HomeMy WebLinkAbout21 D.R. 95-006 07-03-95NO. 21
DATE:
JULY 3, 1995
Inter-Com
TO: .WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DESIGN REVIEW 95-006 (THE HOME DEPOT)
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the City Council.
FISCAL IMPACT
There are no fiscal impacts associated with this project, as this
is an owner initiated project. The applicant has paid application
fees to recover the cost of processing this application.
BACKGROUND
On April 24 and May 22, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed a
request by The Home Depot to permit the outdoor display of
merchandise in front of their store in the Tustin Marketplace. On
May 22, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 3358 conditionally
approving the outdoor displays at The Home Depot on a temporary
basis, through September 5, 1995 (Attachment A). On May 26, 1995,
the City received a request from Greenberg Farrow, representatives
of The Home Depot, appealing several conditions of approval of the
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3358 (Attachment B) .
The site is located southwest of the intersection of E1 Camino Real
and West Drive in Phase I of the Tustin Marketplace. Surrounding
uses include a car wash to the north, in-line retail tenants to the
south, the auto center and flood control channel to the west of
Myford Road and Carl's Jr. restaurant across the parking lot to the
east.
This item is not a public hearing, therefore official'noticing was
not required. The applicant was informed of the availability of
the agenda and staff report for this item.
DISCUSSION
Over the past several years, The Home Depot has maintained outdoor
storage and displays (both on the sidewalk and above the garden
center perimeter fence) in violation of conditions of approval and
City Council Report
Appeal of DR 95-006
July 3, 1995
Page 2
Section 3.8.3K of the East Tustin Specific Plan (ETSP). Plants,
garden ' supplies, BBQ's, building materials and promotional
demonstrations have been regularly located across the front of the
building. In addition, bags of soil, mulch, bark and soil
amendments have been regularly stacked well above the 17-foot
height of the existing perimeter wrought iron fence. This type of
activity is in conflict with the provisions of the Section 3.8.3K
of the ETSP which requires outside displays t~ be screened from
view from public streets and the conditions of approval for the
Tustin Marketplace.
In early 1993, traffic circulation became Congested and traffic
conflicts increased on West Drive and at the E1 Camino Real and
West Drive intersection. As a result, a traffic study was prepared
as part of Black Angus Design Review. Since the study identified
mitigation measures to improve circulation in the vicinity of West
Drive, several conditions of approval were added to the Black Angus
project to require the temporary closure of one of the parking area
access drive aisles off of West Drive and restriping the Beacon Bay
drive-way to one-way westbound. The traffic study also indicated
that the outside display of merchandise in front of The Home Depot
could be a contributing factor to the traffic congestion on West
Drive. In March of 1994 the property owner (The Irvine Company)
began modifying the drive aisle to satisfy the conditions of
approval of Black Angus, and then stopped work in order to address
the concerns of adjacent tenants (Beacon Bay and The Home Depot).
To date, those improvements still have not been completed.
In July 1994, the Planning Commission approved Design Review 94-
021, to modify the exterior of The Home Depot, including the
expansion of the garden center and construction of a one-way drive
aisle on the north side of the building to Myford Road.
Representatives from The Home Depot indicated at'that time that
these modifications were designed'to provide more space for garden
supplies in an attempt to eliminate the need for outdoor displays
on the sidewalk. To date, construction of those improvements have
not commenced.
In early November 1994, the outdoor displays were discontinued as
a result of City meetings with the store manager. At that time, The
Home Depot was advised that the Planning Commission would need to
review and approve a Design Review application to permit the
outdoor display of merchandise. Despite direction to the
applicant, the temporary outdoor display of merchandise in front of
the store has reoccurred as part of the store,s spring promotions.
City Council Report
Appeal of DR 95-006
July 3, 1995
Page 3
Over the past few months, the outside displays in front of The Home
Depot store have completely covered the entire sidewalk in front of
the garden area, with plant materials placed adjacent to the edge
of West Drive pavement. The merchandise in front of the store also
extended to the edge of the pavement/loading zone, thus requiring
pedestrians to walk in the drive aisle. The merchandise has been
on display throughout the week and the site had not been cleaned of
dirt and debris.
SITE DESIGN
The applicant proposes to establish specific outdoor display areas
on the sidewalk in front of the store to display merchandise and
plant stock. The total amount of space would be 2,390 square feet
in size, 990 square feet under the front canopy and behind the
pillars and 1,400 square feet of space in front of the garden
center. The'applicant is also proposing to construct an 8-foot
high decorative screen wall, 20 feet in length at the north east
corner of the garden center to block viewing the merchandise from
E1 Camino Real. The screen wall will be constructed of masonry
block and painted to match the existing perimeter walls, a reddish
brown color.
Section 3.8.3K of the ETSP requires outdoor storage areas to be
visually screened from view of streets and highways. In addition,
the proposal will require an amendment to the original conditions
of approval for the Marketplace and the conditions imposed as part
of the garden center expansion, both of which specifically prohibit
outdoor display of merchandise. The proposed modifications also
required Planning Commission review and approval pursuant to
Section 3.12.2 of the East Tustin Specific Plan.
The proposed use of the area under the building canopy for outside
display is a logical location for merchandise and consistent with
locations previously approved for temporary sidewalk sales. The
merchandise would be partially screened by the building pillars and
would be limited to the specific areas shown on the plan by
pavement markings.
The Planning Commission was concerned that the continual display of
products outside of the store will detract from the orderly
appearance of the project and may set a precedence for other
business desiring outside displays. There was also a concern that
the merchandise will extend beyond the limits shown on the plans
and may encroach into pedestrian walkways, further impacting
City Council Report
Appeal of DR 95-006
July 3, 1995
Page 4
traffic circulation in front of the store as has been the case in
the past. The outdoor displays add a certain degree of congestion
and confusion to the front of the store and vehicular driveways.
The Planning Commission Resolution No. 3358 included conditions of
approval to address these concerns.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL APPEALED
There was no representative for The Home Depot at the May 22, 1995
Planning COmmission meeting to address the concerns of the Planning
Commission. A representative from Donahue Schriber, the property
management company, stated that they believed that the proposed
conditions of approval were acceptable to The Home Depot. Prior to
the Planning Commission meeting staff was told by the applicant's
representative, Greenberg Farrow, that the proposed conditions were
acceptable. The applicant has appealed five of the Conditions of
Approval of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3358 as discussed
below. '
Condition'Nos. 1.4 and 3.4: .
