The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPH 2 VARIANCE 89-09 11-06-89TO: FROM: SUBJECT: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION, VARIANCE 89-09 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission action to deny Variance 89-09 by adoption of Resolution No. 89-155. BACKGROUND At their meeting on September 11, 1989, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2653 denying Variance 89-09, a request to reduce the required parking spaces from 389 spaces to 357 spaces to accommodate approximately 8,000 .square feet of new mezzanine construction and other tenant improvements at the property located at 2631 Michelle Drive (Attachment A). The applicant has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council for consideration (Attachment B). The subject 'seven (7) acre site is presently developed with approximately 142,786 square feet of building area. The existing uses within the building are broken down as follows: Office 48,513 sq. ft. R & D 42,165 sq. ft. Manufacturing 27,582 sq. ft. Warehouse 24,526 sq. ft. Total 142,786 sq. ft. The existing square footage currently requires 355 spaces all of which are provided on-site. The applicant is proposing to construct approximately 8,000 square feet of mezzanine area and other tenant .improvements to accommodate additional R & D and office space to create a new building breakdown as follows: Office 54,213 sq. ft. R & D 53,316 sq. ft. Manufacturing 22,731 sq. ft. Warehouse 20,526 sq. ft. Total 150,786 sq. ft. City Council Report Variance 89-09 November 6, 1989 Page two The applicant is requesting a Variance to reduce the required parking, to accommodate for the expansion, from 389 spaces to 357 spaces. The 357 parking spaces are presently existing on the site. Surrounding uses include industrial uses to the east and west, industrial uses across Michelle Drive to the south, and the Santa Ana (5) Freeway adjacent to the north. Since this item was considered as a public hearing by the Planning Commission, this appeal item is also considered a public hearing. A public hearing notice denoting the proposal, location and time of the hearing was published in the Tustin News for the October 16, 1989 City Council meeting. In addition, property owners within 300 feet of the subject property were notified of the hearing by mail pursuant to State Law. Since this item was continued from October 16th to a date certain, no additional notification is required. The applicant was forwarded a copy of the meeting's agenda and staff report for this item. DISCUSSION 1. ZONING REQUIREMENTS The subject property is located within the PC-IND (Planned Community - Industrial) District and is subject to the development standards and regulations of the Irvine Industrial Complex. The parking requirements for the Irvine Industrial Complex for industrial uses are as follows: · 1 space per each 250 square feet of office area; 1 space per each 500 square feet of manufacturing/R & D and assembly area; and 1 space p~r each 1,000 ~quare feet of warehouse/storage area for the first 20,000 square feet and 1 space per each 2,000 square feet of warehouse/storage area for the second 20,000 Based on the above standards, proposed improvements would require the applicant to provide 389 parking spaces on the site instead of the 357 spaces currently on the site. Community Development Department City Council Report Variance 89-09 November 6, 1989 Page three · ~PARKING VARIANCE In support of the parking variance request, the applicant has provided certain information to staff and the Planning Commission to justify the variance request prior to the September 11, 1989 commission meeting (see Attachment C). The applicant had indicated that the facility presently employees 270 people, 15 of which work a second shift. A study was conducted by the applicant which indicated that approximately 140 parking spaces were unused daily. They also argued that the implementation of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Regulation 15 would require implementation of voluntary ridesharing programs which could result in approximately only 180 vehicles on-site daily (a 20% reduction in vehicles). The applicant had also estimated that approximately $250,000 could be needed to make modifications to the existing parking lot to provide the required 389 parking spaces. At the September 11, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented additiona~ information to the Commission to justify the variance (Attachment D). This additional information presented .to the Commission indicated that the proposed improvements would be the first phase of a two- phased plan for ultimate improvements to the property to be completed by late 1995.. Phase two is anticipated to require less parking than the 357 spaces presently existing on-site. Attachment E is the latest summary of the applicant's justification for the variance which combines information contained in Attachments C and D. The applicant has been apparently unsuccessful in obtaining off-site parking, from adjacent properties to satisfy, the parking requirements as provided for in the Pc-IND District regulations. Despite the information provided by the applicant, there are a number of reasons