Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03 DR 10-009/VAR 10-001
Report to the Planning Commission DATE: AUGUST 10, 2010 ITEM #3 TUSTIN SUBJECT: DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 10-009 AND VARIANCE (VAR)10-001 APPLICANT: TUSTIN IMPERIAL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ATTN: HAROLD KATZMAN, PRESIDENT C/O VILLAGE WAY MANAGEMENT P.O. BOX 4708 IRVINE, CA 92616-4708 PROPERTY OWNER: TUSTIN IMPERIAL HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LOCATION: 1777 MITCHELL AVENUE ZONING: SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4) GENERAL PLAN: HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: STATUTORILY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15270 (PROJECTS WHICH ARE DISAPPROVED) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) REQUEST: DESIGN REVIEW 10-009 TO ADD AND RECONFIGURE COMMON AREA GUEST PARKING SPACES AND INSTALL NEW ENTRY GATES AND VARIANCE 10-001 TO DEPART FROM THE FOLLOWING CODE REQUIREMENTS AT THE TUSTIN IMPERIAL CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX LOCATED AT 1777 MITCHELL AVENUE: 9262A.1; 9262B.1.A; 9266C.4; 9266D1; 92661-1; THE PROPOSAL WOULD ALSO NECESSITATE DEVIATION FROM THE FOLLOWING: 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE APPENDIX CHAPTER 1, SECTION A105.1.3 [AS AMENDED BY TUSTIN CITY CODE SECTION 8101]; 2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE SECTION 503.1.1; 2007 CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE SECTION 503.4; ORANGE COUNTY RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT (OCR & DMD) STANDARD #1107; ORANGE COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY FIRE MASTER PLANS FOR COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NO. 5.13 AND 5.0 Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 2 The following report is broken up into the following sections: SUMMARY .............. ............................................ 3 RECOMMENDATION ........................................... BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION: Entitlement history.......................................6 Proposed Project..........................................7 (1) Proposed Guest Parking Re -Striping (2) Proposed Entry Gates Code Enforcement History .............................9 DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS...............................13 Design Review 10-009 (1) Proposed Guest Parking Re -Striping (2) Proposed Entry Gates Variance 10-001 .........................................17 Variance Findings Required Conclusion................................................20 ENVIRONMENTAL..............................................20 ATTACHMENTS.................................................20 Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 3 SUMMARY In response to code enforcement efforts, the Tustin Imperial Homeowners Association has submitted a Design Review Application (DR) 10-009 and Variance Application (VAR) 10-001. The proposal includes the following: (1) To re -stripe guest parking spaces to result in a total of 123 spaces located within the common area of the Association; and (2) To add vehicle entry gates at the two main entries of the Tustin Imperial complex located at 1777 Mitchell Avenue. The Design Review application is for the addition and reconfiguration of parking spaces and the proposal for new entry gates. However, the proposal to reconfigure several of the guest parking spaces would reduce the access lane width which violates multiple Zoning Code, Building Code, and Uniform Fire Code, and related standards and requirements. Therefore, a Variance application is required to depart from the following codes: 1. Tustin City Code section 9262a.1* General Parking Regulations- Minimum Parking Requirements. Requires that, at the time of establishment of the use and/or occupancy of any building or structure, adequate provisions for safe ingress and egress be provided. 2. Tustin City Code section 9262b.1.a* General Parking Regulations — Availability. Requires that off-street parking areas and access ways shall not be blocked in any manner that would impede access to or the use of any required parking space for the temporary parking of vehicles. 3. Tustin City Code section 9266c.4* Development Standards for Off-street Parking. Requires that in multifamily residential developments, parking shall only be permitted in designated parking spaces approved by the City. 4. Tustin City Code section 9266dl* Parking Space Design and Dimension. Requires that standard parking spaces in "two-way traffic" aisles and angled at 30 degrees have a depth of, at minimum, 17 feet, 4 inches. This section also requires a minimum aisle (or travel lane or access road) width of 24 feet for two-way travel lane. 5. Tustin City Code section 9266h* Development Standards for Off-street Parking — Residential Guest Parking. Requires that off-street guest parking in residential zoning districts shall be designated and restricted for the exclusive use of the guests. Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 4 6. 2007 California Building Code Appendix Chapter 1 section A105.1.3 (as amended by Tustin City Code section 81011: Grading and Private Improvement Permits. The Building Official shall issue permits for grading of private property and for construction, demolition, addition, alteration, and inspection of improvements on private property. Private improvements subject to permit requirements include: streets, parking lots, curb and gutter, driveways, sidewalks, disabled access ramps and signage, street and parking lot striping and signage. 7. 2007 California Fire Code section 503.1.1: Approved fire apparatus access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section. 8. 2007 California Fire Code section 503.4: Obstruction of fire apparatus access roads. Fire apparatus access roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. The minimum widths and clearances shall be maintained at all times. As defined by 2007 California Fire Code section 502.1, "Fire Apparatus Access Road" is "a road that provides fire apparatus access from a fire station to a facility, building or portion thereof. This is a general term inclusive of all other terms such as fire lane, public street, private street, parking lot lane, and access roadway." 9. Orange County Resources and Development Management Department (OCR & DMD) Standard #1107 The proposed gate entrance must meet Gate Minimum Design Criteria Standard #1107: 100 foot minimum distance is required from the public street to the gate entry. A 30 foot radius is required for turn -around for emergency vehicles. 10. Orange County Fire Authority Fire Master Plans for Commercial and Residential Development No. 5.6 and 5.0 Obstructions to Emergency Vehicle Access — Requires existing and proposed gates and barriers crossing fire apparatus access roadways to provide the following: B. Turning Radii. Requires a minimum turning radius with an outside radius of 38 feet for both the exterior and the interior approach to the gate. C. Setbacks from the Street. Requires gates for existing developments to be located a minimum of 46 feet from any major street. Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 5 *The Planning Commission's purview of authority is to consider variances from the Tustin Zoning Code provisions; however, the provisions noted above (No. 6-10) are requirements that would require deviation if Variance 10-001 were granted. These would be subject to review from the appropriate authority (Building Official, Fire Chief, etc.). That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 4152 denying Design Review 10-009 to add and reconfigure common area guest parking spaces and install new entry gates and Variance 10-001 to depart from the following code requirements at the Tustin Imperial condominium complex located at 1777 Mitchell Avenue (APN 432-021-06). BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION The Tustin Imperial complex is located at 1777 Mitchell Avenue south of the 1-5 freeway east of Red Hill Avenue and west of Browning Avenue. The gross area of the project site is 9.61 acres and consists of 134 two-story attached dwelling units. The Tustin Imperial complex also includes a community club house and over 4.5 acres of common green and recreational area including: landscaped common area, two swimming pools, a badminton and shuffleboard court; and child playground area. The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is High Density Residential (15-25 dwelling units per acre). The Tustin Imperial complex is zoned Suburban Residential District (R4 4000) which allows multiple -family dwellings and apartment houses and is surrounded by other multiple -family complexes including apartments, condominiums, and a mobile home park. Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 6 Figure 2 — Location Map Entitlement History The Tustin Imperial complex (complex) was approved by the County of Orange Planning Commission on September 18, 1963. The complex included 134 attached individually -owned condominium units with a one -car garage and a carport for each unit so as to create two covered parking spaces in a tandem alignment. In addition to the two covered parking spaces for each condominium unit, a staff report presented to the Orange County Planning Commission when the Tustin Imperial project was first approved, showed the approval of 69 open guest parking spaces or "one guest space for every two units" located within the common area of the Tustin Imperial complex (Attachment B). On October 31, 1980, the Tustin Imperial complex was annexed into the City of Tustin. The complex was considered to be in conformance with the Tustin City Code parking requirements which required two covered spaces for each dwelling unit, plus unassigned guest spaces for every four units (only 34 guest spaces would be required based on Tustin City Code although 69 were provided). The parking requirement for two covered parking spaces remains the same today for multifamily housing as it was upon annexation. Converted garage with door and storage material blocking acces Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 7 Over the past several years, several code violations were noted (reference Code Enforcement History below for further detail) including the restriping of diagonal guest parking spaces in the common area and non -permitted garage conversions to living space at individual condominium units. This unpermitted work has created a condition where vehicles impede the emergency access lane and violate the City parking standards. City staff recently conducted inspections of the current conditions of the Tustin Imperial guest parking that surrounds the complex and measurements were taken from the curb line of the fire apparatus access roads to the rear most point of the vehicles parked in the diagonal spaces around the property. It was determined from these measurements that many of the vehicles encroached into the necessary 20 foot drive aisle required by California Fire Code sections 503. 1.1 and 503.2.1. As shown in the photo at right, the Association painted a line indicating where the 20 foot drive aisle width ended and the guest parking space began. However, due to the insufficient and inaccurate measurements, vehicles, including compact vehicles such as this, overhang into the 20 foot aisle width creating a hazard for emergency access vehicles. Proposed project Parking space is too short and causes compact vehicle to encroach into fire access lane In response to code enforcement action, the Tustin Imperial Homeowner's Association has submitted an application for Planning Commission consideration of a Design Review application and a Variance application. The applications include a request (1) to re -stripe, add, and reconfigure unpermitted guest parking spaces located within the common area which would result in a total of 123 spaces; and, (2) to construct two vehicle entry gates at the two main entries for the Tustin Imperial complex (Reference Attachment E). The Design Review application is required by Tustin City Code to provide for the review of site planning and site development and to ensure that proposed uses and structures are consistent with City standards and are compatible with the surrounding area and the entire community of Tustin. The Variance application is required to deviate from the minimum site development regulations applied to the property. This proposal to reconfigure several of the guest parking spaces would reduce the access lane width which violates multiple code requirements including the following: 9262a.1; 9262b.1.a; 9266c.4; 9266d1; 9266h; 2007 California Building Code appendix Chapter 1, Section a105.1.3 [as amended by Tustin City Code Section 8101]; 2007 California Fire Code Section 503.1.1; 2007 California Fire Code Section 503.2.1; 2007 California Fire Code Section 503.4; Orange County Resources and Development Management Department (OCR & DMD) Standard #1107; Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 8 Orange County Fire Authority Fire Master Plans For Commercial and Residential Development No. 5.b and 5.c. (1) Proposed Guest Parking Re -striping The Association is proposing to re -stripe several of the guest parking spaces located within the common areas of the complex in response to code enforcement action. The proposal includes the request to add new guest parking spaces in common areas (typically in landscaped areas) and to reconfigure several of the parking spaces that were modified without permit. Several other guest parking spaces remain in their original approved location. Several of the common guest parking spaces are proposed to be reconfigured into 30 degree diagonal spaces. These guest parking spaces were originally approved as parallel parking along the streets of Brittany Woods and Hickory Branch. The parallel spaces along these streets, as originally approved, provided a 24 -foot width for two-way traffic. However, the reconfiguration of these spaces, as proposed, would effectively reduce the aisle width to 21 feet or less in some instances (Reference Figure 3 below). The following site plan indicates the general location of the proposal to reconfigure and add new parking spaces in the common area. Reconfigure Proposed J g entry gates 1----------_ IF I fla 1131 MITCHELL _j , --——— HJ 16x1 MITCHELL T TI]9]6 Figure 3 — Parking Reconfiguration Site Plan Proposed/new Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 9 (2) Proposed Entry Gates The Tustin Imperial Homeowner's Association is also proposing the construction of new entry gates located along Mitchell Avenue; one at Brittany Woods (north entrance) and a second at Hickory Branch (south entrance) (Reference Figure 3 above). The gates are proposed to be constructed from galvanized tubing and finished in a black semi -gloss. However, the proposed location of the gates does not meet the minimum standards required by the City guidelines or Orange County Fire Authority standards. North entrance South entrance CODE ENFORCEMENT HISTORY City records indicate that code enforcement action has taken place at the Tustin Imperial complex since 1966. These records indicate that 14 non -permitted garage conversions were done without permits. County inspectors attempted to work with the management company for several years to address these issues; however, it is an issue that was never resolved. Over the past several years, Tustin City staff members have been working with individual owners and the Tustin Imperial Association to address code violations that have had an effect on parking within the Tustin Imperial complex. In response to the City's ongoing code enforcement action, the Association has submitted the applications for Design Review 10-009 and Variance 10-001. There are two main code enforcement issues at the Tustin Imperial condominium complex: 1. Unpermitted conversion of individual garage units to living space or storage space 2. Unpermitted reconfiguration and re -striping of guest parking spaces The following narrative provides the more recent history of code enforcement actions