HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 7 USE PERMIT 88-8 07-17-89TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY I"IANAGER
COIIMUNITY DEVELOP)lENT DEPARTMENT
RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR AMENDIWlENT TO USE PEP, NIT 88-8
R£COHHENDATZON
_
Adopt Resolution No. 89-77 approving an amendment to Use Permit 88-8.
DISCUSS ION
At their regular meeting on June 19, 1989, the City Council conducted a public
hearing to consider an appeal for an amendment to Use Permit 88-8, to allow a
1,000 square foot dentist's office in a retail building at 17602 East
Seventeenth Street, Suite 105, Building C.
At that time the City Council approved the appeal and directed staff to prepare
a resolution of approval with appropriate conditions. The attached Resolution
No. 89-77 has been prepared with conditions to address Council's concerns
as identified at the June 19th hearing.
Senior P1 anner
CAS:SR:jk
Christine A. Shingleton~/ ' - v
Director of Community Development
Attachments: Resolution No. 89-77
Staff Report of June 19th
1
2
3
4
5
6
RESOLUTION NO. 89-77
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO USE PERMIT
88-8, AMENDING CONDITIONS 1.1, 1.3, 1.4 AND 1.8
OF EXHIBIT "A" TO PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2494, TO AUTHORIZE A MAXIMUM OF
31,885 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AND THE
ESTABLISHMENT OF A 1,000 SQUARE FOOT DENTIST'S
OFFICE WITHIN A RETAIL TENANT SPACE IN A
COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT 17602 E.
SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUITE 105.
9 The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows'
10 I.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
The City Council finds and determines as follows:
A. That a proper application, for an Amendment to Use Permit No.
88-8 has been filed on behalf of Don Carter D.D.S. requesting to
amend Conditions 1.4 and 1.8 of Exhibit "A" to Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2494, to authorize a maximum of 31,885
square feet of office space and establishment of a 1,000 square
foot dentist's office within a retail tenant space in a
commercial center located at 17602 E. Seventeenth Street, Suite
105.
B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said
application on June 19, 1989.
C. That establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use
applied for would not, 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, evidenced by the following findings:
1. The use would be compatible with the surrounding uses as
they are all commercial in nature.
2. Adequate parking is available on site to provide for the
dentist office use.
D. The project is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Section 15301a (Class 1).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
Resolution No. 89-77
Page two
That the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the use
applied for would not be injurious or detrimental to the
property and improvements in the neighborhood of the subject
property, and the general welfare of the City of Tustin, and
should be granted.
II. The City Council hereby approves an Amendment to Use Permit 88-8
amending conditions 1.1, 1.3, 1.4a and 1.8 of Exhibit A to Planning
Commission Resolution No. 2494 of Use Permit 88-8 subject to the
following conditions'
All original conditions of approval contained within Exhibit A
of Planning Commission Resolution No. 2494 shall remain in
effect, except those modified herein.
B. The applicant and property owner shall sign and return an
agreement to the conditions imposed form as established by the
Department of Community Development prior to issuance of permits
for the dentist office improvements.
C. Conditions 1.1, 1.3, 1.4a., and 1.8 of Exhibit A of Planning
Commission Resolution' No. 2494 shall be revised to read as
fo 11 ows'
(~)
1.1 The proposed project shall substantially conform with the
submitted site plan for the project date stamped May 9, 1988
on file with the Community Development Department as amended
by the City Council on July 17, 1989, and as herein
modified, or as modified by the Director of Community
Development Department in accordance wi th this resolution.
1.3 Parking for the proposed commercial center shall be
maintained as follows'
(2)
I parking space per 200' square feet of retail use.
I parking space per 250 square feet of office use.
I parking space per 3 seats for restaurant uses.
i labeled/assigned parking space per 200 square feet
of dental office which shall be located adjacent to
Suite 105. The dental office use shall not create a
parking need greater than the 5 spaces provided
through limiting the number of employees and patients
on-site at any one time to a combined total of five
(including dentists, management, etc.)
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 89-77
Page three
1.4a Retail Buildings: All uses allowed in the C-1 and C-2 zone
with a maximum of 1,000 square feet of dental office use to
be located in Suite 105 only. ·
1.8 Office uses shall not exceed 31,885 square feet of total
gross floor area of the 62,254 square feet shown on the
approved plans for the entire project. 30,885 square feet
of non-medical office use shall be contained in Building D
and a maximum of 1,000 square foot of dental use may be
located in Suite 105 in Building C.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Tustin, at a regular
meeting on the day of , 1989.
Mary Wynn,
,City Clerk
Ursula E. Kennedy,
Mayor
, PUBLIC HEARING
~ '-' NO. 5
'' ' 6 1989
DATE: JUNE 19, 1989 '~,.~djr ~'~gP'~%~' ........ I
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
·
WILLIAN A. HUSTOM, CITY MAMAGER !...~,, ,, .: ~.
~.'~ ;i ~"
CONHUNITY DEYELOPHENT DEPARTMENT
APPEAL OF AHENDHENT TO USE YERHIT 88-8
APPLICANT:
DON CARTER D.D. S
14711 CHESHIRE PLACE
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680
,,
OkIIER:
COLCO PROSPECT L.P.
17320 RED HILL
IR~INE, CALIFORNIA 92714
LOCATION:
17602 EAST SEYENTEENTH STREET', SUITE 105
RECO~ENDATION
It is recommended that the City Counctl adopt Resolution No. '89-77 denying the
sub ject appeal.