that a variance may not be warranted. In order for the City Council to approve the Variance, the following positive findings must be made: Community Development Department " City Council Report Variance 89-09 November 6, 1989 Page four A® That there are unusUal and/or special circumstances applicable to the shape, size, configuration, location, or topography of the property which justify the variance request. There are no special circumstances applicable to the site or development, that would justify the variance request. The site is level, regularly shaped, consistent with neighboring properties relative to size and is currently developed to meet the requirements of the PC-IND District. The fact that the facility presently only has 270 employees does not justify a reduction in required parking. A variance runs with the land, not a particular use, and there is no guarantee that the current parking demand would remain the same or a more.intense use of space or user would occupy the facility in the future. Economic costs to satisfy a requirement as presented by the applicant are not valid special circumstances to justify a variance under State law. The applicant has indicated that preliminary site plans to expand the parking lot further north adjacent to the Santa Ana Freeway were presented to the Irvine Company, who still maintains design review responsibility in the complex. The applicant indicated that the Irvine Company denied the request stating inconsistencies with the Planned Community Regulations related to the required 30 foot landscape buffer along the freeway. These plans were never submitted to the City. It appears that the parking lot can be physically modified to accommodate the additional 32 parking spaces required. These improvements would most likely result in restriping throughout the parking lot. ~ The existing circular element on the north side of the property could also be modified to provide additional parking. The applicant has indicated in Attachment E that they would accept a condition of approval that should the project not be completed as planned, sell or sub-lease the property, or add additional floor space, they would at that time bring the parking in line with the applicable regulations. This provision would be extremely difficult to enforce and require compliance. Community Development Department City Council Report Variance 89-09 November 6, 1989 Page five Be The applicant has previously indicated that they could not accommodate the additional parking on the site so the condition would imply that physical improvements would be removed. That the applicant is beinq denied a privilege enjoyed by others in similar conditions and identical zoning designations - The applicant is not being denied a privilege granted to others in this PC-IND District. Other facilities in this complex have been required to maintain the required amount of~ parking in conjunction with expansion projects. No parking variances to accommodate building expansions have been granted to date. This project would, in fact; be setting precedent for other parking variances on other projects in the PC-IND District. The provisions of the Irvine Industrial Complex regulations also permit parking requirements to be satisfied by off-site facilities in proximity to a site provided that a recorded document is obtained to ensure availability of spaces on the off-site facility. The applicant has been successful in contacting property owners of Aeroject to the west; Schick Moving Co. to the east does not have any spaces available; and Basic Four to the south would ~lease spaces to the applicant for approximately $50 per space each month (approximately $19,200 annually) which the applicant indicates would be economically infeasible. The applicant has also indicated that this facility would be subject to the provisions of the S~uth Coast Air Quality Management District.Regulation 15 w~ich requires businesses with over 100 employees to implement ridesharing programs by January 1, 1990. However, ridesharing programs are voluntary and an employer would not be required to mandate that an employee carpool or use public transportation. Voluntary transit management programs at their best are usually only effective in reducing on-site demand by 20%. Community Development Department City Council Report Variance 89-09 November 6, 1989 Page six Co De City staff is also' presently in the process of revising the parking standards which are anticipated to begin workshop and preliminary review later this year. The revised standards may make provisions for transit management programs when evaluated by a traffic engineer and approved by the Planning Commission such as parking credit when AQMD programs are in effect. However, it is also anticipated that the standards for industrial R&D/office uses may be increased based on direction from the City Council in response to current trends for office intensification in industrial parks and parking demands for these types of uses. That the variance would not have a detrimental impact on the subject property or surrounding properties - The variance as herein provided for would have a detrimental impact on the subject property and potentially surrounding properties in