at the Tustin Imperial complex: Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 10 On June 12, 2006, City staff conducted an exterior inspection of the Tustin Imperial complex. The inspection revealed that several individual units had undergone unpermitted modifications rendering the one -car garages and, in many instances, the tandem carport spaces as unusable for vehicles. City staff determined that 89 of the 134 units had converted garages. Many of these garages had been converted from their originally intended use (for parking vehicles) into interior living space. Other units had excessive storage or other unpermitted construction done without benefit of the necessary permits. Staff also discovered that several units were for sale or had sold with upwards of 1,700 square feet of livable space and five or more bedrooms as a result of the converted spaces. The effect of the reduced parking availability in garages throughout the complex may have resulted in the perceived and/or real need for more resident and guest parking since homeowners would not have had the garage available for parking their vehicles and most of the carports were not being utilized. During the initial inspection, it was also noted that the guest parking around the complex had been reconfigured and re -striped to diagonal spaces to increase the number of on-site parking spaces from 69 to 136 guest parking spaces around the perimeter of the complex. No permit had been obtained by the Tustin Imperial Homeowner's Association (Association) prior to re - striping the parking areas as required by the Tustin City Code. It was determined that only 34 of the 136 parking spaces were in conformance with the minimum parking standards in width and depth and that the access roads were not in conformance with the minimum 24 foot drive aisle width as set forth in City standards. Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 11 The 34 guest parking spaces that meet the City's parking standards are located in the interior common area of the complex. The remaining 102 spaces are striped in a diagonal angle along the perimeter of the complex and do not meet the City's required size and are oriented such that parked vehicles encroach into the required 24 -foot wide drive aisle that is required to provide two-way traffic flow and emergency vehicle access to serve the complex. On August 8, 2006, letters were sent by City staff to inform homeowners with unpermitted garage conversions of the need to reconvert the garages to their intended uses. The property management company at that time, Villageway Management, was copied on all notification. On February 27, 2007, a second notice was sent to homeowners by City staff requesting compliance within 30 days. A separate notice was sent to Villageway Management informing them of the substandard open parking spaces and access roads that served the complex. The notice required the Association to restore the guest parking and access roads to the original configuration within 30 days. However, the compliance date passed with no action from the Association. On May 11, 2007, the City's legal counsel sent correspondence to the Association advising that the perimeter guest parking and access roads around the complex were deficient and that the non -permitted garage conversions needed to be remedied. From approximately May 11, 2007, up through and including the present date, the City has attempted to work with the Association to resolve the issues with the guest parking and access roads to gain voluntary compliance with the Tustin City Code and California Fire Code. Several meetings with the Association members Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 12 have been held and multiple correspondence letters have been exchanged regarding the matter. On March 5, 2009, Code Enforcement representatives and the Orange County Fire Authority inspected the property and observed that many of the parking spaces around the complex remained in their deficient conditions. Specifically, the parking spaces still failed to meet the minimum depth and width requirements prescribed by the Tustin City Code and the Access Roads which serve the complex. During this inspection, photographs were taken, which illustrate the dangerous situation created by the Association's failure to maintain the required Access Roads. Due to reduced two-way drive aisle width, fire Reference Attachment B for additional engines have difficulty accessing the complex photographs taken on March 5, 2009). On April 22, 2009, Code Enforcement representatives again inspected the property and took measurements of the existing parking spaces and Access Roads. During that inspection, it was noted that the parking spaces around the complex, which are angled at approximately 45 degrees, measured, at most, eight feet, ten inches deep which is in violation of Tustin City Code section 9266. Moreover, as designed, the angled parking spaces that surround the Tustin Imperial complex force parked vehicles to encroach into the required fire access roads, thus obstructing accessibility for emergency vehicles. Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 13 Vehicles parked in diagonal common area parking spaces impede on Emergency vehicle access Despite the City's efforts to obtain voluntary compliance from the Tustin Imperial Homeowners Association, the code violations that apply to the Association common area remain at the present time. In fact, in the past 5 years, the police department has received several calls for service about vehicles blocking the fire lanes at the complex. These violations have been observed to exist and continue to exist on the Association's property and constitute public nuisances as defined by the Tustin City Code and California Civil Code. The unpermitted garage conversions have been pursued independently of the common area code issues. Code Enforcement staff has continued to work with individual homeowners to abate the code enforcement violations on the individual garage conversions. To date, 69 of the 89 unpermitted conversions have been resolved. Fifteen homeowners have received, or are in the process to receive, a building permit and five homeowners have been unresponsive to code enforcement notices. Code enforcement staff will continue to work with individual homeowners to resolve the individual garage conversions. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS Design Review 10-009 The proposal to re -stripe the guest parking areas and to install entry gates requires a Design Review application for the review of site planning and site development and to ensure that proposed uses and structures are consistent with City standards. The following summary outlines the Design Review proposal: Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 14 (1) Proposed Guest Parking Re -striping Staff has prepared the following table (Table 1) which provides a description of each parking space and a brief analysis for conformance to City Code requirements. A portion of the proposed guest parking conforms to the code, however, the Association is requesting a variance for the reduced aisle width which results from the reconfiguration of several of the guest parking stalls (See Variance Findings section below). Corresponding parking space numbers can be referenced on Sheet S1 of the site plan (Attachment D). The parking numbers marked "yes" meet the TCC requirements. TABLE 1 Denotes parking spaces that require Variance Parking Space Existing/proposed Street name Type of Parking Conformance with Number or Reconfigure Space City ..