"1.4 The applicant and property owner shall sign and return an
"Agreement to Conditions Imposed"' form prior to issuance
of building permits. In addition, a separate agreement
shall be executed' by the applicant, subject to City
Attorney approval, acknowledging and accepting the
requirements stated in Condition 3.4 below."
"3.4 The Home Depotshall reimburse the City for all costs
incurred by the City, including all reasonable attorney's
fees, in enforcing the provisions of the subject Design
Review. In the event there is a violation, the City may
also require The Home Depot to post a cash bond in the
amount of $10,000 to cover costs of enforcement. Prior
to issuance of a building permit, The Home Depot shall
sign a separate agreement evidencing its consent to this
condition."
ADDlicant's Arquments - The applicant believes that the requirement
for a separate agreement under Condition 1.4 is not necessary and
that this is an unreasonable condition. They feel that the type of
financial requirement imposed by Condition 3.4 is not necessary
since the City has the authority to revoke the Design Review
approval and the approval is temporary.
City Council Report
Appeal of DR 95-006
July 3, 1995
Page 5
Response - The City Attorney suggested that a separate agreement
and cash deposit would be appropriate in this particular case, in
response to the continual code enforcement issues and the
applicant's lack of Compliance with previous conditions of approval
related to outdoor displays. They have operated outdoor sales for
several years in .violation of the ETSP regulations and the
conditions of approval for the Marketplace. Should the applicant
not comply with the conditions, the only other ~ption would be for
the City to issue citations and pursue litigati°h both of which are
costly and time consuming. There is no other speedy remedy if the
applicant continues to violate conditions of approval. As long as
the conditions are met, the requirement for a cash deposit is not
triggered.
Staff has further discussed this requirement with the City Attorney
who continues to believe that a separate agreement and ability to
request a cash deposit are appropriate in light of previous code
enforcement violations and noncompliance with conditions of
approval.
Condition No. 2.1E:
"A physical barrier (of a decorative design) shall be
installed at the eastern edge of the display areas located
under the building canopy, between the pillars, to prevent the
merchandise from extending into the walkways. The plans shall
indicate the design, color and location of these barriers,
which shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department."
Applicant's Arquments - The applicant believes that any type of
physical barrier will defeat the purpose of outdoor merchandising
by preventing the public from easily accessing the products. They
also believe that a physical barrier is not necessary for defining
the allowable sales area, as the merchandise "can be completely
contained by a painted area on the sidewalks" and store employees
would be able "to police those limits on a continual basis".
Response - This condition was intended to address the concern that
the location of the outside display areas are not well defined and
have previously blocked pedestrian walkways and interfered with
traffic circulation. A decorative physical barrier between the
existing building pillars will help res~ric~ the merchandise, thus
ensuring that merchandise does not block pedestrian paths or
City Council Report
Appeal of DR 95-006
July 3, 1995
Page 6
vehicular driveways." Staff was suggesting the use of three-foot
tall temporary poles and a chain as a physical barrier, similar to
'what has been used in other sections of the Marketplace. This
condition could be modified to identify the specific type of
physical barrier (pole and chain).
During several site inspections over the past few weeks (the most
recent being June 20, after the Planning Commission action), staff
noted that the red stripes painted on the pavement define a much
larger area than identified on the plans (approximately 250 square
feet larger) and that the merchandise has not been contained within
the painted area. It has also been observed that merchandise
continues to be displayed to completely block the walkway, thus
forcing pedestrians onto the drive aisle.
Condition No. 3.1:
"Outdoor displays shall be limited to the weekends (Friday,
Saturday and Sunday) and may be permitted on the holiday
weekends of May 26 through 29, June 30 through July 4 and
September 1 through 4, 1995. Display areas shall be cleaned
and free of dirt and debris no later than the morning after
the weekend or holiday period."
Applicant's Arquments - The applicant believes that their outdoor
displays are necessary in order to be competitive with other home
improvement businesses in the area. They feel that the displays do
not affect the traffic congestion or circulation problems on West
Drive, and for that reason they should be allowed outdoor displays
on a continual baSis.
Response - This condition was intended to address the concern that
the outside display of merchandise on a daily basis will contribute
to a cluttered and disorganized appearance of the site and may have
a negative affect on surrounding uses. In addition, the Commission
wanted to limit the days of operation pending completion of West
Drive improvements. It was anticipated that the construction could
be finished by September and then the Commission was amenable to
reevaluating the situation. The original traffic study indicated
that the outdoor displays contribute to the traffic congestion,
either by motorists slowing to actually look at the merchandise or
from pedestrians walking into the drive aisle due to walkways being
blocked by merchandise. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the
City Council Report
Appeal of DR 95-006
July 3, 1995
Page 7
applicant's traffic study and their analysis is discussed below
under Traffic and Circulation section.
Condition 3.5:
"The temporary outdoor display of merchandise is permitted
with the understanding that the property owner will actively,
diligently and expeditiously construct the necessary
improvements to West Drive and adjacent areas to satisfy the
requirements of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3174."
Applicant's Arquments - The applicant has noted that the spring and
early summer is their main marketing time and that any disruption
to West Drive would create havoc. The applicant has suggested that
an alternative solution would be to construct a left-turn pocket on
E1 Camino Real southbound to Carl's Jr. driveway as a Phase I
improvement to provide another access into the parking areas for
the Phase I development. The applicant agrees that these
improvements could be completed now without interfering with The
Home Depot operations. It is their desire that the West Drive
improvements commence after October 15.
Response - This condition was included to ensure that the property
owner would move forward soon with the West Drive improvements,
since it has been nearly three years since the traffic circulation
problems were first identified. It is not anticipated that the
proposed improvements to West Drive will be an extensive
construction project, and since the spring/summer "selling" season
is already half over, this requirement for a "diligent and
expeditious" construction is not unreasonable. There may be other
tenants within the center that would object to construction in the
Fall, since that is approaching their "Christmas Season"
Staff has discussed this condition with the City Attorney who
believes that in order to protect the public safety and ensure that
the construction not interfere with the traditional "Christmas
Season" shopping, it is important that the West Drive improvements
be completed as soon as possible, and at the very latest by
November 1, 1995.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
The Beacon Bay drive aisle has not been converted to one-way
westbound as recommended by the traffic study and required by
City Council Report
Appeal of DR 95-006
July 3, 1995
Page 8
conditions of approval for Black Angus. The City has received
plans and a draft Traffic Study from the property owner for an
alternative design solution in an attempt to satisfy the condition,
however, that application requires additional traffic information
prior to review by the Planning Commission. The draft study
continues to indicate that the outdoor sales are a contributing
factor to the traffic congestion.