that the potential for parking deficiencies would be created. If parking demand became a problem, employees would tend to park in aisle ways and fire lanes which .could create a health and safety concern. No on-street parking is permitted on Michelle Drive. The potential for overflow parking to occur on the street would be greatly increased which would also create a health and safety concern. That the variance is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan - The variance is not consistent · with the General Plan in that the reduction of parking could lead to inharmonious development and future parking deficiencies in the area. Community Development Department City Council Report Variance 89-09 November 6, 1989 Page seven CONCLUSION The Planning Commission was unable to make the required positive findings and the arguments presented by the applicant do not necessarily justify the variance request. It is recommended that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's action to deny Variance 89-09. However, should the City Council be able to make the required positive findings and desire to approve the variance request, it is recommended that the item be continued to the November 20, 1989 Council meeting so the appropriate resolutions may be prepared. Daniel ~ox, / Acting Senior Planner Christine A. Shingle~, Director of Communit~ Development DF: CAS: kbc Attachments: Planning Commission Resolution No. 2653 Appeal Request Applicant Response Applicant Response Resolution No. 89-155 Community Development Department " 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1.7 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 2o 26 27 28 RESOLUTION NO. 89-155 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF. TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY VARIANCE 89-09, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING FROM 389 SPACES TO 357 SPACES TO ACCOMMODATE CERTAIN TENANT IMPROVEMENTS AT 2631 MICHELLE DRIVE IN THE PC-IND DISTRICT. The City Council of the City of Tustin does ~ereby resolve as follows: I. The City Council finds and determines as follows: a. That a proper application, Variance 89-09, was filed on behalf of Morton Thiokol, Inc. Dynachem Division requesting authorization to reduce the required parking from 389 spaces to 357 spaces to accommodate approximately 8,050 square feet of mezzanine construction and other tenant improvements. Be That a public hearing was duly Called, noticed and held on said application on September 11, 1989 by the Planning Commission at which time the Commission adopted Resolution 2653 to deny Variance 89-09. C.. That an appeal of the Planning Commission's action has been filed by Terrence McRell representing Morton Thiokol, Inc., Dynachem Division. E® That there are no special circumstances applicable to the subject property, relative to size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that justify the Variance in that the existing site is level, regularly shaped, consistent with other adjacent properties and consistent with the required development standards of the Irvine Industrial Complex. Fe That the granting of a variance as herein provided would 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 related to the requirement to provide on-site parking. No parking variances to accommodate expansions have been previously granted in the Irvine Industrial Complex. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ~0 23 ~4 26 27 28 Resolution No. 89-155 Page two Ge That the granting of a variance as herein provided would be contrary to the intent of· the Zoning Ordinance and the public safety, health and welfare in that the potential to create parking problems on-site by blocking parking aisles and fire lanes exist. He That the variance request is not consistent with the City General Plan in that the variance could lead to inharmonious development related to parking impacts and the inability for a site to provide adequate on-site parking. I · That this project is categorically exempt (Class 5) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. II. The City Council hereby upholds the Planning Commission's action to deny Variance 89-09, a request to reduce the required parking from 389 to 357 spaces to accommodate certain'tenant improvements'on the property located at 2631 Michetle Drive. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on the day of , 1989. URSULA E. KENNEDY, Mayor MARY WYNN, City Clerk 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 RESOLUTION NO. 2653 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF. TUSTIN, DENYING VARIANCE 89-09-, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED PARKING FROM 389 SPACES TO 357 SPACES TO ACCOMMODATE APPROXIMATELY 8,050 SQUARE FEET OF MEZZANINE CONSTRUCTION AT 2631 MICHELLE DRIVE IN THE PC-IND DISTRICT 23 24 25 26 27 The Planning follows' I · ._ '"Commission of %he CIty of Tusttn does hereby resolve as The Planning Commission finds and de%ermines as .follows' A. That a proper application, Variance No. 89-09, was filed on behalf of Morton Thiokol, Inc. Dynachem Division requesting authorization %o redu'ce %he required' parking from 389 spaces 35? spaces to accommodate approximately 8,050 square fee% of. mezzani