Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 2 CUP 91-01 VAR 91-08 6-3-91p a Vii' p•,�1r ma r` � �' PUBLIC HEARING N0. 2 6-3-91 f JUNE 31 1991 j n t e. r- C O ni f �� TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANGER FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT S U 6JEOT.- APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-01 AND VARIANCE 91-08 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's action by adopting Resolution No. 91-78. BACKGROUND On April 22, 1991, the Planning Commission opened a public hearing and received testimony concerning Conditional Use Permit 91-01 and Variance 91-08 for the property located at 135 South Prospect Avenue. The subject proposal requested the authorization to establish a tire sales and service business in an existing building with related site improvements. These improvements also required the applicant. to seek authorization for a variance to deviate from the parking requirements in various portions of the site. Both of these requests were denied by the Planning Commission. A copy of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2906 is included. On May 14, 1991, the Community Development Department received an appeal request from the applicant, Steve Paquette. A copy is provided as Attachment G. Consequently, in accordance with Section 92941 et seq of the City Code, a public hearing and notice identifying the proposed location and time of the hearing was published in the Tustin News. Property owners within 300 feet of the site were also notified by mail and notices were posted on the property, City Hall and the Police Department. The applicant was informed of the availability of a staff report on this matter. DISCUSSION Project Description Submitted plans propose to utilize the existing 41000 -square foot storage building located on the southeast portion of the site to accommodate four service bays, an area designated for tire repair and balancing, tire storage areas and a customer waiting area for City Council Report CUP 91-01, Var 91-08 June 3, 1991 Page 2 the proposed use. In order to accommodate the proposed use, minor alterations to the building's interior -will be required; however, no additional building square footage is proposed to be constructed. The changes to the building's exterior are also minor and include the use of a color palette similar to the car wash site to the east. Other improvements to the site include rehabilitating the existing parking lot in order to'bring the property into closer conformance with the City standards. Improvements include restriping and the addition of decorative paving materials at the driveways. The parking lot will provide a total of 21 parking stalls of which 14 are standard, 8 are compact and 1 is handicap. However, the approval of a variance to deviate from the parking lot development standards would be required (see discussion below). Included in the improvements to the parking lot area are landscape and hardscape elements. Landscape areas will be provided along the parking lot perimeter; however, specific plant materials have yet to be identified and would be required to conform to the landscape requirements of the First Street Specific Plan. Additional landscaping will be provided along the southwest portion of the site adjacent to Prospect Avenue providing a focal point to the customer waiting area entrance. An arbor -entry, trellis structure is also proposed for this area; further identifying the customer entrance point. Use Appropriateness! General Pursuant to Section 9291 et seq, of the City Code, consideration of the proposed use of the site for a tire sales and service use requires that a positive finding be made that the proposed use would not, under the circumstances, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the proposed use and that the proposed use would not be detrimental to property and ovements in the neighborhood or general welfare of the City. ThePlanningCommission was unable to make this required finding. The following discussion is provided for the City Council's consideration of the appeal of this action. The approval of a Conditional Use Permit application is a discretionary action which entails consideration for the appropriateness of the use, not necessarily the approval of a use that is then subject to conditions. In general, automotive uses are associated with negative impacts to a community related to the City Council Report CUP 91-01, Var 91-08 June 3, 1991 Page 3 noise generated by the operations; and the unsightly appearance of the business, due to the need to store vehicles that are either waiting to be serviced or are waiting to be retrieved by customers. These impacts were noted by staff as a result of field observation Of similar automotive service operations. In order to evaluate the intensity of the proposed use, staff surveyed similar automotive service businesses and found that a typical customer prefers to drop off their vehicle anywhere from half a day to a full day for servicing rather than wait at the site. As indicated by the applicant in their correspondence provided as Attachment F, a tire service business can serve between 30 and 60 customers in a day. This estimate was also verified by staff by surveying two established tire service businesses. Consequently, if between 30 and 60 customers prefer to leave their cars rather than