section ). In either of the above cases, a variance to the requirements of the Inyo County Zoning Ordinance would be required for the patio enclosure to be constructed. Provision for Variances The Inyo County Zoning Ordinance states that any variance to the terms of the Zoning Ordinance may be granted if such a variance would not be contrary to its general intent or the public interest, where due to special conditions or exceptional characteristics of the property or its location or surroundings, a literal enforcement would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships (Section ). Further, the Zoning Ordinance states that the following three Findings must be affirmed in order for any variance to be granted: 1. That there are exceptional circumstances applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use, which do not generally apply to other property in the same district. 2. That the result would not be detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the vicinity. 3. That the strict application of the regulation sought to be modified would result in practical difficulties or hardships inconsistent with, and not necessary for the attainment of, the general purposes of this title. In addition to the above Findings specified in the Inyo County Zoning Ordinance, California State Government Code requires the following Findings for any variance: 4. The proposed variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. 5. The proposed variance does not authorize a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulation governing the parcel of property. 6. The proposed variance is consistent with the General Plan. 7. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act have been met. Affirmative variance Findings must describe the special circumstances that act to physically differentiate the project site from its neighbors and make it unique, and thus uniquely justified for a variance; alternatively, negative findings must describe how the 5

6 project s physical characteristics are not unique or exceptional, and therefore do not justify a variance. Overall, and as is specified in detail in the Findings section of this staff report (see below), staff concludes that all Findings required for a variance cannot be affirmed in the case of this application. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is not subject to CEQA review, as it is exempt under Class 5: Minor alterations to land use limitations, such as lot line adjustments, variances, and encroachment permits on land with a slope of less than 20%, that do not result in changes in land use or density (CEQA Guidelines Section 15305). RECOMMENDATIONS Findings Staff has reviewed this application and concluded that the Findings required for a Variance cannot be affirmed. While some of the following Findings can be affirmed, under law ALL Findings must be affirmed for a Variance to be approved. 1. That there ARE exceptional circumstances applicable to the property involved, or to the intended use, which do not generally apply to other property in the same district. Negative Evidence: There are no topographical or physical constraints inherent on the site that would necessitate outdoor seating being located within the required front yard setback area. There is existing outdoor seating with room to expand to the rear of the property. 2. That the result would NOT be detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property in the vicinity. Negative Evidence: Outdoor seating less that three feet away from the U.S. Highway 395 right-of-way, and the traffic passing on the highway could constitute a threat to public welfare/safety for people seated so close to it, although the speed limit is only 45 m.p.h. and Caltrans does not appear to have a problem with the project. There is not adequate justification for locating outdoor seating in the front yard setback area, when existing outdoor seating areas are already available and used to the rear of the property. 3. That the strict application of the regulation sought to be modified WOULD result in practical difficulties or hardships inconsistent with, and not necessary for the attainment of, the general purposes of this title. 6

7 Negative Evidence: As noted above, there are existing outdoor seating areas already in use on the site, with room for expansion. As a result, no hardship exists for the site in denying use of the front yard setback area as a place for outdoor patio seating. 4. The proposed variance does NOT constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is situated. Negative Evidence: There is no hardship apparent in this situation, as an outdoor seating area already exists on the property, with room for expansion. As a result, approving a variance without demonstration of hardship would amount to a grant of special privilege. 5. The proposed variance does NOT authorize a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning regulation governing the parcel of property. Affirmative Evidence: The C-2 (Highway Services & Tourist Commercial) zoning for the property allows for stores and automobile service stations, and outdoor seating is part of such uses. Note that although uses of outdoor display of goods or outdoor business activity do require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the C-2 zone, outdoor seating is not similarly specified in the code as needing a CUP in the C-2 zone. As a result, the proposed enclosed patio for outdoor seating is an allowed use/activity in the C-2 zone. 6. The proposed variance IS consistent with the Inyo County General Plan Negative Evidence: The C-2 (Highway Services & Tourist Commercial) zoning that is consistent with the property s General Plan designation as RC (Retail Commercial) requires a 25-foot front yard setback. A variance that does not adequately demonstrate hardship with respect to the C-2 zone s required setbacks cannot be said to be consistent with the Inyo County General Plan s designation of the property as RC. 7. The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act HAVE been met. Affirmative Evidence: This application for a Variance does not constitute a project and is therefore is not subject to CEQA. As a result, the project is exempt from CEQA. 7

8 ATTACHMENTS 1. General Location Map 2. General Plan Map 3. Zoning Map 4. Various Site Plans 5. County A.P.N. Map, showing 10-foot Contel easement 6. Comments by Caltrans 7. Comments from Verizon (formerly Contel; via ) 8