ne cons%ruc%ion- B. That a public hearing was duly called, noticed and held on said application on August 14, 1989 and continued 'co Sep'cember 11, 1989. C. That %here are no special circumstances applicable to the subject proper%y, rela'cive 'co size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, that justify the Variance in %ha% as existing %he site level, regularly ~haped, consistent with other aOjacen% proper%les and consistent with the required development standards of the Irvine Indus'crial Complex· D. That %he granting of a variance as herein provided would constitute a grant of special privilege inconsis'cent with %he limitations upon other proper'cies in 'che vicinity and district in which %he subject property requirement %o provide on-si'ce parking· No parking variances to accommodate expansions have been previously granted in the Irvine Industrial Complex· E. That 'che granting of the variance as herein provided would be contrary %o %he intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the public safety, health and welfare in that 'che po'cen%ial %o create parking problems on-site by blocking parking aisles and' fire lanes, exi F. That %he Variance reques'c is not consistent with the City General Plan in that the variance could lead 'co inharmonious development rela'ced %o parking impacts and the inability for a site to provide adequa.%e on-site parking· 28 ATTACHMENT A 6 7 8 9 10~ 11 12 13 Resolution No. 2653 Page two II. Ge That this property is categorically exempt (Class 5) from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. The Planning Commission denies Variance 89-09 as applied for, to reauce the required parking from 389 to 357 spaces to accommodate approximately 8,050'square feet of mezzanine construction. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin Planning Commission, held on the 11th day of September, 1989. LE'SLIE ANNE ~ONTIOUS Chairman STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY. OF ORANGE ) CITY OF ?USTIN ) I, PENNI FOLEY, the undersigned, hereby certify that I .am the Recording Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Tustin, California; that Resolution No. c~.~__~ was duly passed an, d_adopted at a'~regular meeting of the ~stin Planning Commission, held on the ///f/~ day of~~~_~x~ , 198?'' ' YRecording S]~cretary ' MORTON THIOI(OL, INC. Dynachem Division September lq, 1989 Christine Shingleton Director of Community Development City Of Tustin Subject: Request for Appeal of Variance Request 89-09 and Resolution No. 8653 Dear Ms. Shingleton, It is formally requested that Variance Request 89-09 and Resolution No. 8653 be appealed to the Tustin City Council. If you should have any questions or should require additional information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (714) 730-~365. Thank you. Sincerely, Terrence E. McRell Senior Facilities Engineer Morton International, Inc. Dynachem Electronic Materials ATTACHMENT B 2~:.~1 Michelle [')n,.,-. ]i~,~lin. C;ilii~rr,a 926~i0 (714) 730-.I:.?u0 Teh-:.~' ,1722073 - MORTON THIOKOL INC. Dynachem Division, · , September 80, 1989 Christine Shingleton Director of Community Development City Of Tustin Subject: Request for Appeal of Variance Request 89-09 and Resolution No. 2653 ' Dear Ms. Shingleton, The purpose of thiS'letter is to comply with the Planning Department's request that Dynachem Electronic Materials state the reason why we are appealing the above variance request and resolution to the Tustin City Council. Our reason for the appeal is that the overall scope of the project involving.Variance Request 89-09 and Resolution 2653 requires no additional parking spaces upon completion. To spend any monies- to provide additional parking spaces on an interim basis whether on site or off site~ for which we will never have a requirement~ for Phase 1 of the project is not logical or sensible. If you should have any q~estions or should require additional information or assistance~ please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (714) 730-43&5. Thank you. Sincerely Terrence E. McRel~l Senior Facilities Engineer Morton International, Inc. Dynachem Electronic Materials cc: D. Fox RECEIVED SEP 2 0 1989 COMMUNITY DEYELOP,~EN'r BY' __~'I-"~F-- 2631 Mictqelle Drive. TLmlin California 92680 (714) 730-4200 Telex' 4722073 MORTON THIOKOL !Nc. --. RECEIVED --. HAY1 11989 Dynachem Division COMNILINtIY Date: May 11, 1989 To: Christine Shingleton Director of Community Development City Of Tustin cc: Mary Ann Chamberlain Associate Planner . City of Tustin Subject: Request for Parking Space Variance Dear Ms. Shingleton, The purpose of thi~ -letter is to request a variance from the City, of Tustin Building.Code requirements for parking spaces. The property involved in th~ requested variance, ::, o~cated at 2631 Michelle Drive in the City of Tustin. This property is owned by Morton Thiokol, Inc., Dynacn~mm Division, and ~is not a leased ~acility. Due to the projected grow't!~ for Dynachem in both the short-term (July 19c;1) and long-term, it is neces.