wait for servicing, a resultant negative impact to adjacent properties results. The reason for this is based upon the need to store the vehicles; and it has been observed in the field, that many existing establishments have parking overflow problems. The parking overflow results in use of the adjacent streets or parking lot areas, thereby negatively impacting other businesses or residences that abut those streets. Use Appropriateness: Site Specific Based upon the above discussion of how the proposed use in general maintains negative impacts, staffhas prepared the following analysis of how this use would be inappropriate for the subject site. Many of these concerns were also expressed by the Planning Commission. The subject site, due to its inadequate size, shape and configuration, is unable to accommodate theproposed automotive use with the existing medical/professional office use without creating major interface issues both on-site and off-site. The reason fo this is based upon a review of the submitted plans, field observation of the site and field observation of adjacent properties and streets. The following items were identified as having a detrimental effect on the current use, which will remain on the site, and to the neighboring properties: ° The submitted plans indicate that one of the site access points will be taken from First Street. The proposed relocation 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 City Council Report CUP 91-01, Var 91-08 June 3, 1991 Page 4 also indicate that the location of parking space #1, which parallels the driveway, is to be within three feet of the subject parcel's north property line. The Engineering Department recommends that a minimum site -distance triangle of 20feet, measured from the curb face, be provided at a driveway entrance; and that no structure be permitted in this area that would obstruct a driver's sight. Although a vehicle parked in parking space #1 would not be considered a permanent structure, a vehicle parked at this location would potentially obstruct the view of motorist prepared to exit at the sidewalk along First Street, thereby resulting in a concern for the safety of a pedestrian. The Level of Service Rating for First Street has been documented to be operating at "C . " The peak hours for traffic has been confirmed by the City Engineer to be between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. Based upon the general customer routine discussed previously, the proposed use at this rate would be contributing to the peak traffic hours as 30 to 60 customers would most likely drop off and pick-up their vehicles during these times. The Planning Commission stated that they have observed a traffic back-up problem on First Street, which is most often a result of the location of the Post Office. The Commission expressed a concern that the back-up, created by the Post Office, would block the ingress/egress to the subject site at First Street; and that, because of the nature of the customers of the proposed use, an already existing negative impact would be compounded. The submitted plans also indicate a second access point to the site along Prospect Avenue. Staff has observed in the field that a customer desiring to access the subject site heading southbound on Prospect Avenue would have to make a left turn movement within the travel lane as there currently is no separate left turn pocket. Based upon the peak traffic times stated previously, an unsafe condition would result due to the stacking- of vehicles on Prospect Avenue, which may back-up into the intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue. ° While the submitted plans indicate that the proposed use would operate in a separate building, the medical/professional office building and the proposed tire service business 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 use to function harmoniously. The negative impact to the existing City Council Report CUP 91-01, Var 91-08 June 3, 1991 Page 5 uses on the site is compounded by the fact that the one 25 - foot -wide drive aisle runs between the two access driveways. Based upon the survey of the two established tire service businesses discussed previously, there is a potential for the proposed use to require utilization of the entire parking lot area. The reason for this is that if between 30 and 60 customers leave their vehicles rather than wait the amount of parking allocated to this use, which equals nine spaces, is insufficient. This results in blocked drive aisles, illegal parking and parking overflow. The service bay doors are oriented towards the existing medical/professional office building. Based upon the type of noise that will be generated by the proposed business operation combined with the fact that the vehicle servicing will be performed with the service bay doors open, it is anticipated that the noise will be disruptive rather than conducive/complimentary to an office environment. Finally, the submitted plans propose a parking lot layout that would require the approval of a variance. As proposed, the layout would result in various entrances/exits to the existing medical/professional office building being obstructed by the front end of vehicles allowed to overhang within inches of the building. This condition had to be verified in the field as the entrances/exits were not shown on the submitted plans. Use Appropriateness: First Street Specific Plan In addition to preparing an analysis of whether the proposed use would be detrimental to both on-site and off-site uses, an evaluation is required as to how the subject proposal would further the objectives of the adopted First Street Specific Plan. The following discussions are provided to summarize how the proposed use would be detrimental to future improvements in the area: ° The project site is located within what is identified in the First Street Specific Plan as Sub -Area 2 which encourages the 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 - City Council Report CUP 91-01, Var 91-08 June 3, 1991 Page 6 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. ° 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 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. ° 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. variance The applicant is requesting a variance to allow deviations from the parking development standards stated in the First Street Specific Plan. There are a total of six areas on the plan where deviations occur. These locations are depicted on Attachment D and a narrative description of each is provided in Table I included as Attachment E. The applicant's variance request concerns two requirements stated in the First Street Specific Plan: 1. That the first parking space from a property line abutting a street be setback 10 feet. - City Council Report CUP 91-01, Var 91-08 June 3, 1991 Page 7 2. That landscape areas of a five-foot width at the parking lot perimeters be provided; especially in those instances where adjacent to a building. In considering the approval of a Variance application, Section 9292 of the City Code requires two positive findings be made. The first is that the adjustment authorized will not grant a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district; and the second is that because, of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and district. As was proposed, the Planning Commission could not support the. variance as the findings could not be made for the following reasons: ° 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 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. ° The proposal includes a self-imposed hardship due to the relocation of the driveway along First Street. Not only would an approved variance grant a privilege in this case, it would also permit an unsafe condition to exist at this driveway due City Council Report CUP 91-01, Var 91-08 June 3, 1991 Page 8 to an impaired motorist view of the sidewalk area along First Street. SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INPUT During the course of the public hearing held by the Planning Commission on April 22, 1991, members of the community also offered testimony in opposition to the project. The following summarizes the comments offered by the public: ° The proposed use would detract from the unique setting, charm and convenience afforded to pedestrians in the Specific Plan area as the primary focus of the service is to automobiles. ° The subject site was considered inadequate to serve both uses simultaneously; resulting in parking impacts on surrounding streets. ° 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 it does not promote the positive characteristics considered vital to.creating a desired pedestrian ambience and a "slower pace." ° The proposed use, based upon submitted plans, cannot be accommodated on the site without the granting of a variance and no overriding condition could be identified that would justify approval of said variance. City Council Report CUP 91-01, Var 91-08 June 3, 1991 Page 9 CONCLUSION Based upon the above discussion and the Planning Commission's action on the subject proposal, it is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's action by adopting Resolution No. 91-78, thereby preserving the integrity of the goals and objectives set forth in the First Street Specific Plan. 7MTVe- Sonner Assistant Planner Christine A. Shingon Assistant City Ma ger Community Development Department Attachments: Resolution No. 91-78 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2906 A - Site Plan B - Existing Elevations C - Proposed Elevations D - Variance Request Location E - Table I F - Applicant's Correspondence G - Appeal Request 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 91-78 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2906 WHICH DENIED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-01 AND VARIANCE 91- 08 AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 135 SOUTH PROSPECT AVENUE The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: A. That an appeal was f iled by. the applicant, Stephen Paquette, requesting that the City Council reconsider Conditional Use Permit 91-01 and Variance 91-08 at the property located at 135 South Prospect Avenue. B. That a public hearing before the City Council was duly called, notified and held June 3, 1991 on the subject request. C. That pursuant to Section 9291 et seq, the 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 th neighborhood of such proposed use and will be injurious or detrimental to the property and improvements in the area evidenced by the following: 1. 