In support of their appeal request, The Home Depot has prepared a
traffic study on their own initiative to show that the traffic
problems on West Drive and E1 Camino Real are not the fault of The
Home Depot and that the outdoor displays do not distract motorists
and negatively contribute to the existing traffic congestion on
West Drive and E1 Camino Real. Their traffic study is included as
Attachment C. The Engineering Division has reviewed the traffic
study and disagrees with the applicant's findings. The Engineering
Division has concluded that the major contributing factor affecting
congestion along West Drive is a combination of the large
pedestrian movements and left-turn movements in front of The Home
Depot. In addition, although the outdoor displays may not be a
major cause of traffic congestion, it is a contributing factor.
The Engineering Division believes that an additional left-turn
ingress in this area (as suggested by The Home Depot) may alleviate
some of the traffic congestion at the West Drive/E1 Camino Real
intersection, however a more comprehensive study needs to be
conducted, which the property owner is currently preparing.
Since the Planning Commission did not have the opportunity to
review the applicant's Traffic Study prior to their decision on the
outdoor displays, another option would be for the City Council to
refer this item back to the Planning Commission for review of this
new information.
CONCLUSION
Based upon the above analysis and information, the conditions of
approval being appealed were developed to address specific concerns
related to enforcement issues, traffic safety issues, and timing of
required circulation improvements in the vicinity. The Council may
also wish to refer this item back to the Planning Commission for
consideration of the Applicant's Traffic Study. As another
alternative, the Council may wish to modify Condition No. 2.1E for
further clarification of the type of physical barrier desired as
follows:
City Council Report
Appeal of DR 95,-006
July 3, 1995
Page 9
"A physical barrier shall be installed at the eastern edge of
the display areas located under the building canopy, between
the pillars, to prevent the merchandise from extending into
the walkways. This barrier shall consist of temporary poles,
approximately three feet in height, with a chain connecting
from pole to pole. The plans shall indicate the design, color
and location of this barrier, which shall be reviewed and
approved by the Community Development Department."
Staff will be prepared to provide any needed Resolution to support
the City Council's direction on this matter.
et°rn
Attachments:
Location Map
A - Planning Commission Resolution No. 3358
B - Appeal letter
C - Applicant's Traffic Study
Site Plan and Elevations
CAS: S J P: br: kl~n\DR95006, s j p
LOCATION
MAP
?
.J
×.
NO SCALE
ATTACHMENT
A
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 3358
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW 95-006, TO
APPROVE A TEMPORARY OUTDOOR SALES AREA AND MODIFY
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR THE RETAIL BUSINESS
LOCATED AT 2782 EL CAMINO REAL.
The Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. The Planning Commission finds and determines as follows:
ao
That proper applications for Design Review 95-006
were filed on behalf of The Home Depot requesting
approval of an outdoor sales area in front of The
Home Depot store located at 2782 E1 Camino Real and
to modify previously adopted conditions of
approval.
Be
Pursuant .to Section 9272 of the Tustin Municipal
Code, the Commission finds that the location, size,
architectural features and general appearance of
Design Review 95-006 will not. impair the orderly
and harmonious development of the area, the present
or future development therein, or the occupancy as
a whole. In making such findings, the Commission
has considered at least the following items:
1. Height, bulk and area of buildings.
·
·
Setbacks and site planning.
Landscaping, parking area design and traffic
circulation.
·
Location, height and standards of exterior
illumination.
·
·
Location and method of refuse storage.
Physical relationship of proposed improvements
to existing structures in the neighborhood.
·
Appearance and design relationship of proposed
improvements to existing structUres and
possible future structures in the neighborhood
and public thoroughfares.
·
Development Guidelines and criteria as adopted
by the City Council.
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
Planning commission
Resolution No. 3358
Page 2
Ce
That this project has been determined to be a minor
modification to an existing development and is
therefore categorically exempt (Class 1) pursuant
to Section 15301 of the California Environmental
Quality Act.
De
That the project has been reviewed for consistency
with the Air Quality Sub-Element of the City of
Tustin General Plan and has been determined to be
consistent or has been conditioned to be consistent
with the Air Quality Sub-Element.
Ee
That the proposed outdoor display of home
improvement materials and garden supplies is
consistent with the nature of the subject retail
business. This type of merchandise (building
materials and garden supplieS) is typically stored
and on .display in an outdoor area. The outside
display of home improvement merchandise is
consistent with the design and operation of the
business and will not establish a precedent for
other non-garden retail outdoor sales areas within
the center.
Fe
Ge
The proposed outdoor display, as conditioned, will
not have a negative impact on surrounding
properties or uses.
The display areas will be screened from view from
public streets and will be placed directly adj'acent
to the building to minimize conflicts with
pedestrian circulation.
II. The Planning Commission hereby approves Design Review 95-
006 to approve a temporary outdoor sales area on the
sidewalk for a limited time period in front of the store
located at 2782 E1 Camino Real, subject to the conditions
contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 I~
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3358
Page 3
III. Condition 3.15 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2464
is hereby amended to read as follows:
"The ~ ~porary outdoor storage and display of merchandise
is cc .tionally permitted on the sidewalk only in front
of T? tome Depot store located at 2782 E1 Camino Real.-
Said roval is permitted only on a temporary basis and
will .pire on September 4, 1995, unless the Planning
Commission approves additional time. All other tenants
are prohibited from having outdoor storage or open pallet
.storage, unless in compliance with the provisions of the
Tustin City Code and the East Tustin Specific Plan. Any
pallet storage areas shall be completely screened by an
enclosure.
IV. Condition 3.1 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3292
is hereby amended to read as follows:
"The temporary outdoor display of merchandise on the
sidewalk in front of The Home Depot store loCated at 2782
E1 Camino Real, is permitted subject to the conditions
identified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 3358.
Said approval is permitted only on a temporary basis and
will expire on September 4, 1995, unless the Planning
Commission approves additional time. The storage of
materials above the garden area perimeter wall is
prohibited. The Home Depot shall reimburse the City for
all costs incurred by the City, including all reasonable
attorney's fees, in enforcing the provisions of this
condition. In the event there is a violation, the City
may also require The Home Depot to post a cash bond in
the amount of $10,000 to cover costs of enforcement.