-~ary 'F'Or the R&D functions at this mite to expand. The projected grow'ch wi. il be concentrated in the development of new products am well ,as continued support of existing products for the printed circuit and semiconductor industries. The current two year "Intermediate Range Plan" requires the conversion of existing Ma~t-faoturing and Warehouse space to R&D use. This will be accomplished by construction of two separate mezzanines within the existing main building structure. However, as required by code, in order to build the two mezzanines we would need to increase the available parking capacity from 343 spaces to 377 spaces. This represents a net increase of 34 spaces. But as you can see from the enclosed site plan (Attachment 1), without major modification additional spaces simply can not be added. The "Long Range Plan" calls for the existing main Ouiiding facility to be utilized solely for R&D purposes. All non-R&D administrative, manufacturing and warehouse functions would be~ relocated to another facility. This conversion of space has the reverse effect from the "Intermediate Range Plan" in that fewer spaces would be r~quired. ATTACHMENT C 2631 Michelle [")ri,., "ri:,,-;firl. C;-dd('.rni~'l 92680 (714l 730 4200 Tol,?.,,',' ,1722073 MORTON THIOKOL INC Dynachem Division Our justifications for the variance request are as follows: 1) Currently there ar.e 2?0 people employed at this facility, of which 15 work on second shift. Projected head count increase to the end July 1991 is for 15 additional people to be hireO. 2) As the parking lot is presently configured, there are 343 existing parking spaces. A study was completed over a ten day period to determine the number of parking spaces used on a daily basis. Information collected at lOAM and 2PM revealed that on average 126 (36.?%) of the 343 available parking spaces were unused. · 3) With the implementation of Regulation XV by the South Coast Air Qualit~ Management District (S.C.A.Q.M.D.) we are required to start a ridesharing program. If we meet the desired goal of 1.5 riders per vehicle, there would only be on average 180 vehicles on site daily or a reduction of 90 vehicles. This would then leave us on average 216 parking spaces unused on a daily basis. When the "Long Range Plan" is completed, approximately 21,000 square feet of existing office space wo.u.ld be converted into R&D spice~ ~nich would lower the number of parking spaces required at that time by 42. in summary, the "Intermediate R~nge Plan" when implement~ad does~ by code, require additional parking spaces. It has been conservatively estimated that to do this major modification for the additional A2 p~rking spaces would cost approximately $250~000.00. However, when the above justifications are taken into accguns, I think you will agree with me that it is just not economically prudent ~o spend $250,000~00 to reconfigure our existing parking area when the spaces added would not be used. It is therefore requested that a variance be approved which ,~ill eliminate the need to add the 42 parking spaces as required by code. · /"Your prompt attention and resolution of this matter within the next ~ 30-60 days will be greatly appreciated, so that we may proceed with the conceptual design planning phase of this project. If you should have any questions'or should require additional information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (714) 730-4365. Thank you. .. Sincerely, Terrence E. McRell Senior Facilities Engineer Morton Thiokol~ Inc. Dynachem Division MORTON THIOKOL INC. DYnachem Division September ll, !989 City of Tustin Planning Commission 300 Centennial Way Tustin, CA 98680 Sub j ect: variance Request 89-09 Dynachem Electronic Materials 8631Michelle Drive Tustin, CA. 98680 Dear Planning Commission Members, The purpose of this letter is to present reasons why Variance Request" 89-09 should be approved. A report, recommending that request 89-09 be denied, has been prepared and submitted to you by the Tustin Planning Department for '-your rev--i-ew .... and' -diSposition. It contains various exhibits with which to familiarize yourselves with the property in question and its surrounding area. '" Specifically, the property involved is located at 2631 Michelle Drive in the city of Tustin. The property is presently owned by Morton International~ Inc., of which Dynachem Electronic Materials~ herein referred to as Dynachem, is a wholly owned business unit. Dynachem has been located at this'site since it Aas developed'fUr industrial use in 1975. In that time, Dynachem has grown to become an established leader in the materials .supplied to the semiconductor and printed circuit board industries. In order to maintain it's leadership position, Dynachem's R&D functions at the Tustin facility must expand. This ex complet ma'nufac mezzani availab with c functio space t :onstru pansion is to be completed in two phases. Phase 1~ to Oe ed in late 1991, involves the conversion of existing turing and warehouse space to R&D usage. Further, second story nes within each area are to be constructed to maximize le space. Phase 8, to be started upon completion of Phase 1 ompletion scheduled for late 1995, invol'ves all non-R&D ns being moved to another facility (locally) and the freed-up hen becoming additional R&D space. I want to emphasize that all ction is to occur within the existing main building structure. ATTACHMENT D 2631 M~chetle Dnve. Tust~n. Caldorni~] 92680 (714) 730-4200 Telex: 4722073 MORTON THIOK.OL INC Dynachem Division - 2 - However, as required by City code, in order to build the two mezzanines in Phase 1, we must increase t~e available parking capacity from 35? spaces (see Attachment i) to 389 spaces (see Attachment 2). Phase 2 on the other hand, requires that we provide 356' parking spaces upon completion .