- 1-40 Brittany Wood 30 degree No — infringes on 24 diagonal ft fire access lane 41,42 Proposed Brittany Wood Parallel Yes. 43-50 Existing Magnolia Court Standard Yes. 51, 54, 55 and 56 Proposed Brittany Wood Parallel Yes. 52 and 53 Proposed Brittany Wood Parallel No — Infringes on setback requirement for fire hydrant 57-58 Proposed Walter Court Standard No- Infringes on 24 ft fire access lane 59-60 Proposed Tustin Court Parallel No — minimum 20 ft queuing distance required to street *required rec/open space area 61-67 Proposed Tustin Court Standard Yes. (replaces 5 existing) 68-74 Existing Pine Court Standard Yes. 75-86 1w, unt „w c Hickory Branch 30 degree No — infringes on 24 diagonal ft fire access lane 87 He, xmfigiiru Hickory Branch Standard No—infringes on 24 ft fire access lane 88-90 Reconfigure Hickory Branch Standard Yes. 91-97 Existing Hickory Branch Standard Yes. 98-107 Proposed Hickory Branch Standard Yes. 108-109 Proposed Central Court Standard Yes. 110-110 Existing Hickory Branch Standard Yes. 112-116 Existing Walter Court Standard Yes. Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 15 Proposed No — *Conversion of an existing playground not permitted. It is required rec/open space area per C- 1056 OCPC 07/22/64 * The original approval by the County of Orange required over 4.5 acres of common green and recreational area including: landscaped common area, swimming pools, badminton and shuffleboard court; and child playground. According to City records, the Tustin Imperial Complex was required to provide recreational and open space areas throughout the complex as part of the original approval (per C-1056 OCPC 07/22/64). The following site plan shows the common areas that are proposed to be removed or modified to accommodate new guest parking spaces. Figure 4 — Recreation/Open Space conversion areas Based on the conditional approval to provide specific open space area, the proposal to convert the recreational/open spaces areas will remove common green space and recreational areas Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 16 that were intentionally provided to serve the Tustin Imperial community. The removal of these open space areas will further deplete the available recreational area for residents and their children. The closest public park space is Frontier Park which is located several blocks away on the west side of Red Hill Avenue. Therefore, staff does not support the proposal to remove the recreational/open space in order to provide guest parking. (2) Proposed Entry Gates The Association is proposing construction of new entry gates located along Mitchell Avenue. The north gate is proposed at Brittany Woods and the south gate is proposed at Hickory Branch. The location of the proposed gate entry is less than 40 feet from Mitchell Avenue. ,t Figure 5 — Proposed Entry Gate Location The Orange County Resources and Development Management Department Standard (OCR & DMD Standard #1107) is the standard utilized by the City to ensure that the appropriate distance is provided for adequate maneuverable area for emergency vehicle access and turning radius. The standard requires a 100 foot minimum distance from the public street to the gate entry. A 30 foot radius is also required for turn -around of emergency vehicles. The location of the entry gates, as proposed, would be less than 40 feet from the public street to the gate entry. This is approximately 70 feet less than the distance required to provide adequate turn -around for emergency vehicles. Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 17 The following graphic indicates the minimum turning radius required: A =35.05'48' GATE W, 30• `, i m io I -- `-----fir-v in MIN. c+� R= a, A=22037'110 31.62' i 50.00' GUARD GATE NOTES: I. D=1' Per Dwelling Unit Served, 100' Minimum !Multiple Lanes may be used to satisfy storage distance requirement.) Figure 6 Standard #1107 Since the Tustin Imperial complex has two entries which allow ingress and egress from the site, each entry would need to provide the minimum 46 foot distance from Mitchell Avenue and a 30 foot turning radius. An additional In order to accommodate the gate on-site the Association would need to eliminate several parking stalls along Brittany Woods and Hickory Branch. This is contrary to the proposal to accommodate additional parking on-site. The proposal for the addition of entry gates at the two entrances along Mitchell Avenue do not provide adequate distance to allow entry gates at the Tustin Imperial complex. The addition of such gates without sufficient distance from the street or sufficient turning area for emergency vehicles would create a situation that would create a situation that may be injurious to the health and safety of the residents since it would inhibit the necessary access for emergency vehicles to enter and exit the site properly. Therefore, there is not adequate distance available to allow entry gates at the Tustin Imperial complex and staff does not support the proposal for entry gates. Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 18 Variance 10-001 - Findings Required The reconfiguration of several of the proposed guest parking spaces in the common area infringes upon the City's minimum drive aisle width of 24 feet for a two-way travel lane. In effect, vehicles parked in the guest spaces around the complex would encroach into the required fire apparatus access roads that serve the complex. The Association is requesting variance from the following code requirement and has submitted the Variance Supplemental Applications shown in Attachment C: Tustin City Code section 9266d1: Parking Space Design and Dimension. Requires that standard parking spaces in "two-way traffic" aisles and angled at 30 degrees have a depth of, at minimum, 17 feet, 4 inches. This section also requires a minimum aisle (or travel lane or access road) width of 24 feet for two-way travel lane. While the Association request a variance from TCC 9266, as discussed above, Variances are necessary for the following TCC sections: 9262A.1; 9262B.1.A; 9266C.4; 9266D1; and 9266H. As part of the variance application, California Government Code Section 65906 and the Tustin City Code (TCC) require the Planning Commission to make two positive findings to approve a variance (in as much as the discussion pertains to the Zoning Code). Those code requirements that pertain to the CBC, UFC, etc. reside under the authority of the Building Official, Fire Chief, etc. The findings for variance are as follows: 1. Special Circumstances: Are there special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classification? 2. Special Privileges: How would the variance, if granted, assure that the adjustment thereby authorized would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated? Based upon the review of the application, no special circumstances exist to support the variance for the following reasons: • Although the supplemental document includes the specific terms required for the variance (size, shape, and topography), staff does not believe it provides substantiation as to why the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classification. • The Tustin Imperial complex is surrounded by similar high density residential developments. The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is High Density Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 19 Residential. As indicated in the Land Use map below, the surrounding properties have the same land use designation. This land use designation allows multifamily dwellings including duplexes, condominiums, townhomes, and apartments. • Granting the variance would adversely affect the interests of the other residents and property owners within the vicinity of the premises in question in that the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the project would create conditions or situations that may be objectionable, detrimental or incompatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity in that there are no special circumstances in which to support a variance for the guest parking spaces which encroach into the required 24 foot two-way drive aisle. • The size, shape, and topography of the Tustin Imperial complex site are the same or similar to other properties surrounding it which are subject to the same or similar zoning requirements. The parcel is rectangular in shape and the size of the overall property is approximately 9.25 acres, similar to those properties surrounding the Tustin Imperial Complex. The topography of the site is generally flat; also equivalent to the surrounding