BACKGROUND
i i ·
On Hay 9, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2494, approving
Use Permit 88-8, authorizing the development of 30,155 square feet of commercial
·
retail space and a.30,885 square foot office building on a 4.0 acre site located
on the south side of 17th Street, west of Prospect Avenue. Conditions No. 1.4
and 1.8 of Exhibit "A" to Resolution No. 2494 expressly prohibited medical and
dental uses and limited office use to a maximum of 50% of the total floor area
of the project.
The applicant has requested authorization to establish a dentist's office in a
1,000 square foot commercial tenant space within the retail portion of the
shopping center. Since the prop'*osed dentist's office is a medical use, and the
office building portion of the project already takes up the maximum 50% floor
area, an amendment to the approved use permit would be required. At their
regular meeting on May '8, 1989,,-the Planning Commission adopted Resolution N'o.
2598 (attached) denying the requested amendment to Use Permit 88-8.
DISCUSSION
The primary reasons for originally prohibiting medical uses and limiting office
space for the project was the limited amount of parking provided, and the
Cl ty Counc11 Report,
Appeal of Amendment to Use Permtt 88-8
June 19, 1989
Page t"wo
standard requirement tn commercial districts that office space be 11mtted to
of total floor area so as'to preserve revenue generating potential,
Parking
The parktng statistics for the project are as follows:
1 parktng space per 200 square feet of retat1 use (for 31,369 square feet
of floor area *)
i parktng space per 250 square feet of office use (.for 30,885 square feet
of floor area)
Total requtred parktng- 281 spaces *
Total provtded parking- 284 spaces
Parktng provtded beyond requirement - 3 spaces *
(* - These ftgures dtffer from those provtded to the Plannlng Commission as the
submitted stte plan was found to be Inconsistent wtth the approved workt~g'
drawtngs after researching Butldtng 01vtston ftles.)
The additional three parking spaces beyond the mtntmum requtred were provtded to
accommodate restaurants .or food operations, whtch were expected to occupy the
retat'l portton of the project (restaurants__have a greater parktng requirement
~than standard retatl uses at the rate of one space for each three seats).
· ·
The ortgtnal use permtt specifically prohibited medtcal uses due to the htgh
probability 'and anticipation of restaurant tenants, and the fact that adequate
parking to accommodate medtcal uses was stmply not provided. To date, the
Community Oevelopmen: Department has recelved 2 proposals for restaurants In the
center (1~ok I~an and Lenny's Ptzza and Pasta), and has learned of the Intention
of "Ruby's" restaurant to locate tn the subject center. Staff understands that
"Ruby's" would be a large restaurant tenant wtth a large seattng capacity. Thts
ts a use that would be desirable at thts location, and ts the type of use that
was tntended for the retatl portton of the project at Its Inception. The three
restaurants wtll requtre all of the 3 excess parktng spaces, tf not more.
·
Offtce Use Llmttatton~
.
ii
Use Pe~mtt 88-8 prohibited offtce use tn the retail portJon of the project based
on the commercial dlstrfct standards' that. 11mtt offtce uses to a maximum of
of the floor area of a project, Thts requirement ts tntended to preserve
opportunity for commercial uses that generate sales tax revenue for the Ctty to
compensate for the servtces provtded to 'these properties by the City, The
subject development presently .contains 50~ of 1ts total floor area wtthtn the
offtce building, The dentist's offtce proposed In the retatl space would exceed
the 50~ 11mtt and reduce the opportunity for retat1 uses, The proposed medtcal
use wlthtn the project would also requtre one of the 3 excess parking spaces
Ctty Council Report
Appeal of Amendment to Use Permit 88-8
June 19, 1989
· P~ge three
'noted above, whtch would reduce the potential for envisioned'future restaurant
.tenants tn the project. The crtterta for permitting office development wtthln
commercial districts in excess of 50[ of a projects floor area requtres-a
flndlng that the office use would be more compatible with surrounding land uses
than commercial (retail) uses on the subject property. This finding is
extremely difficult to make tn this case since the brlglnal project
Intentionally separated offtce and retat1 uses.
Staff does not believe that medical offices would be compatible with the
commercial/retail portion of the center, and suggests that the use would be more
appropriate in *the office portion of the project, if it were to be allowed in
the center at all. An alternative available to the applicant would be to look
for vacant space in existing office developments in the City's Professional
Office (PR) District, such as along Irvine Boulevard, Yorba and 17th Street
which are highly visible and have a large number of existing office vacancies.
A dentist office in the PR zone would be consistent with other office uses.
An additiona.1, concern with .an office use in a commercial/retail tenant space is
the sign area requirement. The sign code permits a mmximum sign area of only '
six sq.uare feet for an office use (for tenant identification) while the
commercial/retail us'es* in the center may have much larger signs. This fact
raises an issue of design compatibility, a~-there would be a great' disparity of
scale between the.~ppltcant's sign and those of neighboring tenants.
CONCLUSTON
ii
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the City Council deny the
appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of the Amendment to Use Permit 88-8
by adopting Resolution No. 89-77. In the event that the City Council wishes to
authorize medical office uses on the site; staff would strongly recommend that
the use be placed in the appropriate 30,000 square, foot office portion of the
site.
Eri c~~a .~...~a 1 and,
Assistant Planner
Christine A. Shl~gleton//
Director of Community Development
EH:CAS:ts:pef
Attachments:
Resolution No. 2494
Site Plan
Resolutio.n No. 2598
Resolution No. 89-77