(~see~ Attachment 3) - one less than currently exists. The question now becomes, how to satisfy the City code requirements in order to complete our planned R&D expansion? Three options were suggested by the City of Tustin Planning Department: 1) reconfigure the existing parking lot to provide the additional parking spaces required; 2) obtain off-site parking; or 3) obtain a variance to 'permit the mezzanine construction to be completed. The first option explored was how the existing~parking lot could be reconfigured. A proposal was submitted to "The Irvine Company°° but was denied because, as stated in Part III of the Architectural Guidelines~,,0 Irvine Industrial Complex - Tustin~ dated April 197A~ the Santa Ana Freeway is a special landscaped street with a special setback and landscape treatment (see Attac.bment._ A). Conceptual designs were then worked upon to ~de~ermine whether or not the existing parking area could be reconfigured without major construction -~but to no avail. As you can see from Exhibit #3 in the variance package, without cost ~rohibitive modification (i.e., a parking structure with an estimated cost to construct of SqO0,O00.O0 or $12~500.00 per space), the additional spaces simply cannot be added. The second option investigated was.. ofT-site parking. We inquired of our immediate neighbors (Schick Moving & Storage, Aerojet Ordnance and M.A.I. Basic Four) as to whether or not they would allow us use of any of their excess parking spaces, but we were not able to come to terms agreeable to all parties. This leaves us with only option ~3 as a viable solution to our present situation; which is to obtain a variance for Phase 1 of the planned R&D expansion. Our justifications for the variance request before you are as follows: 1) Dynach.em has been located at 263'1 Michelle Drive for the last i4 years. During this period Dynachem has made significant capital investments to this property anO the buildings on it. In addition, the Phase 1 R&D expansion will require the investment of an additional $8,500~000.00 (approximately) upon completion in 1991. Furthers 'Dynachem has no intention of selling or sub-leasing the property at 2631 Michelle Drive as the cost to construct new R&D laboratories and clean rooms would be very cost prohibitive. 2) Currently ~ there are 270 people employed at this facility, of which 15 work on second shift. MORTON THIOKOL INC. Dynachem Divisioni~"'~(:':. - 3 - 3) As the parking lot is presently configured, there aFe 359 exi.sting parking spaces. A study was completed ~over a ten day period to determine the number of parking spaces used on a daily basis. Information collected at 10AM and 2PM revealed that on average 1AO (39.2%) of the 35? available parking spaces were Unused every day. With the passage of Regulation XV by the SouGh Coast Air Quality Management District (S.C.A.Q.M.D.), we are required to implement a ridesharing program. When we meet the desired goal of 1.5 riders per vehicle, there will only be on average 180 vehicles on site daily or a reduction of 90 vehicles. This then leaves us with 230 (6A.A~) of the 359 available parking spaces unused every day. As a condition for obtaining the variance, Dynachem is willing to sign an agreement stating that should we sell or sub-lease the property in question that the existing parking lot would be upgraded and brought into compliance with the parking requirements in effect at that time. In conclusion, Phase 1 of the current plan when implemented (see Attachment 5) does, by City code, require additional parking spaces. ]ut when Phase 2 is completed, we will require no more parking spaces than currently exist. When the above justifications are considered, I think you will agree that it just isn't a sound business decision nor is it economically .prudent to spend the money necessary':to reconfigure our existing park.lng, lot when the spaces added would not be used or required upon completion of Phase 2. .. It is therefore asked that Variance Request 89-09 be --approved as requested. Sincerely Terrence E. McRell Senior Facilities Engineer Morton Internati°'na~, Inc. Dynachem Electronic Materials Attachment No. 1 Area 100 Area 200 Area 300 Area AO0 Area 500 Area 600 Area 700 Area 800 Area 900 Area 1000 TUSTIN FACILITY SPACE ALLOCATION BREAKDOWN Parkinq Space Requi-rements (Existinq) (Square Feet) Office R&D Mfq. War. 13,715 0 522' 337 15,573 0 66 672 0 14,805 0 0 11,960 1,987 638 220 0 7,312 488 0 5,547 926 561 ?66 Totals 14,574 16,311 14,805 14,805 7,800 7,800 0 13,545 16,764 21,691 52,000 1,718 3,590 1,295 8A0 0 0 6,001 ' 0 0 0 1,247 0 24,526 48,513 42,165 87,588 7,443 6,001 1~247 142,786 Parkinq Calculations: 1) Off - 48,513 / 250 2) R&D - 42,165 / 500 3) Mfg 4 ) War - 27,582 / 500 - 24,526 = 194.05 = 194 spaces = 8A.33 = 84 spaces = 55. 