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: a. The submitted plans indicate that one of the site access points will be taken from First Street. The proposed relocation 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 that the location of parking space #1, which parallels the driveway, is to be within three feet of -the subject parcel's north property line. The Engineering Department recommends that a minimum site -distance triangle of 20 feet, measured from the curb face, be provided at a 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-78 Page 2 driveway entrance; and that no structure be permitted in this area that would obstruct a driver's sight. Although a vehicle parked in parking space 11 would not be considered a permanent structure, a vehicle parked at this location would potentially obstruct the view of motorist prepared to exit at the sidewalk along First Street, thereby resulting in a concern for the safety of a pedestrian. b. The Level of Service Rating for First Street has been documented to be operating at "C." The peak hours for traffic has been confirmed by the City Engineer to be between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. *Based upon the general customer routine discussed previously, the proposed use at this rate would be contributing to the peak traffic hours as 30 to 60 customers would most likely drop off and pick-up their vehicles during these times. The Planning Commission stated that they have observed a traffic back-up problem on First Street, which is most often a result of the location of the Post Office. The Commission expressed a concern that the back-up, created by the Post Office,, would block the ingress/egress to the subject site at First Street; and that, because of the nature of the customers of the proposed use, an already existing negative impact would be compounded. C. The submitted plans also indicate a second access point to the site along Prospect Avenue. Staff has observed in the field that a customer desiring to access the subject site heading southbound on Prospect Avenue would have to make a left turn movement within the travel lane as there currently is no separate left turn pocket. Based upon the peak traffic times stated previously, an unsafe condition would result due to the stacking of vehicles on Prospect Avenue, which may back-up into the intersection of First Street and Prospect Avenue. d. While the submitted plans indicate that the proposed use would operate in a separate building, the medical/professional office 11 1: 1' 1it ' lL Jr U li 1E 15 2C 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-78 Page 3 building and the proposed tire service business 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 use to function harmoniously. The negative impact to the existing uses on the site is compounded by the fact that the one 25 -foot -wide drive aisle runs between the two access driveways. Based upon the survey of the two established tire service businesses discussed previously, there is a potential for the proposed use to require utilization of the entire parking lot area. The reason for this is that if between 30 and 60 customers leave their vehicles rather than wait, the amount of parking allocated to this use, which equals nine spaces, is insufficient. This results in blocked drive aisles, illegal parking and parking overflow. e. The service bay doors are oriented towards the existing medical/professional office building. Based upon the type of noise that will be generated by the proposed business operation combined with the fact -that the vehicle servicing will be performed with the service bay doors open, it is anticipated that the noise will be disruptive rather than conducive/complimentary to an office environment. f. The submitted plans propose a parking lot layout that would require the approval of a variance. As proposed, the layout would - result in various entrances/exits to the existing medical/professional office building being obstructed by the front end of vehicles allowed to overhang within inches of the building. This condition had to be verified in the field as the entrances/exits, were not shown on the submitted plans. 2. 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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-78 Page 4 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. b. 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 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. C. 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 10 11 12 13 14 15. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-78 Page 5 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. D. That pursuant to Section 9292 et seq, special circumstances applicable to the subject property, relative to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, do not exist; therefore, 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; and that the granting of a variance as herein provided, will constitute a grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and district in which the subject property is situated as- evidenced by the - findings: 1. 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 b right 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. 2. 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 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 91-78 Page 6 of the Development Regulations for the Specific Plan, certain allowances can be made to obtain benefits that the ' Specific Plan recommends achieving. 