HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2006-023 N.C.S. 02/06/2006 Resolution No. 2006-023 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
APPROVING THE APPEAL BY MILLER, STARR & REGALIA,
OF THE DECISION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING THE VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL SIGN AREA FOR THE IN-N-OUT
BURGER RESTAURANT AT 1010 LAKEVILLE HIGHWAY
FILE # OS-APL-0658-CR
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Petaluma
held a public hearing to consider a variance for additional sign area for the In-N-Out Burger
restaurant at 1010 Lakeville Highway, APN 005-060-015, 038; and,
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, after considering the public testimony and the
application materials, the Planning Commission unanimously denied. the request for a variance
base on their inability of make any of the required findings; and,
WHEREAS, on October 24, 2005, the City Clerk received a letter of appeal from Miller,
Starr & Regalia; and,
WHEREAS, the Petaluma City Council held a noticed public hearing on January 23,
2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby upholds the
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and approves a variance for In-N-Out Burger
based on the following findings required by Section 26-303 of the City of Petaluma Zoning
Ordinance:
26-303.1 That there are peculiar and unusual conditions inherent in the location of the property
in question sufficient to cause a hardship, and that such conditions as°e not common to all or
most of the properties in the immediate area.
The parcel on which In-N-Out Burgers is located is intended to be, and may in the future be part
of a larger "shopping center." At the present time, the existing Water Savers tenant has refused
to relocate and has therefore temporarily delayed development of the center as a whole. It is
peculiar and unusual that the property on which In-N-Out Burgers is located, is, at this time,
unable to be designated as a shopping center, and this lack of shopping center designation has
created an undue hardship.
26-303.2 That a hardship peculiar to the property and not created by any act of the owner
exists. In this context, personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits, and
neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance.
The property on which In-N-Out Burgers is located is the first parcel to develop in what may
eventually become a "shopping center". In-N-Out Burgers may be entitled to erect. its standard
signage without a variance once this shopping center is created. In-N-Out Burgers has not
caused the subject hardship to exist.
Resolution No. 2006-023 N.C.s. Page 1
26-303.3 That such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial
property rights possessed by other properties in the same zoning district and in the vicinity, and
that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed
by his neighbors.
The right to erect adequate signage is a valuable property right that In-N-Out Burgers is
presently being denied by the City, even though other businesses in shopping centers and on
corner lots in the near vicinity of the In-N-Out Burgers' project enjoy the privilege which In-N-
Out Burgers requests through its variance application.
26-303.4 That the authorizing of such variance shall not be of substantial detriment to adjacent
property, and will not materially impair- the purposes of this ordinance or the public interest.
The granting of the requested variance to In-N-Out Burgers will not cause a substantial detriment
to any adjacent parcel. In fact, granting a variance will actually ensure that automobiles on
Lakeville Highway are able to properly identify the building from an appropriate and safe
distance away to make the proper signals and movements necessary to safely exit and enter the
roadway.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City.
REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the roved as to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 23rd day of January, forni:
2006, by-the following vote:
~ Ci Attorney
AYES: Harris, Healy, Nau ~
NOES: Mayor Glass, Torliatt
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Canevaro, O'Brien
ABSTAIN: None `
i e
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
Resolution No. 2006-023 N.C.S. Page 2