16 = 55 spaces (1ST 20) = 20.00 = 20 spaces (2ND 20) = 2.26 = 2 spaces ( + 40) = 0.00 = 0 spaces~ 'Spaces Currently Required = 355 spaces / 1,000 / 2,000 / 9,000 Attachment No. 2 Area 100 Area 200 Area 300 TUSTiN FACILITY SPACE ALLOCATION BREAKDOWN ..Par.kinq Space Requirements (Phase (Square Feet) Office R&D Mfg. War. 13,715 0 522' 337 15,573 0 66 672 0 14,805 0 0 Area 400 11,960 1,987 .. Area 500 0 7,312 Area 600 5,54? Area, 700. 0 638 280 488 0 986 561 ?66 Totals 14,574 16,311 14,805 14,805 7,800 7,800. 88,396 1i,913 17,691 52,000 1,295 840 6,001 0 Area 800 7,418' 5,890 Area 900 0 0 Area 1000 7,443 6,001 0 54,213 0 1~2q7 0 l~2A? 53~316 22,731 20,526 150,786 Parkinq Calculations: 1) Off - 5q,213 / 250 2) R&D - 53,316 3) Mfg - 22,731 4) War - 20,526 = 216.85 = 217 / 500 = 106.63 / 500 = q5.q6 / 1,000 (1ST 20) = 20.00 / 2,000 (2ND 20) = 0.26 /, 4,000 ( + 40) = 0.00 Spaces Required For Completion of Phase 1 spaces = 107 spaces = A5 spaces = 20 spaces = 0 spaces = 0 spaces = 389 spaces Attachment No. 3 Area 100 Area 200 Area 300 Area AO0 Area 500 Area 600 Area 700 Area 800 Area 900 Area 1000 TUSTIN FACILITY SPACE ALLOCATION BREAKDOWN Parkinq Space Requirements (Phase (Square Feet) Office R&D Mfq. War. 0 13,715 528 337 15,573 0 66 6?2 0 1A,805 0 0 1 I , 923 Totals 14,574 5,113 16,311 14,805 5~418 0 1,038 638 1,206 14,805 0 7~312 488 0 2,216 561 0 0 34,309 0 17,691 7,890 1,295 8~0 0 6,001 0 7,800 7~800 52,000 7,4~3 6,001 .0 0 1~2q7 0 1~2q7 38,027 81,683 10,330 20,746 150,786 Parkinq .'Calculations:' 1) Off - 38,027 / 250 152.11 _ 2) R&D - 81,683 / 500 = 163.37 3) Mfg - 10,330 / 500 = 20.66 4) War - 20,746 / 1,000 (1ST 20) = 20.00 / 2,000 (2ND 20) = 0.37 / 4,000 ( + 40) = 0.00 .. Spaces Required For Completion of Phase 2 = 152 sPaces = 163 spaces = 21 spaces = 20 spaces = 0 spaces = 0 spaces = 356 spaces Attachment No. 4 _ David J. Baab. AIA Architect Baab & Associates 4199 Campus Drive, Suite 550 (714) 725-9722 lrvine. California 92715 Architecture Urban Planning Community Design To: Jeff Deis From: David Baab :. · Date: July 13, 1989 Subject: Morton Thiokol-Dynachem Division Expansion of parking lot 2631 Michelle Drive, Tustin Irvine Industrial Complex--Tustin ConcepWo! Drawings cc: David DeSelm Kimberly Stafford Please send a letter to Terrence E. McRell at Morton Thiokol--Dynachem Division with The Irvine Company's comments regarding the subject project: Terrence E. McRell Morton Thiokol-Dynachem-Division 2631 Michelle Drive Tustin, CA 92680 Conunents: Approval of the conceptual drawings is not given at this time. Part III of the Architectural Guidelines, Irvine Industrial Complex--Tustin, dated April 1974, states that the Santa Aha Freeway is a special landscaped street with a special setback and landscape treatment. The existing thirty (30) foot wide landscaped setback from the northerly property line to the existing parking lot along the Santa Ana Freeway must be maintained. Pinus imlepensis or Pinus pinea must be used in the thirty (30) foot wide landscaped setback. Revise the plan to show a thirty (30) foot wide setback next to the freeway, landscaped with pines. Resubmit for review and approval. Attmchment No. 5~ 'TENTATIVE RLD EXPANSION PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE 08/01/89 11/01/89 18/01/89 08/01/90 08/01/90 09/01/90 11/01/90 05/01/91 03/01/91 Phase I Start ALE Design Complete Design 0 - Submit C.A.R. - Phase 1, Part 1 Start Construction (Screen Inks Area) B~gin Move-~_n to ~New Dynacure Area Complete Move-in to New Dynacure Area Submit C.A.R. - Phase 1, Part 8 Reoccupy Vacated Laboratory Areas Start Construction (Non-Flammable Area) Begin Move-in to .New Dynalith .Area Reoccupy Vacated Laboratory Areas Oq/O1/91 07/01/91 08101/91 01/01/98 05101/92 06/30/98 07/01/98 07/01/95 Phase Begin Search for New Facility to Accommodate Administrative Office Functions Sign Purchase or Lease Agreement on New Facility Begin ALE '~esign/Modifications of New Facility and Existing Facility as Necessary Begin Construction Modifications to New Facility Begin Move-in to New Facility of Administrative Office Functions Complete Move-in to New Facili'ty Begin Construction/Conversion of Non-RLD Areas to RLD Environment and Modification of Existing RLD Areas and Occupy New Areas as Available Complete All Construction Modifications - MORTON THIOKOL INC. Dynachem Division October BO, 1989 Daniel Fox Associate Planner City of Tustin 300 Centennial.Way Tustin, CA. 98680 Subject: Justification of Appeal for Variance Request 89-09 and Resolution No. 8653 Dear Mr. Fox, The purpose of this letter is to provide all pertinent information regarding Variance Request 89-09 and Resolution 8653. Briefly stated, the scope of this project"is br'°ken into two 'phases which involves the construction of two (2) mezzanines and the extensive reallocation of existing floor space. The facility involved in this variance request is lodated at 2631 Michelle Drive in Tustin. Phase 1 of this project, tentatively scheduled to begin in the first quarter of 1990, involves the construction of two (8) mezzanine areas in existing manufacturing and warehouse spaces. Upon completion in late 1991 there will be an additional 8,000 square feet of R&D office and laboratory space. This increase does, by code, require an increase in the number.of parking spaces from 353 (currently existing, see