Prior to issuance of a building permit, The Home Depot
shall sign a separate agreement evidencing its consent to
this."
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Tustin, at a regular meeting on the 22nd day of/~ay, 1995.
~~~ ~ Chair~son
B~BA~ REYES ~
Recording SecretarY
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
28
Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3358
Page 4
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
cOUNTY OF ORANGE )
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I,.BARBARA REYES, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am
the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City
of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. 3358 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning
Commission, held on the 22nd day of May, 1995.
Recording Secretary
EXHIBIT A
DESIGN REVIEW 95-006
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 3358
GENERAL
(1) 1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the
submitted plans for the project date-stamped May 8, 1995
on file with the Community Development Department, as
herein modified, or as modified by the Director of
Community Development Department in accordance with this
Exhibit. The Director may also approve minor
modifications to the plans if such modifications .are
determined to be consistent with the approved plans.
(1) 1.2 Unless otherwise specified, the conditions contained in
this Exhibit shall be complied with prior to the issuance
of any building permits for the project, subject to
review and approval by the Community Development
Department.
(1) 1.3 Design Review approval shall become null and void unless
all building permits are issued within eighteen (18)
months of the date of this Exhibit and substantial
construction is underway.
(1) 1.4 The applicant and property owner shall Sign and return an
"Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form prior to issuance
of building permits. In addition, a separate agreement
shall be executed by the applicant, subject to City
Attorney approval, acknowledging and accepting the
requirements stated in Condition 3.4 below.
(1) 1.5 The applicant shall hold and defend the City of Tustin
harmless for all claims and liabilities arising out of
the City's approval of the entitlement process for this
project.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
SOURCE CODES
(1) STANDARD CONDITION (5) RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
(2) CEQA MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
(3) UNIFORM BUILDING CODE/S (6) -LANDSCAPING GUIDELINES
(4) DESIGN REVIEW (7) PC/CC POLICY
*** EXCEPTIONS
Exhibit A
Design Review 95-006
Conditions of Approval
Page 2
PLAN SUBMITTAL
·
(3) 2.1 At building plan check the following shall be submitted:
A®
Final -screen wall design details shall be
consistent with the site plan, and shall be
approved in writing by the property owner prior to
submittal to the City.
Be
Final construction plans shall show the exact
location of the existing garden area perimeter wall
as well as existing landscaping and any landscaping
proposed to be relocated.
Ce
The screen wall shall be reduced in height to 48
inches from finish grade, and shall be designed to
be compatible with the garden area perimeter wall.
De
The screen wall shall be located so that there is a
minimum clear distance of 48 inches provided on the
sidewalk at the top of curb ramps for disabled
access.
Ee
A physical barrier (of a decorative design) shall
be installed at .the'eastern edge of the display
areas located under the building canopy, between
the pillars, to prevent the merchandise from
extending into the walkways. The plans shall
indicate the design, color and location of these
barriers, which shall be reviewed and approved by
the Community Development Department.
Fe
The plans shall identify the type, design and
location of pavement markings proposed to define
the specific areas designated for outdoor displays.
SITE CONDITIONS
(4) 3.1 Outdoor displays shall be limited to the weekends
(Friday, Saturday and Sunday) and may be permitted on the
holiday weekends of May 26 through 29, June 30 through
July 4 and September 1 through 4, 1995. Display areas
shall be cleaned and free of dirt and debris no later
than the morning after the weekend or holiday period.
Exhibit A
Design Review 95-006
Conditions of Approval
Page 3
(4) 3.2 The outdoor display of merchandise shall be limited to
the areas designated on the plans, and shall not exceed
990 square feet in size for the area under the canopy and
behind the pillars, nor 1,400 square feet in size for the
area in front of the garden center.
(4) 3.3 There shall be no storage or display of any merchandise,
products, plant materials or promotional activities
beyond.the limits defined on the approved plans. A note
shall be added to the plans stating that outdoor storage
and display is only permitted in designated areas.
(4) 3.4 The Home Depot shall reimburse the City for all costs
incurred by the City, including all reasonable attorney's
fees, in enforcing the provisions of the subject Design
Review. In the event there is a violation, the City may
also require The Home Depot to post a cash bond in the
amount of $10,000 to cover costs of enforcement. Prior
to issuance of a building permit, The Home Depot shall
sign a separate agreement evidencing its consent to this
condition.
(4) 3.5 The temporary outdoor display of merchandise is permitted
with the understanding that the property owner will
actively, diligently and expeditiously construct the
necessary improvements to West Drive and adjacent areas
to satisfy the requirements of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 3174, or as may be modified by the
Planning Commission. Approval of Design Review 95-006
shall become null and void on September 4, 1995 and all
outdoor display of merchandise shall immediately
terminate. After September 4, 1995, the applicant may
request additional time for the outdoor display of
merchandise, for review by the Planning Commission. No
additional application fees will be required for
subsequent design review of outdoor display of
merchandise for The Home Depot.
FEES
(6) 4.1 Prior to issuance of any permits, the applicant shall pay
all applicable building plan check and permit fees to the
Community Development Department. Payment will be
required based upon the rate in effect at the time of
permit issuance and are subject to change.
ATTACHMENT
B
May 26, 1995
Sara Pashalides
City of Tustin Planning Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
RE:
The Home Depot, Tustin
Design Review #95-006
Planning Commission Resolution #3358
Dear~Sara:
o~
A R C H I T [ C T U R E
ENGINEERING
P [ A N N I N G
As per our previous discussion, this letter is written as formal request for
appeal to the conditions of approval of the above mentioned resolutions.
Condition 1.4 - "The applicant and property owner shall sign and return an
"Agreement to Conditions Imposed" form prior to issuance of building permits.
In addition, a separate agreement shall be executed by the applicant, subject
to City Attorney approval, acknowledging and accepting the requirements stated
in Condition 3.4 below."
Condition 3.4 - "The Home Depot shall reimburse the City for all costs
incurred by the City, including all reasonable attorney's fees, in enforcing
the provisions of the subject Design Review. In the event there is a
violation, the City may also require The Home Depot to post a cash bond in the
amount of $10,000 to cover costs of enforcement. Prior to issuance of a
building permit-, The Home Depot shall sign a separate agreement evidencing its
consent to this condition."
We are questiOning this Condition in two regards:
If this approval is temporary, with the Planning Commission having
'revocation privilege, why would a financial requirement be necessary?
