HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC RES 2906 1
4
5
6
9
10
11
19
13
14
15
16
18
19
9.0
9_1
22
24
9.5
26,
27
25
RESOLUTION NO. 2906
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF TUSTIN, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
91-01, A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE ESTABLISHMENT OF
A TIRE SALES AND SERVICE BUSINESS LOCATED AT
135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE AND VARIANCE 91-08,
A REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM THE PARKING
REQUIREMENTS IN VARIOUS PORTIONS OF THE SITE.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I ·
The Planning Commission finds and determines as
follows:
A·
That a proper application, Conditional Use
Permit 91-01 has been filed on behalf of
Steven Paquette to establish a tire sales and
service business on the property located at
135 South Prospect Avenue.
B.
That a proper application, Variance 91-08, has
been filed on behalf of Steven Paquette
requesting to deviate from the parking
requirements in various portions of the site
on the property located at 135 South Prospect
Avenue.
Co
That a public hearing was duly called, noticed
and held on said application on April 22, 1991
and continued to May 13, 1991.
De
That establishment, maintenance, and operation
of the use applied for will, under the
circumstances of this case, be detrimental to
the health, safety, morals, comfort, or
general welfare of the persons residing or
working in the neighborhood of such proposed
use and will be injurious or detrimental to
property and improvements in the area,
evidenced by the following findings:
.
The subject site is inadequate in size,
shape and configuration to accommodate
the proposed auto service use and the
existing medical/professional office use
without creating major interface issues
on-site and off-site based upon the
following facts:
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
2¢
27
28
Resolution No. 2906
Page 2
a ·
be
c ·
The submitted plans indicate that
one of the site access points will
be taken from First Street. The
proposed re-location of the First
Street driveway will be
approximately 25 feet from the
location of the driveway to the car
wash site, which is adjacent on the
east side. Submitted plans also
indicate the location of parking
stall #1, which parallels the
driveway, to be within 3 feet of the
subject parcel's north property
line. A vehicle parked in parking
stall #1, during the course of
business operations, would cause a
visual obstruction to exist at this
driveway location; resulting in a
concern for the safety of
pedestrians using the sidewalk
located along First Street.
The Commission has observed that the
problem with traffic existing on
First Street is compounded by
customers attempting to gain access
to the Post Office. Since a
majority of the customers using the
proposed auto service use will be
attempting to drop off or retrieve
their vehicles during peak traffic
times and the subject site is within
close proximity to the post office,
the proposed auto service use will
act as a contributor to an already
existing negative impact to this
portion of the community.
The submitted plans show that while
the proposed auto service use would
operate in a separate building, the
medical/professional office building
and the proposed auto service
building are located on one legal
parcel which is .42 acres in size;
maintaining approximately a 45-foot
building separation which results in
a constricted site for the two types
of uses to function harmoniously.
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2906
Page 3
de
ee
This is compounded by the fact that
the submitted plans show one 25-
foot-wide drive aisle running
between the two access driveways
located along First Street and
Prospect Avenue. This type of auto
service use has the potential to
require the utilization of the
entire parking lot area. The reason
for this is that the majority of
customers, as was stated in the
applicant's correspondence dated
April 15, 1991, which was attached
to the previous staff report to
total between 30 to 60, leave their
vehicles anywhere from half a day to
a full day for servicing. This
results in blocked drive aisles,
illegal parking and an increased
need for vehicle storage due to
parking overflow.
The submitted plans indicate that
the service bay doors are oriented
directly across from some of the
entrances and window openings of the
existing medical/office buildings.
Based upon the type of noise
generated during the course of
servicing the vehicles, combined
with the fact that the vehicle
servicing is performed with the
service bay doors open, it can be
determined that the proposed auto
service use will be disruptive
rather than conducive or
complimentary to the existing
medical/professional office uses.
The submitted plans propose a
parking layout that would require
the approval of a variance to allow
deviations from parking lot design
criteria. The acceptance of the
proposed parking layout would result
in various entrances to the
medical/professional office building
being obstructed by the front end of
vehicles allowed to overhang within
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
2O
21'
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2906
Page 4
·
inches of the building. This
condition was observed while in the
field at the subject site as the
entrances were not apparent on the
submitted plans.