condominiums, townhomes, and apartments in the immediate vicinity. General Plan Land Use Map A variance must not grant a "special privilege" inconsistent with the limitations on other nearby properties since the cumulative effect of repeated variances could significantly change the character of an area. Based upon the review of the application, special privileges which are inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to the same zoning regulations would occur if the variance was granted in that: Planning Commission Report DR10-009 and VAR 10-001 August 10, 2010 Page 20 • The Association's request to grant variance to the unpermitted guest parking spaces and a reduced access lane would allow an exception for the Tustin Imperial complex that similarly zoned neighboring complexes do not have. • The reduced fire access lane creates a threat to life safety and the health and well being of the Tustin Imperial community because emergency vehicles, including fire engines, ambulances, and police vehicles may be unable to access homes within the complex due to the reduced lane width. • Based on the existence of original entitlement for adequate guest parking, granting a variance would create special privileges for the Tustin Imperial complex and set a precedent that would create a cumulative situation that could impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area. • The proposal to convert the recreational/open spaces areas would remove common green space and recreational areas that were intentionally provided to serve the Tustin Imperial community; further depleting the available recreational area for residents. Conclusion The Tustin Imperial complex was developed under the approvals of the County of Orange to meet the development standards in effect at the time the complex was developed. These provisions included the requirement for two covered parking spaces for each individual unit and sufficient guest parking based on parking code requirements. As such, staff cannot support the findings required for justification of special circumstances and has determined that approval of a variance would create a special privilege for the Tustin Imperial complex. Furthermore, the extensive efforts by code enforcement staff to work with individual homeowners to reconvert garages for vehicle parking will alleviate some of the parking shortage at the Tustin Imperial complex. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of Design Review 10-009 and Variance 10- 001. ENVIRONMENTAL This project has been determined to be Statutorily Exempt pursuant to Section 15270 (Projects which are disapproved) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Attachments: A. Resolution No. 4152 B. Orange County Planning Commission document C. Photographs taken on March 5, 2009 D. Variance supplemental applications E. Plans ATTACHMENT A Resolution No. 4152 RESOLUTION NO. 4152 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN DENYING DESIGN REVIEW (DR) 10-009 AND VARIANCE (VAR) 10-001 FOR 123 GUEST PARKING SPACES AND THE ADDITION OF TWO NEW VEHICLE ENTRY GATES FOR THE TUSTIN IMPERIAL COMPLEX LOCATED AT 1777 MITCHELL AVENUE The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows: A. That on March 22, 2010, a proper application for Design Review 10-009 and Variance 10-001, was submitted by Harold Katzman on behalf of the Tustin Imperial Homeowner's Association for 123 guest parking spaces and the addition of two new vehicle entry gates for the Tustin Imperial Complex located at 1777 Mitchell Avenue (APN 432-021-06); B. That the site is zoned Suburban Residential District (R4 4000) and is located in the High Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan, which provides for residential development of multifamily dwellings including duplexes, condominiums, townhomes, and apartments; C. That the Tustin Imperial complex was approved by the County of Orange Planning Commission on September 18, 1963. The complex included 134 attached individually -owned condominium units each with a one -car garage and a carport so as to create two parking spaces in a tandem alignment and 69 guest parking spaces; D. That on October 31, 1980, the Tustin Imperial complex was annexed into the City of Tustin; E. That on June 12, 2006, City staff conducted an exterior inspection of the Tustin Imperial complex. The inspection revealed that several individual units had undergone unpermitted modifications rendering the one -car garages as unusable for vehicles and that guest parking around the complex had been reconfigured and re -striped to increase the number of guest parking spaces from 69 to 136 guest parking spaces around the perimeter of the complex in violation of the zoning code and without benefit of the required permits. F. That on August 8, 2006, and February 27, 2007, letters were sent by City staff to inform homeowners of the need to reconvert the unpermitted garage conversions and of which the property management company was copied. Also on February 27, 2007, a separate notice was sent to said management company informing the Homeowner's Association of the substandard guest parking spaces and access roads that served the complex. PC Resolution No. 4152 DR 10-009 and VAR 10-001 Page 2 G. That on May 11, 2007, the City's legal counsel sent correspondence to the Association advising that the perimeter guest parking and access roads around the complex were deficient and that the non -permitted garage conversions needed to be remedied. From approximately May 11, 2007, up through and including the present date, the City has attempted to work with the Association to resolve the issues with the guest parking and access roads to gain voluntary compliance with the Tustin City Code and California Fire Code. Several meetings with the Association members have been held and multiple correspondence letters have been exchanged regarding the matter. H. That on March 5, 2009, Code Enforcement representatives and the Orange County Fire Authority inspected the property and observed that many of the parking spaces around the complex remained in their deficient conditions. Specifically, the parking spaces still failed to meet the minimum depth and width requirements prescribed by the Tustin City Code and the Access Roads which serve the complex. During this inspection, photographs were taken, which illustrate the dangerous situation created by the Association's failure to maintain the required Access Roads. I. That despite the City's efforts to obtain voluntary compliance from the Tustin Imperial Homeowners Association, the code violations that apply to the Association common area remain at the present time. In the past 5 years, the police department has received several calls for service about vehicles blocking the fire lanes at the complex. These violations have been observed to exist and continue to exist on the Association's property and constitute public nuisances as defined by the Tustin City Code and California Civil Code. J. That on April 22, 2009, Code Enforcement representatives again inspected the property and took measurements of the existing parking spaces and Access Roads. During that inspection, it was noted that the parking spaces around the complex, which are angled at approximately 45 degrees, measured, at most, eight feet, ten inches deep which is in violation of Tustin City Code section 9266. Moreover, as designed, the angled parking spaces that surround the Tustin Imperial complex force parked vehicles to encroach into the required fire access roads, thus obstructing accessibility for emergency vehicles. K. That a Design Review application is required by Tustin City Code to provide for the review of site planning and site development and to ensure that proposed uses and structures are consistent with City standards and are compatible with the surrounding area and the entire community of Tustin; L. That a Variance application is required in order to diverge from the strict application of the specific site development regulations applied to the PC Resolution No. 4152 DR 10-009 and VAR 10-001 Page 3 property. As