Is this a standard City requirement, or is Home Depot the first to be
imposed with such a condition? If this is a standard, please provide a list
of other instances where this requirement has been imposed.
Condition 2.1-£ - "A physical barrier (of a decorative design) shall be
installed at the eastern edge of the display areas located under the building
canopy, between the pillars, to prevent the merchandise from extending into
the walkways. The plans shall indicate the design, color and location of
these barriers, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Community
Development Department."
We find this condition to be unacceptable on the grounds that to put any
physical barrier between the customer and the merchandise is simply poor
marketing strategy. It makes the same amount of sense as giving a child a toy
in a sealed glass box. If a customer cannot access the merchandise, they will
lose interest and walk away. We believe this condition would defeat the
purpose of the application. We strongly believe that the merchandising areas
can be completely contained by a painted area on the sidewalks. The change in
coloration would be enough to alert the store employees of the limits
available, and enable them to police those limits on a continual basis.
LARRY J. FARROW. Y, ARCHITECT
17941 FIlCH ROAD/SECOND FLOOR · IRVINE, C.-~LtFORNIA 92714 · TEL 714.833.7444 · FAX 714.833.7440
Condition 3.1 - "Outdoor displays shall be limited to the weekends (Friday,
Saturday 'and Sunday) and may be permitted on the holiday weekends of May 26
through 29, June 30 through July 4 and September I through 4, 1995. Display
areas shall be cleaned and free of dirt and debris no later than.the morning
after the weekend or holiday period.
We would like to appeal this condition on the grounds that it would make Home
Depot non-competitive with other similar merchandisers in the area. The
nature of the home improvement business has become aggressive, and requires
aggressive marketing strategies. In order to be aggressive in the market
today, Home Depot would require the ability to have outdoor merchandising
capabilities seven days a week. Again, because this approval is temporary,
the City can refuse to extend the privileges if the area is not kept in a neat
and orderly manner.
Condition 3.5 - "The temporary outdoor display of merchandise is permitted
with the understanding that the property owner will actively, diligently and
expeditiously construct the necessary improvements to West Drive and adjacent
areas to satisfy the requirements of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3174,"
We realize that it has been some considerable time since the West Drive
improvements were imposed as a condition to the approval of the Black Angus
Restaurant. We have been continually working with the Irvine Company to find
an equitable solution to these improvements, but until recently, could not in
any good conscience accept any of the proposed solutions. We believe the
solutions currently before the Commission will be acceptable to all, and
greatly encourage their implementation. However, we must object to the
"diligently and expeditiously" verbiage. The spring and early summer are the
main marketing time for The Home Depot. It is, in essence, their 'Christmas
Season' To have the West Drive entrance to the Home Depot parking lot
disruptJd at this time would create havoc, adding to what is already our
mutual cause of concern.
We would propose the following solution. The required improvements are to
include a left turn lane from E1 Camino northbound at the drive adjacent to
the Carl's Jr. restaurant. If this turn lane were to be Phase I of the
improvement plans, it would enable Home Depot customers to easily maintain
access to the site while Phase II (the West Drive improvements) is compl~eted.
We would also like to request that work on West Drive itself not begin until
October 15, so as to not interfere wi th Home Depot's main selling season. We
would be very happy to cooperate with any work that can be done now that would
not interfere wi th traffic within the current curb lines.
Please find enclosed a check for $175.00 to cover the fees for filing this
appeal. If you have any questions, or need any further information please do
not hesitate to call. '
Sincerely,
Tamara Schippers Santoni
GREENBERG FARROW ARCHITECTURE
CC:
Jeff Nichols, Home Depot Real Estate
Steve Kamp, Home Depot Store Manager
Frank Coda, GFA
ATTACHMENT
c
June 15, 1995
Sara Pashalides
City of Tustin Planning Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
RE'
The Home Depot, Tustin
Design Review #95-006
Planning Commission Resolution #3358
o
o
ARCHITECTURE
I~ N G I N E E R I N C;
P L A N N I N C~
i
... :.-.:::i:. ~,.~ .... :;- .....
Dear Sara-
Please find enclosed a copy of KHR's analysis the Kaku Associates Traffic
Study of the above mentioned property. We believe that this analysis will
verify our opinion that outdoor sales will not compound the existing traffic
congestion on West Drive in front of the Home Depot as you have referred to in
your Report to the Planning Commission dated April 24, 1995. We have asked
Jim Kawamura to do further studies of the area and are enclosing his results
as well. We acknowledge that this is a busy area, but it is not wholly due to
Home Depot customer traffic. As this analysis will show, only 60 to 65
percent of the traffic coming through this intersection can be attributed to
Home Depot. We strongly believe that this analysis supports our proposal for
a left turn lane off E1Camino Real at the Carl's Jr. location. This would
potentially divert 35 to 40 percent of existing traffic away from the West
Drive parking lot entrance, and away from the front of the Home Depot store.
We also believe there is potential for an even greater diversion as Home Depot
customers will also choose to use the secondary access. We believe that this
analysis also shows that there is little difference between the amount of
traffic on weekends (with outdoor display) and the amount on weekdays (without
outdoor display). Therefore, we would like to again request outdoor sales
seven days a week. Please feel free to call either me or Jim Kawamura with
any question you may have as to how we have reached these conclusions.
Sincerely,
Tamara Schippers Santoni
GREENBERG FARROW ARCHITECTURE
cc- Jeff Nich61s, Home Depot
Debbie Frost, Tustin Marketplace
c' wp60~ 1 etters\95067.002
LARRY l- FARROW, ARCHITECI
17941 FITCH ROAD/SECOND FLOOR · I'RVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 · TEL 714.833.7444 · FAX 714.833.7440
KIIR ASSOCITES
POI
brand fax transmittal me~no 7671t-~!.°~ pr.~" ~.
i .
To:
Fmc:
D~e:
l~ubject:
M r. Jeff Nichols, The Home Depot, U.S.A.