3. The proposal includes a self-imposed hardship due to the relocation of the driveway along First Street. Not only would an approved variance grant a privilege in this case, it would also permit an unsafe condition to exist at this driveway due to an impaired motorist view of the sidewalk area along First Street. E. That this project is Categorically Exempt (Class 1) pursuant to the provisions of Section 15301 of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The City Council hereby upholds Planning Commission Resolution No. 2906 denying Conditional Use Permit 91-01 and Variance 91- 08 at the property located at 135 South Prospect Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin at a regular meeting held on.the 3rd day of June, 1991. (Mary E. Wynn, City Clerk Charles E. Puckett, Mayor K 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 2906 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTINI 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. C. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on* .said application on April '22, 1991 and continued to May 13, 1991. D. 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: 1. 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: 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18� 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2906 Page 2 a. 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 JI, which parallels the driveway, to be within 3 feet of the subject parcel's north property line. A vehicle parked in parking stall 11, 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. b. 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. C. 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 f or the two types of uses to function harmoniously. la 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 231 24 25 26 27 28 Resolution No. 2906 Page 3 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. d. 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. e. 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 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i 19 20 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. 2. 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. b. 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 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 M 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. C. 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. 3. 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 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 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. C. 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." d. 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. E. 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: 1. 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 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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. 2. 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. 1 2 3 4 5 6 T 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19' 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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. DONALD LE JEUNE Chairman KATHLEEN CLANCY 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 i 08928 Vo •u13tn.L IL£9-I£LAIL-f£09-I£LAU onuoAV iaodoojd -S SE C 089Z6 n�l!I� • u!Knl • 3nu.^V uod^oN (ZBZi 3O1AU3S 3NVM9 13tH Nl1Sf11 Suuaautlu3 . Suiuusld . amuan!y»y UV3A000J Sl --)3W 3HV, I r :posodoid MNN99- l3 NOQ 16- HSVAAWYO JHUSIX3 ---- r j 9 - s ZA j - s - U V "•C uJ • ` i jl��i y < .h moi. q� -` `� _ r . u ~ CDO 1 S 2 e_3`.. ` eV SE' is =o• ° i — - — _< .« �'° u - s - U V "•C • ` i jl��i y < .h moi. q� -` `� _ r . u ~ r ' = ` i e_3`.. ` eV SE' is =o• ° i — - — _< .« �'° _ 01 1 ' � u . `�" c Q _ _ o • ° a 4 0 . tiu `u o - - - W r r r r r r r u W - _ _ . ..-` �a _ � r .. _ aoaao®aao®oaooaaoaa o o• g` 3 -° r F— Z SW TL i U Q o89b6 Vo 'ullsnl lL£9-t£LML•(£09-tUAlL *nu.Ay 1390%Wd 'S SC &t 099M t!U-Pig:) • u!—I • MuaAV uOd-ON lZ9Zl 33IAH3S 3)IVUS v 3uu Nusni Buu3w}8u3 • 8uluueld • am»»!y»y tiV3 Pa00Josodoj a J-UN�J13-� LV! 0-4 1 m w z U Q '= - mass - I MOMiMOOMMMINE =i m w z U Q r o99b6 V3'ulisul uo-[£LML•££09-i£L/:IL anuawr loodsOJd 'S S£ L 099Z6 giu-p.ih • uj—.L • —aW uod-%aN iZBZi 331AH3S 3NVUS T 3Ull NI1Sf11 guuaau1Su3 . 8uluueld • alRl237ly3lr HV3A000J snialmuy A :posodoLd MNIN39 31NDa Y = Sze *lk L Y = G 21 Y i ! p..1 W s a v a• — -- 1 _ _ O fW: S WO 3a a. tu 0 0 0 0 u W 0 W > F- W J ; OIx W I ccN 5 m Ix o mf i I � u Q r O I W o ,l Q: IL II 00 Z a i I 0 1;1 Z O I W W o If ' W W d v \ : J o UJ ,u a F- o s u N p W dcc 6W F - Z W 2 U Q Q 6�iiiiii 1 099Z6 vo lu14sn1 -(CMICLIOL 08M tIUMMIC3 U!Isnl - 3nuJlW uod--3N tZStj enu*AV I*od*oJd *S SC & - 2utmau8u3 2utuueld - aimmulwy 301AH3S 3NVUS T 3!!11 Nusm SL-MH3HV - HV3AGOO :p000do9 id JA3NN39-AgINOO 1&1. 331- NSYMMY3 VNIISIX3 ltry (9 ve kN I m ul Ul eNw 2 0 to x co 1: e Q) Li irrip 3 0 co - 3nN3AV 103dSOUd 1411 O L r (f) Z 0 0 .j F- CD w 8 cc w Z Z w i x c *c fj) w t z E z > n - - - - ...... .... 61J. . . . . . Z . . . jr z z I I Z g Z (.7 w w z W >1 L r (f) Z 0 0 .j F- CD w 8 cc w Z Z w i LOCATION REQUIRED SETBACK A. .10 feet landscape area B 5 foot perimeter landscape area C 5 foot perimeter landscape area D 5 foot perimeter landscape area E 10 feet landscape area F 5 foot perimeter landscape area. TTACHMENT E TABLE I REQUEST ISSUES 7 foot encroachment 1_ Insensitive location - resulting in 3 foot for a handicap space landscape area due to potentially awkward access. 