part of the variance application, California Government Code Section 65906 and the Tustin City Code (TCC) require the City to make two positive findings to approve a variance; M. That on July 29, 2010, the City gave public notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation, by posting the project site, and by mailing to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site of the holding of a public hearing at which the project would be considered; N. That on August 10, 2010, the Planning Commission held a duly called, and noticed public hearing at which interested persons had an opportunity to testify in support of, or in opposition to, Design Review 10-009 and Variance 10-001 and at which the Planning Commission considered the Design Review and Variance applications; O. That the Tustin Imperial Homeowner's Association requested variance from the following Code Sections: a. Tustin City Code section 9266d1: Parking Space Design and Dimension. Requires that standard parking spaces in "two-way traffic" aisles and angled at 30 degrees have a depth of, at minimum, 17 feet, 4 inches. This section also requires a minimum aisle (or travel lane or access road) width of 24 feet for two-way travel lane. P. That the findings required by Section 9292 of the Tustin City Code and Section 65906 of the California Government Code as prerequisites for the issuance of a variance cannot be made with respect to the proposed project because: a. No Special Circumstances: There are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classification. The Tustin Imperial complex is surrounded by similar high density residential developments. The General Plan Land Use designation for the property is High Density Residential (15-25 dwelling units per acre). As indicated in the Tustin General Plan Land Use map, the surrounding properties have the same land use designation. This land use designation allows multifamily dwellings including duplexes, condominiums, townhomes, and apartments. The Tustin Imperial parcel is similar in shape and size to those properties surrounding the Tustin Imperial Complex in that it is a rectangular shape the overall PC Resolution No. 4152 DR 10-009 and VAR 10-001 Page 4 property is approximately 9.25 acres. The topography of the site is generally flat; also equivalent to the surrounding condominiums, townhomes, and apartments in the immediate vicinity. b. Special Privileges: Approval of the application will constitute a grant of special privileges which are inconsistent with the limitations placed upon other properties in the vicinity and subject to the same zoning regulations, when specified conditions are complied with. A variance must not grant a "special privilege" inconsistent with the limitations on other nearby properties since the cumulative effect of repeated variances could significantly change the character of an area. The Association's request to grant variance to the unpermitted guest parking spaces and a reduced access lane would allow an exception for the Tustin Imperial complex that similarly zoned neighboring complexes do not have. Q. That the location, size, design and operating characteristics of the project will create conditions or situations that may be objectionable, detrimental or incompatible with other permitted uses in the vicinity in that there are no special circumstances in which to support a variance for the guest parking spaces which encroach into the required 24 -foot two-way drive aisle. The guest parking spaces were re -striped without benefit of permit and are currently situated in such a way that emergency vehicles cannot effectively provide services to all units within the complex. The request from the Association to grant variance to Tustin City Code requirements to accommodate guest parking spaces that were completed without benefit of permit and which created a fire access road that is substandard creates a situation that may be injurious to the health and safety of the residents and guests of the Tustin Imperial complex. R. That granting a variance would be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood, and be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject property, or to the general welfare of the City of Tustin, in that: a. More importantly, the reduced fire access lane creates a threat to life safety and the health and well being of the Tustin Imperial community because emergency vehicles, including fire engines, ambulances, and police vehicles may be unable to access homes within the complex due to the reduced lane width. Measurements were taken during on- site inspections which revealed that the complex does not provide the 20 -foot access lane width in which they claim to provide. Based on the existence of original entitlement for adequate guest parking, granting a PC Resolution No. 4152 DR 10-009 and VAR 10-001 Page 5 variance would create special privileges for the Tustin Imperial complex. b. The granting of the requested variance is inconsistent with the objectives of the General Plan and the Zoning Code in that there are no special circumstances surrounding the applicant's situation, limited to physical conditions of the property, which are unique and that other properties in the area do not have. The Tustin Imperial complex Land Use designation for the property is High Density Residential (15-25 dwelling units per acre). The subject site is surrounded by other multiple -family complexes including apartments, condominiums, and a mobile home park which are subject to the same or similar zoning requirements. S. That the findings required by Section 9272 of the Tustin City Code for Design Review approval cannot be made with respect to the proposed project in that: a. The proposal to add parking spaces in landscaped and recreational areas of the complex, including within an existing playground area, is not in conformance with the original approval which required over 4.5 acres of common green and recreational area. b. The request for variance to reconfigure several of the guest parking spaces would infringe upon the City's standard 24 -foot drive aisle width. c. The proposal for the addition of entry gates at the two entrances along Mitchell Avenue do not provide adequate distance to allow entry gates at the Tustin Imperial complex. The addition of such gates without sufficient distance from the street or sufficient turning area for emergency vehicles would create a situation that could impair the orderly and harmonious development of the area, present or future development therein, the occupancy thereof, or the community as a whole. d. Based on the existence of original entitlement for adequate guest parking, granting a variance would create special privileges for the Tustin Imperial complex. e. That the efforts by City staff to reconvert garages for vehicle parking will alleviate most of the parking shortage at the Tustin Imperial complex. T. That the Community Development Director has reviewed the project's potential effects on the environment, and has recommended that the project PC Resolution No. 4152 DR 10-009 and VAR 10-001 Page 6 be found statutorily exempt in accordance with Section 15270 of the California Public Resources Code, which specifies that the California Environmental Quality Act does not apply to any project that the public agency rejects or disapproves. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission held on the 10th day of August, 2010. JEFF R. THOMPSON Chair Pro -Tem ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) CITY OF TUSTIN ) I, ELIZABETH A. BINSACK, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 4152 duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 10th day of August, 2010. ELIZABETH A. BINSACK Planning Commission Secretary SACdd\PCRES0S\2010\4152 Tustin Imperials DENIAL.doc ATTACHMENT B Orange County Planning Commission document r :'- ➢Gdk A. ID. n. 10'a BTaI°8f�) PA02 pIlWo acd sees] maree• 9wu= f-.0229.1 W, Mainassa avvana�mms wanCrie2 ' (off u��ar�t:e ama (�tze�oc''���a 570 Rmpowt}7.ia qs=iz'flom LEGO v9t; m they .W-4mo °�" `^ a9etntes. ? 