Jam~ H. Kawamum, I(Hl~ A~toclat~s
Pha~e I and S~ ~lla~ T~fin Ma~ ~ S~p~men~l Traffic S~dy
{May t995} by Kaku A~i~s
Per your request, KHR Assoclate~ has reviewed and evaluated the "Phase I and South
Village Tustin Market Place Supplemental Traffic Study," dated May 1995, and prepared by
Kaku Associates for the Irvine Retail Properties Company. The following observations and
recommendations are made:
1) In their July 1993 franc study for the Black Angus restaurant. Kaku Associates identified
vadous traffic-related improvemenls for the East Drive end Wes[ Drive entrance.~ into the
Tu$fin Market Place. Of the several initial and interim improvements identified by Kaku
Associates for West Drive, only the interim closure of the "first driveway" (i.e., first parking
aisle lateral to Wast Drive and south of El Camino Real) has been accomplished as of
May 1995. (Nora: as referencad in this memorandum, El Camino Real is assumed to run
east. west and East Drive and West Drive are assumed to run norlh.south.)
2) The closure of the first driveway through the use of planter boxes has .proven to be of
benefit to traffic flow on West Drive, Thus, this closure should now be designed and
constructed as a permanent feature.
3) With the permanent closure of the first driveway, the adjacent parking ama should be
permanently recontigumd and consbt~ed.
4) The widening of Wast Drive t~ accommodate two outbound lanes to tho"second driveway'
(i.e., second parking aisle lateral to West Drive and south of El Camino Real) and
increasing th~ radius of the southeast corner of West Drive/FI Camino Real should be
implementedas specified by Kaku A~ates in the July 't993 traffic study. In the subject
supplemental traffic study, only the widening of West Drive to accommodate two outbound
lanes is proposed.
5) Tho comments by Kaku AssocJ~tes regarding the Home Depot's "sidewalk sales" do not
establish a clear relationship bebveen Home Depot's use of the outside storefront area
and congestion problems along West Drive.
The Home Depot's use of th~ storefront area for the outside display of merchandise and
other store-related activities have be=an purpoded to be a major cause of congestion along
R=96% 714 756 6440 06-14-95 03:21PM P001 548
714 6440 KHR ASSOCITES P02
West Drive. Unfortunstely, while such activities may confl'ibute to some of the cont3esfion
problems, it is our observation that the overall significance of these activities is minor.
Problems occur only when mercha~i~ and pedestrian traffic encroach onto the vehicu-
lar path of West Drive - as may occur in front of the outside entrance to the garden center.
Otherwise, storefront ama activities go unnoticed as drivers am more concerned with the
movements of other vehicles and pedestrian cross traffic. Therefore, the elimination or
curtailment of storefront area activities will not alleviate traffic congestion problems in front
of the Home DepoL
The congestion problems along West Drive in front of the Home Depot are caused
prim~ily by the high volume of traffic on Wect Dr~ve coupled with the numerous conflic~
that arise, between vehicular and peCles~an f~affic. Most of delay to I~a~ic flow on We~t
Drive results from left turning vehicles et the each of the parking ai~le~ in f~or~t of Home
Depot and the heavy psdestrian cross traffic. Therefore. altertlafives to reduce trafr~ on
Wes[ DHve should be explored.
Traffic counts taken at the Intersection of West Drive and El Camino Real indicate that
the westbound lee turn (i.e., westbound [] ~C~ino Re~l to ~u~und West Drive) is a
heaviest of all intersection turn rnoveme~ts..Therefore, ar~ additional point of leR turn
ingress from El Camino Real into the Tustin Market Place (between West Drive and East
Drive) should help alleviate tmfr= congestion on West D~ive and improve traffic signal
operations at Ihs West Drive/El Camino Real ir~tersection. An ideal location for this
addifiortal point of lef[ turn ingress is at the existing right turn i~/out only driveway adjacent
to the Cart's Jr. restauranL This driveway appears to be lightly used at present, but could
serve as a convenient alternative to both East Drive arid West Drive if ingress only lee
tums were per,niXed fn3m El Camino Real.
8) In order to def~rnine the percentage of vehicular traffic on West Drive gc=nerated by the
Home Depot, itis recommended that traffic counts be taken along West Drive at all parking
aisles servicing Home Depot customers.
If there are any questions regarding our review and evaluatior~ of Kaku Associates' "Phase
I and South Village Tustin Market Place Supplemental Tm~c Study," please contact me at
your convenience at (714) 756-6440.
cc: Ms. Tam Santoni, Gmenberg Farrow Architecture
rna mo.chp~word~nemos~n-hd-tus.doc
R=96% 714 756 6440 06-14-95 03:217M P002 ~48
714 75 ~0
Mr. Jeff Nichols
The Home DepoL U.S.A.
60i South Placentia Ave~uo
Fullerton, California 9265i
~! 3,4"J ~ ~. ~ 400 - I,,,t~, G. li;o~l~ 027~ ~ ~t4) 7S~. F~ ~t4) 7~6~-~
_.
June ~ 3, 19~ P~-E' ~and ,~ transmi,al memo 7~ j~ ef~a~ ~ .....
Dear Mr. Nichols:
In a R/lay 19, t995 memorandum to you, KHR A~;s~ia~ provided commenr[$ on Kaku
Associ~s' "Phase I and South Village Tustin Market Place Supplemental Traffic Study," dated
May 1995 (prepared for the Irvine Retail Properties CompanY). As a follow-up, ii was
recommended that traf/ic counts be taken in order to de~rtnine the perc~mtagie of vehicular
traffic on West Drive generate-od by the Home Depot versus Tustin Market Place genm'a~ed
traffic.
As authorized by the Ho~na Depot, KHR Associa~s conducted tr~affic counts a~ ~e I~ons
depi~ in Rg~e 1 on Ju~ 6 1~5 (a Tuesd~) and J~e 10, 1~5 (a ~turday), ~een
~ hours of 4:~ end ~:20 P.~. ~ 1:~ P.~. and 2:~ P.M., res~ely. The d~y:
houm s~l~t~ f~ ~ ~a~ ~~ ~esp~d io ~e ~ys ~d ~um ~ ~aEic ~s ~e
~en by Kaku Asides ~"Ph~ I a~ ~ ~llage Tusfln Manet Pla~ ~l~en~l
Traffic S~." The msul~ ~ ~e~ ~fic ~n~ =e ~b~at~ in ~min~ i~mmen~ in
~ibi~ A a~ B (we~day and S~rday, res~v~).
The following re~omsents our interpretation of these traffic counts and the findinl3s based on
these interpretations.
WEEKDAY TRAFFIC
Between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 P.M., ih~ ~ hour of weekday ~fiemoon ~a~c.
generation was cLaflarrninod by KaEu Associa[es to b~ ~:30 to ~:30 P.M.