2. Imbalanced project entrance appearance at the driveway due to differing landscape area widths. 2.5 foot encroa6liment 1. Portions of building resulting in 2.5 foot or less landscape area project into space 114 overhang area. 2. Ground -mounted a/c unit projecting into space 115 overhang area. 3. Steps projecting into space 119 overhang area. 2.5 foot encroachment 1. Ground -mounted a/c unit resulting in 2.5 foot projecting into space or less landscape area 119 and 120 overhang area. 3 foot encroachment resulting in 2.5 foot 1. The applicant's proposal or less landscape area to relocate the driveway access is causing this deviation. This is a self-imposed hardship. 7 foot encroachment 1. Potential conflicts resulting in 3 foot with visual site landscape area distance clearance requirements if a vehicle parked in space #1. 2. Questionable safe .maneuverability into space 11 due to the • close proximity of the space to the street. 2.5 foot encroachment 1. Ground -mounted a/c unit resulting in 2.5 foot projecting into space or less landscape area 18 overhang area ATTACHMENT F DONLEY• BENNE"if ARCHITECTS i 5 Apr City of Tustin COmMi ss i.oner City of Tustin 300 Centennial.Wav Tustin, CA 92680 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PER_ITT 91-01, VARIANCE 91-08 and DE- SIGNREVIEka 91-07. Dear Concilman Donald Le Jeune: In regards to 135 S. Prospect Avenue, Tustin, CA,we the applicant and the architect are proposingd a Goodyear Tire Center in the existing Automotive Repair Buding located at the address listed above. The existing building was formally used for a Bus Repair Center. We are converting the use to a Tire and Brake Shop. In addition we are proposing substan- tial site and elevational changes to the existir_a building. We are working within the First Street Corridor Plan and try- ing to create a pedestrian friendly site and to promote substantial improvements that:ou1d bene-li't' ` the users and the community at large. to are seeking a Cor_a_tional Use Permit and two minor Variances. The Variances relate to parking set- backs and landscaping. There are numerous new and old projects on First Street that do'..not comply with these setback criteria. To require this existing building, built prior to the First Street Corridor Plan, to meet these standards would unfairly punish the property owner -for seeking to enhance his property. For many years the subject property has enjoyed equal rights with surrounding properties. The imposition of strick planning criteria would place this property at a ne;��disadvantage. Thus, Can unfair hardship would be placed upon the owner of the pro - in question, and deprive him of rights enjoyed by others. It is not the aim of this request to ask for the granting of a special priveledge; nor is the goal o_ this _request to avoid landscape reeuii:ements. In fact, the project is more 1 than 1000 square feet over the required la- dscape area. T1111s, this project seeks to enhance and comply -ilCh the specific plans intent to enhance the overall landscape quality of First Street. The Variances being requested are simply to avoid an unfair en- forcement of -he Plana -ung Ordinance, which would result in un- even. property rights and undue hardship. Therefore, it is res- pectfully requested that the City of Tustin grant these Variances. The Planning = -afi believes es h - � `1C �h- _ t :. CJ.U�.0 �.'.it_J �7- ? s lti ccs ' - LOcatl.on. T`:� C=�2CIi� :,lthi L,- c - s t��c��.es Ina-, e Jnpica. � - �ec a rc IL _ versus ion,J _._ ,.=e o,: o•�v T.,pe 12821 Newport Avenue, Tustin, California 92680 714/731-6033 • 714/731-6371 ZJOi�ld 1aV�� SiC --I "cantly less .-, u carr .1.pac � on trip gene -rat -ion, a;,d f 1.c `S L _.0j! :A".n "�1.rS and prospect. ] _ _ S - - ..a r_o pect. A re -ai"1 s similar i a_ s o cii _.:arc ?"ootdCfc' t-.'oUiQ OI)cP : y E�.L at: A 0 -o -:zoo _ t C7 2 �r '-P5 per day v-srsus our use ::rich =.,�1 ' b` 30 to 50 ,] 1 d 1. per day. Our prc-i: i.s well scrcenec �ro*:i ProS.iect and - First, f and our use tendti ; - to �onsoI-date the automotive uses around the intc•rsecti on of Y i.i _,zt Street and Proscect. Since the adjacent property w-11 be a Car trash, we feel our use is more compati.able t•:ith that use than a retail or commercial use on our site. Further, the Staff has talked about the conflict between uses on our site between the Auto- motive, the Chiropractor, and the Accountant. Both of which have sinned a letter which I have enclosed that indicates that they are in full support of our project in the proposed loca- tion. There clearly is nota conflict in the community surround- ing this property with respect to our use. We feel our project is a permitted use within the First Street Corridor Plan and coos not negatively affect the co -munit,v at large, and it would enhance the property in question. It would serve as a benefit to the community. We urge your strong support in the upcoming Planning Commission meeting. I have also en- closed a Site Plan showing some of the features proposed. If you ha ve any questions please contac C Greg Bennett, the architect -t ( 71-4) i 31--06033 0= Steve Pay, vette, t�:e applicant at (714) 832-427. Sincerely, /- , Gregory Bennett, Architect i v a tie, Applicant " TTACHMENT G - RECEl&D MAY 14 1991 COMMUNITY DEVLEOPMfNT 71.4 race a.,