0 QWB2= t PTZPS'20c 1241 o923n© ZOZ.91v A©eDVft;G i+�n aQa. oeeEaCC auaO©aid ee=Oe mm- .,acio? tr= Pd revtst9^aa. QInD umeo pev 9C2od: _ da7H59mgO cm!,],Oceonaora msec c=piv oiela ¢�7 110trIct. Q1D ndary ©umsy mp. 0.9i - ziaui7dorn survey sap and the legal 71.w ?aaemdarioc ofl '�entetive Tract :to. 5285 olao aurao vi C6t the logal doncripttm preoented. (2) zx/sting topography at 2' Intervals. O.K. - See gr:'et79ng plan (Sheet Pn. !tl) (?) Gross land area, etc.: O.K. - Sem plot plan (Sheet Yu. 2) mad f mdi.np plan (Sheet No, 10) ('1) General dcvelopBwnt plan. a. Location and cede of utcgldings propoAed and oziwting: ApproxImate entrances of ➢xci lding!a :a x,• shm m, O,K. - See plot plan (Sheet No. 2).,. L. ;lll oxinting and prannscel vlorn••,•, ore.: nre n•, loa.lif(' ...,Rc .. P. L.ot;i'. n'i.' tr•,,-, . �!. . . t. . .. /'•u::.v : .. .. ) •:fie r Gcv plot plat• Tonna nT a,.�P mn1•m• nIVTUi4 iMIMIV-752 BDZIMMzR"� C-1056 5�J) aa, G'sam II. 33e paving and drainage plana (9Beoo2 Wo). Do as 12) for v011 1es7out and etrmatructswe and Ha.,�9aowp4c�0 plaza (.%=to Nos. 17 6 16). f. Oradltng plain: 0.a. - sae grod9au nlam (sheet '40. 10). X. All Gxiot4MC oa propOarad physical Pesturaa: O.R. - Sao cradin0 plan Meet 11.0. ➢O) for both aav atraretUrea: see lamdocepftepS p204 (Soret No. 17); aee oetGT casco plan V,hect 7o. 2G); 300 paving and drainage dotal➢a c9k„roto Aon. HO a 11); 000 cpainhlor system Meet Nn. M; ooc attached declaration of roa¢r9 etions. (5) Plans and elev&ttans: O.K. - See foundation floor and Plevatioa ,lover QSh(?02o Nos. Al through A6). (e) Building site area: O.M. it 402,700.70 sq. 48 for 1:99 units, (402,000 required) (d) Dwelling types penitted: G.K. - All proposed buildings yerr:xtte.4, with Rhr• exception of 4 snits not allowed by lsc'z of area. (eD perimeter of street®: - (1) hear o9 property not bounded by street.. (2) Waiver of above required. (f) Roiiriinp r•nverarp: ,107of one land area - 126, 125 SFA MI. *Total bpi IdinP nrea ;Z3 ,.`>5n <n. 1+. frD 'utl•�ir,• r,rtrnt: •T„Irl inti l•'}"•t: +•nvcrage inr+urin< rsec"vntir,n P�uil•Pi .. t: +•: ni-.in{, 1'In.•1 ,•••! 2' nx1an11r.n (2G rn, ft. per port) t++ incn•una+ 11.• ear'r.+rts frac+ It)' x IS' 6aaD 97a�a a�.d m�� a�nce3ot aro L*7 d�o¢ea�A�i t�j assedAaA�o1 �mafla. IiRaro ba �m 6ocnA1d2r,� cIl®x� 41 � E5 ¢= aac� ®•aRar, `§ ?.'tS�ui t o¢a&+�,e� Is go' POW =eater ➢Aa�� of Asclr�o9Il AvOOM. mtePmfla so not an 45ao omo¢aP RIlaca ®Q 951 C3L ams-oat7cot po?Mmg: QIlJ u"traoro go =mo Gamao and Ame carpou-t For 2CCDD 87,0 2, a; G Grafi. aorrporG ,Paas 0=104a dfireeGEy beband the gara6,o Q2laotance) =4 no ece3 a7,- Q2D Il guaot 07=0 0=e avorq B a.n94a r�.q. A2 Giz, u€acovaroaa opacoa Ear 934 unite, Qs�D Graxu�o9n� 08 apuoaea. G.CS, 0 SUac^oc aro CPread aabrataghmst U%e r4ovv�Doi,�^^ ant. f,b) pevocmtton oB condtzt nnel pere<_¢ r XsquSrrd area = .1oss,oW aq. Ft. p 3G<' n sag. E¢. per unit Grcas area - QG2,700.70 sq. 92. Area of Vehicular eceoass = 67,386.50 sq. 4a. Rat arra - 315,3141.20 sag. E¢. 105z oP net area = 12G,125.63 sp. Et. OTntal huildgng area a 123,550 0a8. Et. A of hu41d1n2 covormae = 39.1% ,. 07ntal building cnavernge includes reemation building, 9wisming gaol and 2' extnntfa (20 sq. EL. per port) an 9neremsr ?hP rarportz ?rem D0' x 19' to 10' x 20'. ATTACHMENT C Photographs taken on March 5, 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - rn 73WA�i _--�-_ _ - _ __--- dp Z. ti �• 4 } F — YL i 4 lid w i(' � E37� _ m ow , _1 : t ' {•KGF""� -- ri r _ • N �f r r 5 e E , r T� y SIT v � ` ALi L mi � � ���i "•- �' __ 11,! � r 1 � A � � L� ��1� _ .- _ _ � � - � � i d - ` � �_ _. �� � . �:: ,:, Alt oil :'.zed I� .. __,- ...r � — i f- 0 3 � r f a% F. 7 :acus v low ciao } r� _ •ice - vs f ORCE371 =1 ow E37 I low p ATTACHMENT D Variance supplemental applications COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT E C E I V D S ' PIF ENTAL APPLIOATI FORE, Vanancet r : stment JUN 0 3 2010 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMM"'r BY California Government Code Section 65906 and the Tustin City Code require the City to make two positive findings to approve a variance or minor adjustment. Please answer the following questions to provide evidence in support of the necessary findings. Please attach a separate sheet if necessary. 1, SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES Are there special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under identical zoning classification? The benefits currently enjoyed by all other properties in the vicinity of Tustin Imperial Townhomes includes a maximum number of parking spaces. The collective members of Tustin Imperial Home Owners Association as well as all of our neighboring complexes have benefitted from these spaces. Ordinance 9266 will remove the spaces we have enjoyed. The two gates, similar to those within our adjoining complexes, are expected to minimize unwanted and unnecessary vehicle access flow so as to augment fire lane access within our complex. 2. SPECIAL PRIVILEGES How would the variance or minor adjustment, if granted, assure that the adjustment thereby authorized would not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which such property is situated? Tustin Imperial is meeting the necessities of the City's fire and police departments which require better access. In that Tustin Imperial wishes to incorporate less parking stalls within the complex and, has diligently worked side by side with the building department to cause homeowners to clean their garages and use their carports for their intended purposes; we have, in our own manner, caused less vehicles to be parked on the streets adjacent to the complex. I hereby acknowledge that all of the information contained in this supplemental application is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true and correctly represented, I hereby grant the City the authority to place a public hearing notice on the property for which the variance or minor adjustment is requested, if required. Owner's Signature Date Applicant's Signature (if different) Date 300 Centennial Way, Tustin, California 92780 • 714-573-3140 9 FAX 714-573-3113 tustin imperial townhomes association July 26, 2010 Amy Thomas Senior Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 92780 RECEIVE© JUL 2 6 2010 combiliNliY OEV PMrNT BY. Re: Tustin Imperial Homeowners Association Subject: Supplemental Information Regarding Variance (DR 10-009 and VAR 10-001) The Tustin Imperial Homeowners Association ("Association") was originally developed in the 1960s and consists of one hundred thirty-four (134) residential units, each with three (3) to five (5) bedrooms. At the time of its initial development, the Association was located in unincorporated Orange County and subject to the zoning and development regulations within that jurisdiction. As was typical at that time, most owners within the Association owned and/or utilized only one vehicle per unit, and the parking at the Association was originally designed to accommodate a limited number of vehicles. Since that time, it has become standard/common place for multiple drivers to reside in one residential unit, each with their own vehicle. The Association, therefore, increased the number of parking spaces within the Association to accommodate the similar changing needs of the members/residents'of the Association and reduce the parking on Mitchell Avenue. For the most part, the Association added parking spaces by replacing parallel -type parking spaces with angled spaces. The Association property was annexed by the City of Tustin in 1980. Shortly thereafter, the City of Tustin approved the development of additional high-density, multi -family housing projects on and around the area of Mitchell Avenue. Such additional development has resulted in major parking congestion on Mitchell Avenue, Heatherfield Drive, and Browning Avenue, Within the last several years, the City Council has apparently begun a public campaign against "urban blight", and initiated efforts to address the severe congestion problems on Mitchell Avenue. As part of the City's new initiative, the City Attorney's