Traffic counts t~k~n by Krrit~ ~s~;ooiata~ on Tuesday, Ju~ 6, 1995 be~n ~e ~urs of 4:30
' and 5:~ P.~. ro~e~ typi~l ~kday p~ak hour ~1c generated by ~e Home ~pot and ~
Tusfin Manet Place as a ~olo. ~o~e t~c ~um~ do~ly co~es~nd to ~a~c ~unts taken
by K~u A~odates on Thursday ApHI 13, 1995, and indi~te ~at vehicular tra~ on We~t
R=95% 714 756 6440 06-I4-95 04: 19PTA F0:i! ;C05
714
644O
--.~.~.~ -
KER ASSOCITES
--
PO2
t~tr. Jeff Nichol~
June 13, 'i og5
_Page TWo
Drive in front of the Home Depot is comprised of appro×im~ely 6~% Home Depot oer~ra~ed
traffic and 36% other Tustin Market Place generated ttafrm. During this weekday peak hour,
a tot~ of 471 p,3des~ians cro~ Wesi Drtve ooing to or from th~ Home Depot.
SATURDAY TRAFFIC
Be[ween the hours o~ 12:00 end 2:00 P.i~.. the peak hour of S. aflJrday t~a~fic {;~neration was
determined by Kaku Associates to be l:00 to 2:00 P.M.
Tm~c counts taken by KH~[ ~',~cla~ on Ssk~rday, June ~ O, ~ 995 ~~n ih~ h~?s of
1:00 a~ 2:~ P.~. re~ ~ ~rday ~ak h~ ~c O~n~ by ~e H~
and ~ Tusfin Me.et ~a~ ~ a ~e. T~o ~e ~un~ elo~ly ~rm~p~d ~ tm~c
~u~ ~k~ by Kaku Ass~~ ~ ~tday ~dl ~5. 1~, and i~di~ ~at veh~l~ tm~c
on ~st DHve in ~ont o~ t~ H~e ~t is ~m~d of a~ro~a~ly 60% Hoh~e De~t
~mt~ ba~c and ~% ~r Tus6n ~e~ Pi~ ~m~d ~c. Dudng ~is ~turday
~ak h~r, a ~1 of ~6 ~~s cm~ ~st ~ve g~ ~ or ~m ~e Home Dept.
The above data suggest that, if ~raffic congestion problems on West Drive in ~or~ of the Home
Depot are directly related to volume of imfiic genersted on West Ddvo. 60 to 65 perc~n/b~ We
congestion problem is a~butsble to Home Depot paiw~ md 35 to 40 percent of ibc
~ongestion problem is attribut~le to other Tus§n Mark~ Place par'one. Thu.~. if oi~er-Tusfin
Market Place generated traffic were reduc~ or ~lirninated on Wr~si Drive in front of ire Hom~
Depot, con.etlon problems c~uld b~ r'*,~:luc~ to 60 to 65 p~rcen[ of cunrent: i~vels.
The volume of pedes~ian cross traffic in fronl of the Home Depo~ is extremely high. Based on
the ratio of pedestrian io vcohicular traffic 13ena~ed by the Ho~e Dept. [he vehicle. ~upancy
rate for Home Depot patrons is eetirna[eg to be approximately 2.5 occupants per whicle
weekdays and 1.IS occupants par vehicle on SaflJrday.
As nord in rr~e k/lay t9. 'i995 ~amor~durn. h~vy pedestrian ~oss ~a~o is a majo~ ~use
of congestion on West Drive. On the other hand. p~sltiari a~vi~/along ihe s~orefront (i.e..
parallel to West Drive) does not appear to have any significant affect on the movement of
vehicular tra~c immc=~i ,laity in front of the Home Depot
IN CLOSING
The ubove inte~pr~tion of i, ra~c data surge=si that additional ingress to th~ TusBn Market
Place (i.e., other than at We~t D~ive) co~ld all~,viaib tmfiic co~g~stio~ on W~st Ddve In fcont
of th~ Home Depot. Ag ~adier suog~ted, a left turn in only m~,diA~i opening betw6~n West
Ddv~ ~nd E~st Ddva, at tha Cad'~ Jr. rco~urant driveway i~ one possible tocaiion for additional
ingr~ t~ th~ Turn Market Piace.
R=93% 7!4 ?56 6440 06-14-95 04: lgPM PO02 ~:05
714 7, 140 KI4R ASSOCITES P03
LOADING
DOCK
GARDEN
CENTER
PEDESTRIAN
LANE I
LANE 2
LANE
LANE 4
THE HOME DEPOT
MAIN BUILDING
~IGUtRE i
THE HOME DEPOT AT TUSTIN MARKET PLACE
TURN MOVEMENT COUNT LOCATIONS
LANE 5
LANE 6
SOUTHBOUND THROUGH
TP-,A Ni~ORTATION/ENVIROHMENrT'AL/URBAN SYSTELIS
3347 I¢,,cr,;!~¢~. C¢;.~a, ~i~a 4g0 ,. r.,.ba. ~!ifo'a~a 92716 ,. t~41 76§-§410
.
R=95% 7t4 756 6440 06-i4-95 04' 19PM P003 ~05
'~ 71~ '~ 6440 I~IR ASSOCITES P04
Mr, Jeff Nichols
June 13, ~1995
_P_-_a.§e Thr~e
The above ~ alu sugg~t~ ~nat ~~i~n ~oss ~c is a pdma~ ~use of v~i~ar im~c
~n~s~on on West ~o in ~nt of~e Ho~ ~[ M~asures to dir~ a~ ~ffol ~es~an
~oss tr~c ~h~d ~ explored. Painted ~oss~l~s m~y ~ on~ s~u~on ~ ~n~eli~"
~~an ~a~c ~ dssion~ ~o~inoS.
If thara ara any questions or concerns reg-~rdinf3 ~he data s~qd/or conclusions reachsd in this
report, please cio not ~~ to call me ~ your convenie~ ai C7~i4) 758-6440.
Sincerely ~/ours,
Iq.
