Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies variance request for 117 North Imperial Avenue
Summary
The Imperial City Planning Commission voted 3-0 to deny Variance 26-01, which would have allowed a 160-square-foot office addition at 117 North Imperial Avenue that would increase lot coverage on a nonconforming downtown parcel beyond the village commercial 40% limit.
The Imperial City Planning Commission voted 3-0 to deny Variance 26-01, rejecting a request to allow a 160-square-foot office addition at 117 North Imperial Avenue that would increase an already nonconforming building’s lot coverage.
Staff told commissioners the building currently occupies about 84.7% of the parcel and that village commercial zoning caps lot coverage at 40%, citing municipal code section 24.17, which limits expansion of nonconforming structures. “The main reason is the lot coverage. The strict letter of the law calls for 40%,” a staff member said, and staff recommended denying the variance.
The applicant’s representative, Palmer Francis, who spoke by phone, said the addition is minimal, would not intensify commercial use or cause traffic or safety impacts, and is the only practical location for the office given the site’s configuration. “I respectfully believe this request represents a reasonable and minimal reinvestment into an existing downtown commercial property,” Francis said.
Commissioners questioned whether the addition would remove functional parking, where the entrance would be located, and whether the project would trigger fire-safety retrofits. Staff and the applicant clarified that the addition is sited near a fenced area used for garbage and bumper stops, that the entrance would be from the front urban corridor (near the coffee shop), and that certain square-footage increases could trigger building-permit requirements such as retrofits or sprinklers to meet current fire codes.
Several commissioners noted the practical tension between the zoning code’s numeric limits and older downtown properties that predate the village commercial rules. One commissioner who recalled the zoning’s adoption said that situation can create longstanding nonconformities and that the commission exists to exercise judgment in such cases. Other commissioners raised concerns about setting precedent if one property is allowed to expand while neighboring properties remain at the 40% buildout.
After deliberation, a commissioner moved to adopt staff findings to deny the variance; the motion was seconded and carried by a recorded vote of 3-0. The chair noted the ordinance allows an appeal and the decision could be reviewed by the city council if appealed.
The project had been noticed in the local newspaper on May 14, 2026, and mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the site. Staff also confirmed the project was found categorically exempt from CEQA under section 15301 for existing facilities. The commission closed the public hearing at 7:03 p.m.