office commenced a lawsuit against the Association in May 2009 seeking to compel owners of certain residences within the Association who converted their garage areas many years ago to reconvert their garages to be used for vehicle parking. Most of the referenced owners who converted their garages without City approval have now reconverted such areas back to garages or otherwise obtained compliance. Therefore, the City's claims with respect to the garage conversion issues at the Association now appear to be mostly moot. Managing Agent: Villageway Management, Inc. Y.O. Box 4708 Irvine CA 92616 Phone 949.450.1515 Fax 949.585.0146 E-mail: vml@villageway.com \\VwayfsTrc jells\Tustin Imperial 092\Legal\2010Wariance hr city of tustin,doc Tustin Imperial Homeowners Association City of Tustin July 26, 2010 Page 2 of 3 However, the lawsuit also alleges that the current parking design/layout at the Association violates Section 9266 of the City of Tustin Municipal Code, which states that two-way parking aisles must have a minimum width of twenty-four (24) feet. Importantly, the parking layout/design at the Association has existed in its current state for more than three (3) decades. If the Association is forced to convert its current parking spaces, it will lose seventy (70) parking spaces upon its property, which would amount to a fifty percent (50%) decrease in the number of open parking spaces available at the Association. Such a reduction in spaces will force the residents and guests of the Association to find alternative parking which would necessarily include parking on Mitchell Avenue and other public streets in the area, creating an utmecessary hardship not only for the Association, its residents, but all neighboring residents. To be certain, any decrease in the amount of available open space parking at the Association will necessarily lead to a dramatic increase to the levels of parking congestion on Mitchell Avenue, Heatherfield Drive, and Browning Avenue, which will have an adverse effect on all residents in the area. The City's action against the Association seeking the elimination of fifty percent (50%) of its open parking spaces within the Association seems to be contrary to the City's Council's goal of reducing parking congestion on Mitchell Avenue, as at least seventy (70) additional vehicles will be forced to park on City streets each night if a reasonable solution to the Association's current parking situation cannot be achieved. In that regard, and in response to the City's enforcement action, the Association has submitted an application to the City depicting a proposed alternative parking plan which addresses the public policy and safety issues presented in the City's lawsuit, and, specifically, the 20 -foot fire lane access requirements mandated by the Orange County Fire Authority and as set forth in section 503.1.1 of the 2007 California Fire Code. It is important to note that the Association is unaware of any instance in the last three decades where an emergency responder was unable to gain access to the Association, or any residence located therein. Additionally, the proposed plan provides for one hundred twenty (120) open parking spaces within the Association while still allowing for at least a 20 -foot fire lane access, and which, in many areas, the fire access equals or exceeds 22 feet. Each of the proposed angled parking spaces measures 17'4" deep by 9'0" wide, in compliance with Tustin Municipal Code requirements. Please note that the aisle width set forth in the parking plan proposed by the Association exceeds the two-way aisle width requirements of many other municipalities in this area, For example, the City of Costa Mesa and the City of Huntington Beach each have a twenty (20) foot two-way aisle requirement. The Association hereby requests a variance from Section 4266 of the City of Tustin Municipal Code, and, specifically, the twenty-four (24) feet two-way aisle requirement. As set forth in the Association's Variance/Minor Adjustment Supplemental Application Form, the majority of the Association's parking is located along the perimeter of the Association's property, and immediately adjacent to perimeter block walls on the property tines which separate the Association from its neighbors. The interior of the Association property consists almost entirely \\Vwayfs\Projects\hstln Imperial 092\Lega1\20101varimce Ilr cky of lustin.doc Tustin Imperial Homeowners Association City of Tustin July 26, 2010 Page 3 of 3 of residential structures. Given the existing density of the area, and the size, shape, and topography of the Association, as well as the very limited amount of available open space, permitting the requested variance to allow angled parking along the perimeter of the Association as described in the Association's application is the only practical way to provide adequate parking for the members, residents, and guests of the Association and to avoid compounding the current parking congestion on the adjacent and nearby streets. [The City Attorney's office previously suggested that the Association could convert its two-way parking aisle to a one-way parking aisle by demolishing several existing residential structures. However, the referenced structures are owned by members of the Association and used as family residences. The City's suggestion that the Association can simply tear down someone's home to increase the amount of parking is troubling, especially in light of the fact that the parking issues at the Association, and the ongoing costly litigation, can be fully and forever remedied by way of a minor variance.] Further, strict enforcement of Section 9266 and the denial of the Association's request for a variance would constitute an unnecessary hardship for the Association and its members as a large percentage of the owners of properties within the Association would be deprived of the use and enjoyment of common area open parking spaces located upon Association property. In addition, as described above, if the variance is not granted, parking congestion will dramatically increase on Mitchell Ave and many other public streets in the vicinity, which will negatively impact the entire area and affect many other City residents other than Association members. Finally, the granting of the variance does not grant a special privilege for the Association, as the Association is simply attempting to maintain the current levels of parking that have existed at the Association for more than thirty (30) years, while still allowing adequate access to emergency responders by fully complying with the access requirements mandated in the California Fire Code. In addition, a denial of the Association's request for a variance will burden all other residents in the vicinity by significantly reducing the availability of parking in the area. It is requested that a copy of this letter also be provided to the City of Tustin Planning Commission and that it be included as part of the administrative record. Your further consideration of this matter is greatly appreciated. S, erely, r Harold Katzman President Tustin Imperial Homeowners Association HK:sjt \\V wayfs\Projects\rustin Imperial 092\l.egaA2010\varianee Itr city of tustin.doc ATTACHMENT E PLANS w'wvv . D:W. Cgnfi (nb ud MLZGW'NUtM'3 V113HO11A LLLL S831MOS U6isOa d1J ° tit a 5 s4F6� a. ( n w,gzg-u.0:Kwua EB oo (w)d 4d O ovo?musm-mvTa3 jwla& SGOIAJag u61sea d1J d o W,m`E ,OSx o!w� $a £ 2 £ S-2 •S m W4r rcmvw- 3.9 23 mE o'nei dwa ui .e leg TN cjya �mn ¢cm3` '@ 5$e o%� mO cS n om mom.=-= 5s � .� a m w; y ¢ .�N o ffi $9 E o`w¢E�" E ;qj; aeE E0 Y 'yE II fl 'gym$ a$g3_oi8 i� i� ?wO a F a g woE� Ott 31 S mo NO m'm3�� pe8" "o'er 3oom w�a wv 1ct,flTEe��g'S''�2Q t� �Scir iii%d mtn ri .o�ms�'ao'?�� Effhyy wIP �� w F p �� P-N.Wwwg6M. C6Z6 M(9 MJ 'UZB tl0'N1S 1'3AV Il HORN LLL4 saDIAJOS uCisaa d1J y E � p Oil JUNE . y wwpe®uuawElB:pu.V E33&B@B inn Nd OURtl 'NLL M "MV T 3{ ffl IaL SGOIAJOS UBISaa d1J gamin®uuewnle:nwo eeaes9e (rIANd eBl28 WJ'NIl9lLL'3AV T3H�LW fLLI SGOIAJag u61sea d1J 8 eS ayi�1 mi Z I a sssuu S 6w 2 n' s mmeS u@se Q dlg * § )! .! *