Pro~idont
cc: Ms. Tam Santoni, Greenberg Farrow Amhi~ec~ure
letters, chp~word~le~ars~l-hd-tus.doe
R=95~ 714 756 5440 06-14-95 04: 19P~ PO04 ~05
Exhibit A
~ ASSOCIATES
TURN MOVEMENT COUNT SUMMARY
Project:
Location:
intersection:
Count Date:
The Home Depot
Tustin Market Place ('Tu$fin, California)
West Drive/Home Depot Parking Lanes
6/6/I 995 Day: Tuesday
P.M. Count Period:
Field Count ,By:
Data Input By:
4.:30 to, ,,5j30 PM
_
G. Urbie/C. Lohrrn~n
C. Lohrman
........ Lane t ~,r,e 2 " Lane 3 '" Time Period
i i iii il ii ii
Time In out In out In Out Totals
Period "Left Right 'Left Rig'h~ Left Right Left Right Left Right Left "Right In Out
4:30 to 4:45 PM 12 2 3 10 8 1 I 9 5 2 0 8 30 31
4:45 to 5:00 PM 14 2 2 16 17 0 0 9 7 2 1 5 42 33
5:00 to 5:15 PM 14 0 I 13 8 0 0 5 10 I 0 4 33 23
,
5:15 to ~:30 PM g 1 O 10 17 1 0 8 12 0 2 10 40. 30
In vs. OutTotals 54 55 52 32 ' 39 30 145 1 17
i ii i i i ii
In & Out Combined 109 84 69 262
i ,i i ii .~ i i
........... Lane 4. .... Lane ~ "Lene 6 Tim~' Period
Time "i~ Out ..... In Out In ' Out Totals
-P. eriod 'Left Righ_t Left Right Left Rig,hr,, Lift Right Left Right "Left Righ,,t In Out
4:30 to 4:45 PM 4 I 0 0 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 I 10 4
, , ,,
4:45 tO 5:00 PM 9 1 1 .., 3 0 1 0 7 0 0. 0 1 11 ,,,12
5:00 to 5:15 PM 7 ' 0 0 1 2 0 0 5 0 0 0 1' 9 7
5:15 to 5:30 PM 3 3 I 5 2 0 ,,, 0 6 2 0 1 1 10 14
.. .
In vs. Out Tolals 28 11 10. 21 2 5 40 37
In & Out Combined 39 31 7 77
,1,1
i iiiiii i i i _ii i
Time Through Traffic % o1
Period Northbound Soulldbo~nd Through Totals Total Count'
4:30 tO 4:45 PM 22* 16 38 33.63
4:45 [o 5:00 PM 27 22 49 33.33
,,
,,
5:00 to 5:15 PM 31 24 55 43.31
5:15 to 5:30 PM 26 22 48 33.80
I I I
ii
Time No. of
Period Peaestrians
4:30 tO 4:45 PM 138
, , ,
4:45 to 5:00 PM 117
, ,~
5:00 to 5:15 PM 103
5:15 to 5:30 PM 113
, ,
Pea, k Hour Totals I 47.1
Percent of Through Versus Home Depot In & Out Traffic
714,' ~ 6'440 KHR ASSOCITES
PO6
~ ASSOCIATE~
ProJecfc The Home Depot P.M. Count Period:
Location: Tus_..tj_9 Market Place (Tustin_,_.California) Field Count By:
Intersection: West Drive/Home Depot Parking Lanes Data Input By:
Count Daie: 611011995 Day: .Saturday_._._._
1:00 to 2:00 PM
L.Nicolas/G. Urbie
C. Lohrman
Period ,, ~ Left ..... 'r-i'~i- -"i~=~'l~io-I~'t' '~' '-~tiOhi ~'L~w'--[~'~'' --Le~: Ri-i~Et': Le-i~""l~R'ioht:- -'-id'-~-6~TM
1:00 to 1'15 PM 25 1 0 15 32 2 .1. 1 2 1 5 5 1 9 ....80 ·38
,, ,
__
1:15to 1:30PM 22 0 _ 2 ..... ._1.9 29 3 _2 16 ..... 2.1_ .... 4_ . 3__ 1,2. ..79. 54__
,..
l:30to l:45PM 21 0 I 24 26 I 2 18._ 13 I__~ .... 2 13 62 60_
, ,
1:45 to 2:00 PM 19 2 1 22 19 2 I 14 14 2 1 14 58 53
In vs.OutTomls 90 84 114 ] 66 75 55 279 205
_
~ ~ i ~ 0 U~..~.0~ ~2~~ ...... 174 1 80 130 .... 484
Time l~ mn ~ Out I in 1 out ,, l. I out m
,.,o~ )~ ~-~ i'm~i .... L'~'"i-~i"~' i"[~-7~6'~: --L[~q'"i~t" L~?i-~i,~ L~-i-,6U) i~""'~'("Sj
.... i~ ..... , ~ ' ............................................................................. ~m' 'l ............. ~ ..... m
1:00to 1:15PM 11 2 1 ,[ 8 4 _..2 1 ~ 5 4 ~ , 0._i__~3 ...24
1:15 to 1:30 PM 9 4 2 10 3 2 2 3 3 0 2 1 21 20
1:30to 1:45PM 12 2 3 8 5 I 0 5 2 2 0 [ ..... ~.124 20
l:45 to 2:00 PM 4 2 1 9 3 ,, ] _ ~ .... 17 18
,,, ~ ~: ._ ~: ,. ........ : ,~
In rs. Out To~l$ 46 42 23 22 17 12 86 76
In & Out Combin~ 45
,., ........ ..-- w ..... --~ .... , .~ ............................ -.~ ..... . ........ . ......... - ..............................
Time Throu0h Traffic % of
....... --~--, - - .~ .... ~ ...... --T- ..... ~-~- ........
Period North =bo~,.n~___ ...... S__~..nd__bo~_nd _.~Thr~o_ugh.T_O.~_is__ ._ .__T.o..,tafl__C.~oun~,._
:OOto I:15PM 64 47 111 . 40.96.
· 15 to 1:30 PM 52 42...- . 94 3~_.07
...
.__.
· 30 to 1:45 PM 65 52 a,! 7._, _41.34 _.
,, ....
,
:45 to 2:00 PM 64 44 108 42.52
' Tithe [ No. of
l
1:oo to 1:15 PM 141
,, - .,. ,
1:15 ~o i:30 PM 139
....
1:30 to 1:45 PM 143
1:45 to 2:00 PM 122
_ _,! 545
~ Percen~ of Through Versus Home Depo[ In & Out Trafiic
R=96% 714 75f, 6440 06-14-95 04: 19PM PO06
I ITTITI I~~l
!
!
r'l ' J
:1'-
. m Ilmll mil i i iml~
~, ·
! E3
t i---i---i .... ; ..... i ~
"1 I I I I
' ' ' I .... ! .....
I I ., I r l
I. I I l
!
~ ........ ~ ......
I
The
.....
[5 ?
I