The proposed use will be detrimental to
the properties and/or improvements in the
area as the project does not meet the
objectives of the First Street Specific
Plan in that:
a ·
The project site is located within
what is identified in the First
Street Specific Plan as Sub-Area 2
which encourages stimulation of
retail commercial uses that
specifically cater or serve the
needs of pedestrian movement and
use. The proposed auto service use
does not function primarily as a use
serving the needs of pedestrians as
its primary activity will be to
service vehicles; therefore, the
primary use by pedestrians would be
to leave a vehicle and proceed to
walk elsewhere rather than linger or
stroll on the site. Field
observations of retail centers or
uses indicate that most customers
use the site for a duration of time
that would be significantly shorter
than was observed of the customer
using an auto service use.
be
The project site has been identified
in the Specific Plan as a potential
"use change" site. This
classification recognizes that there
are buildings and/or uses on a
particular parcel that are no longer
viable and could, in some cases, be
considered non-conforming. Although
the subject building proposed to
serve as the tire sales and service
business was originally built for
garage/automotive uses, the intent
of the Specific Plan was for this
building and the automotive use
originally associated with it to be
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2906
Page 5
.
replaced as continued or refurbished
use of an automotive use at this
location was considered
inappropriate and obsolete.
Consequently, approval of an
automotive use at this location
would be detrimental to future and
present development within the
Specific Plan area as it is a use
that directly contradicts with the
Specific Plan objectives, which
indicated the need to remove or
replace the building(s) on the site
with a new use.
Ce
The Specific Plan identified this
site as a parcel that potentially
could be combined with southerly
adjacent parcels for potential "Use
Expansion Opportunities." The Land
Use Concept portion of the Specific
Plan discusses the incentives
available for use expansion areas
when combined with those parcels
maintaining a First Street frontage,
thereby gaining development that is
particularly responsive to the
Specific Plan objectives.
Consequently, approval of the
proposed use would inhibit the
potential for this objective to ever
be realized which results in a
detriment to surrounding properties
by thwarting the development
opportunities that would satisfy the
long-range goals of the Specific
Plan.
During the course of the public hearing
held April 22, 1991, the proposed use was
viewed to be inappropriate for the
subject site by community members. The
following reasons were stated and are
related to many of the findings and
observations made by staff:
a ~
The proposed use would detract from
the unique setting, charm and
convenience afforded to pedestrians
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
28!
Resolution No. 2906
Page 6
in the Specific Plan area as the
primary focus of the service is to
automobiles.
b,
The subject site was considered
inadequate to serve both uses
simultaneously resulting in parking
impacts on surrounding streets.
Ce
The project is not sensitive to the
close proximity of the Cultural
Resources Overlay Zoning District,
of which the subject site borders on
the southeast along Prospect Avenue,
and does not promote the positive
characteristics considered vital to
creating a desired pedestrian
ambiance and a "slower pace."
de
The proposed use, based upon
submitted plans, can not be
accommodated on the site without the
granting of a variance and no
overriding condition could be
identified that would justify an
approval.
That, because of a lack of special
circumstances applicable to the subject
property, relative to size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, a strict application
of the Zoning Ordinance is not found to
deprive the subject property of privileges
enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity
and under identical zone classification in
that:
The proposed use is classified as a use
intensification and, therefore, requires
the non-conforming parking lot area to be
upgraded and brought to current
standards. During the course of the
public hearing, it was pointed out that
many properties with currently operating
uses also maintain deficient parking lot
designs and this should be considered as
justification for this variance request.
However, these properties are considered
non-conforming and are permitted by right
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~1.5
~6
~7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Resolution No. 2906
Page 7
to continue operating; but in the event
that a use should change or intensify,
the property would be required to be
brought into conformance. Therefore, the
implementation of the zoning requirements
would not be denying privileges as all
non-conforming sites under these
circumstances would be required to
upgrade.
·
Subsequent to the enactment of the
Specific Plan, those projects that were
approved, where circumstances entailed
the re-use of an existing facility have
not received the benefit of variances to
operate. Also, those projects where
deviations were considered, did not
require variances as the projects
entailed new construction; and, pursuant
to the incentive section discussed in
Section III of the Development
Regulations for the Specific Plan,
certain allowances can be made to obtain
benefits that the Specific Plan
recommends achieving.
F·
That the granting of a variance as herein
provided will constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and
district in which the subject property is
situated in that the proposed layout maintains
self-imposed hardships due to the proposed use
and shifting of an existing driveway access.
G ·
That this project is Categorically Exempt
(Class 1) pursuant to the provisions of
Section 15301 of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
II. The Planning Commission hereby denies Conditional
Use Permit 91-01 and Variance 91-08 for the
property located at 135 South Prospect Avenue.
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
17
18
19
20
Resolution No. 2906
Page 8
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin
Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of May, 1991.
Chairman
Recording Secretary
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, KATHLEEN CLANCY, the undersigned, hereby certify that
I am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission
of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No.
2906 was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of
the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 13th day of
May, 1991.
KATHLEEN CLANCY
Recording Secretary
22
23
24
25
28