Attachment No. 1) to 389 (see Attachment No. 8). The number of employees in the R&D Department is scheduled.to increase by twenty (8O) people after completion of this phase of the project. Phase 8 of this project will then commence in the first quarter of 1998 with, the relocation of the Administrative, F&A and other miscellaneous departments to another facility locally. The floor space that is freed up will be reallocated for use by the R&D Department. Upon completion of Phase 8 of this project in late 1995 we are required to have only 356 (see Attachment No. 3) parking spaces or one (1) less than currently exists ..... An internal study was completed over a two week period which showed that on average 140 of ~+~.e e×isting 353 spaces Were empty every day. Further a ridesharing program was recently implemented, as required by the S.C.A.Q.M.D. Regulation 15, which has reduced, the number of vehicles on site by 88 and thereby increasing the number of empty spaces to 168 or 45% of the available parking. ATTACHMENT 2631 M~cnede Onv,? T~.:snn C~hforn,a 92680 (714l 730--1200 7btex: 4722073 E MORON THIOKOL INC. Dynachem Division A proposal to expand the parking area was completed and submitted to "The Irvine Company" but was denied. The reason being, it did not comply with the Architectural Guidelines,. Irvine Industrial ComPlex,~ Tustin. Specifically it did not maintain the thirty (30) foot wide landscaped setback from our northerly property line to the existing parking lot along, the S~l~.ta_..Ana .(I-5) freeway. Because the scope of this project, Phases 1 and 2, requires no additional parking upon completion, the fact that we have 162 (A5~) of our current parking spaces unused every day and that to provide additional parking spaces a parking structure would have to be built, we believe that to provide the additional parking for Phase 1 is not reasonable and would be an unnecessary burden. · This variance request, if approved, would in no way establish any precedent as Dynachem is seeking only temporary exemption from the code requirements for parking. To this extent Dynachem is prepared to establish as a condition of the variance the following terms; should we not complete this project as planned, sell or sub-lease this property or add additional space we would at that time be required to bring the parking in line with the applicable regulations. It is therefore requested that a conditional variance be granted for this project. If you should have any questions or Should require additional information or assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (?14) 730-4365. Thank you. Sincerely Terrence E. McRell Senior Facilities Engineer Morton International, Inc. Dynachem Electronic Materials cc: C. Shingleton, Director of Community Development Attachment No. 1 TUSTIN FACILITY SPACE ALLOCATION BREAKDOWn: Parkinq Space Requirements (Existinq) (Square Feet) Area 100 Area 800 Area 300 Area ~00 Area 500 Area 600 · Area ?00 Area 800 Ar~a 900 Area 1000 Office R&D Mfq. War. · · 13,715 0 588 337 15,573 0 6~. · . 678 0 14,805 0 0 11,960 1,987 638 880 0 ?,318 488 0 Totals 14,574 16,311 14,805 14,805 7,800 5,-547 986 561 766 7,800 0 13,545 16,764 81,691 58,000 3-~-590 -- 1,295 840 o 0 6,001 ' 0 1,247 1 ,218 0 0 84,586 0 0 48,513 48,165 27,588 7,443 6,001 1'42,786 Parkinq Calculations: 1) Off - 48,513 / 850 8) .R&D - 42,165 / 500 Mfg War - 27,588 / 500 - 24,526 / 1,000 / 8,000 / 4,000 = 194.05 = 194 spaces = 84.33 = 84 spaces = 55.16 = 55 spaces (1ST 80) = 20.00 = 20 spaces (SND 80) = 8.86 = 8 spaces ( ~ 40) = 0.00 = 0 spaces Required Spaces Currently = 355 spaces A~tac~men~ No. ~ TUSTIN FACILITY SPACE ALLOCATION BREAKDOWN Parkinq Space Requirements (Phase 1) (Square Feet) Area 100 Area 200 Area 300 Area 400 Area 500 Area. 600 Area, 700 Area 800 Area 900. Area 1000 Office R&D 13,715 0 15,573 0 0 14,805 11~960 Mfq. War. 522 33? 0 0 1,987 638 220 0 7,318 488. 5,54? 926 561 0 0 22,396 11,913 17;6~1 ?,41.8 5,890 1,295 840 0 0 6,001 0 0 1~847 54,213 53~31& 2;:,731 0 PO, 5;:6 Parkinq 1) Off - 5k,213 / 250 2) R&D - 53,316 / 500 3) Mfg - 22,731 / 500 4) War - Calculations: = 216.85 = 106.63 = 45.46 20,526~ / 1,000 (1ST 20) = 20.00 / 2,000 (2ND 20) = 0.26 · . /- 4,000--<--- + 40) = 0.00 Spaces Required For Comp let ion of Phase 1 = 217 spaces = 107 spaces = 45 spaces = 20 spaces = 0 spaces = ... 0 spaces = 389 spaces Totals 14,574 16,311 14,805 14,805 7,800 7,800 58,000 7,443 6,001 1~847 150,786 Attachment No. 2 · "TUSTIN F~'jLI-'~Y sP~£E ALLOCATION BREAKDOWN. Parkinq Space Requirements (Phase 2) (Square Feet) Area 100 Area 200 Area 300 Area 400 Area 500 Area &O0 Area 700 Office ~&D ~ War. 0 13-,715 288 337 15,573 0 66 672 0 14,805 11,983 5,113 Area 800 5,418 1,038 8rea 900 0 0 7,312 Area 1000 0 38,027 0 34,309 7,890 81,683 0 0 638 488 561 1,895 6,001 1,247 _ 10,330 1,806 0 17,691 840 0 0 20,746 Totals 14,574 16,311 14,805 14,805 7,800 7,800 52,000 7,443 6,001 1~247 150,786 Par k i nq Calculations: 1) Off - 38,087 / 250 2) R&D - 81,683 / 500 3) Mfg - 10,330 / 500 4) War - 80,746 = 152.11 = 152. spaces = 163.37 = 163 20.66 = 21 spaces / 1,000 (1ST 80) = / 2,000 (2ND 20) = / 4,000 ( ~ 40) = spaces Spaces Required For Completion of Phase = 356 spaces 80.00"" = 20 Spaces 0.37 = 0 spaces 0.00 = 0 spaces