Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH 1A USE PERMIT 82-22 09-20-82DATE: September 20, 1982 CONT3-NUED PUBLIC HEARING NO. 1 Inter-Corn TO: FROH: SUBdECT: Honorable Chairman & Planning Agency Members Community Development Department Use Permit 82-22 Applicant: Location: Request: Goldwyn Enterprises on behalf of Heritage House 151N. Tustin Avenue Authorization for forty-two seats for sit-down eating and wine tasting BACKGROUND On April 14, 1975, the Planning Commission considered a request to change the use from the existing liquor store and commercial office use to include a restaurant (sit-down seating). Copies of that report and minutes of the meeting are attached. On May 12, 1975, the Commission again considered the same request and adopted Resolution No. 1440 - Alternative "B", which states that sit-down restaurant operations would not be permitted. (See attached staff report, minutes and resolutions.) This decision by the Planning Commission was appealed to the City Council on June 2, 1975. At that meeting, the City Council upheld the findings of the Planning Commission and denied sit-down seating for the restaurant use. On November 14, 1978, the City once again reviewed a request for the restaurant use at 151 N. Tustin Avenue and were told they could apply for a use permit {copy of letter from Brian Chase dated November 14, 1978 is attached). DISCUSSION Mr. Johnson is now requesting authorization for forty-two (42) seats for sit-down restaurant along with wine tasting. According to a submitted plot plan and a check of the parking lot, additional spaces have been added recently because of the City's acceptance of compact parking spaces. When the parking was calculated for the Community Development Director in 1975, the requirements were determined to be thirty (30) spaces and existing were twenty-nine (29). No parking was allocated for the food preparation and food storage areas. The present proposal uses the parking requirements of the Commercial General {CG) district which provides parking at the following ratios: ae Restaurants - 1 space per three seats 1 space per 300 square feet of food preparation and storage area Chairman &Planntng Agency Members September 20, 1982 Page 2 b. Office - 1 space per 300 square feet of area c. Retail Sales - 1 space per 200 square feet of sales area On the submitted plot plan, parking spaces are shown jointly for the Heritage House and the commercial structure northerly (at 171 N. Tustin) of the Heritage House. If the use permit is approved, it is recommended that one of the conditions of approval be that a reciprocal (mutual) parking and use restriction agreement be recorded for these two properties. The existing parking spaces on the Heritage House parcel are (30.5). The existing spaces on the northerly parcel are 17.5. Since the commercial building on the north requires only 11 spaces at this time, and the Heritage House wants to borrow five from the northerly parcel, a use restriction would have to be placed on the northerly property that their use could not intensify. The Building Division has informed the applicant that in order for the building to be brought up to code, a licensed architect will have to prepare a set of plans to show conformance with all applicable current technical codes. Of special interest is the fact that all seating on the second floor will have to be "fixed seating". If the seating were to be movable, then the occupancy level would be more than 50 and would be classified as an assembly occupancy which would mean major changes to the structure. CONCLUSION It appears there are enough spaces for both uses on both properties but only if the use on the northerly property does not intensify. The building as it now exists has retail sales of 1,600 square feet (eight spaces required) and 1,500 square feet of storage (three spaces required). If a new retail-user came in and used the building for offices, 12 spaces would be required. If a commercial user came in, 16 would be required. Therefore, the need for the use restriction. RECOI,lw~E:NDED ACTION 1. Please of the Agency 2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution. MAC:ih 9-15-82 DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT: REQUEST: NEW BUSINESS NO. 1 April 14, 1975 Heritage House, Change of Use 151 North Tustin Avenue Amalgamated Restaurants, Inc., David R. Baade,. Esq. By letter dated March 26, 1975, Amalgamated Restaurants, Inc. requests Planning Commission approval of a change in use from a liquor store and commercial office use to a liquor store, commercial office, and restaurant BACKGROUND: On October 21, 1969, the City of Tustin approved site development plans for a structure at 151 North Tustin Avenue for the first floor to be used as a liquor store and take-out delicatessen with offices located on the second floor. The site design was sub-standard by current design standards, especially as related to parking accommodations. To compound a sub-standard design with 29 minimum parking accommodations, the building owners, without benefit of permit or Commission authority, modified the structure by changing a portion of the second floor to dining room use and converting operations to a sit-down eating establishment. Adjoining property owners protested'to the city of the lack of parking which adversely impacted the use and enjoyment of their properties, and the resultant congestion in the area. After numerous attempts of the staff to gain compliance of the Heritage House with their authorized use, with no satisfactory response, the City Attorney filed criminal and civil complaints. The owners of the Heritage House have subsequently filed the attached letter of request dated March 26, 1975 for authorization of the existing uses. The report of the Building Official dated April 10, 1975 indicates that 30 spaces would be the minimum parking accommodations required to satisfy the code requirements for the uses as proposed. New Business No. 1 4/14/75 2 DISCUSSION: The structure was not designed for the uses to which it is being utilized. The parking accommodations are such as to not be conducive to convenience of patrons, thereby encouraging the use of the parking accommodations of adjoining properties. The land intensity of a single lot is not compatible with the mixed uses of the structure. If there is a hardship related to this property, it is self created by the alteration of the interior and change in use without benefit of permit or approval by the Commission. From a development perspective, I would recommend against the combined uses of a take-out liquor-delicatessen, on-premise eating establishment, and office building. If the Commission is inclined not to object to the mixed uses, then safeguards should be established to protect against the continued violation and nuisance factors. Suggested safeguards would include a restriction of occupancy levels and square footage allocation for the various uses with said restrictions being recorded covenants meeting the approval of the City Attorney. RECOMMENDED ACTION: There are two alternatives available to the Commission for application: A finding that the uses violate the terms and conditions of the original approval of the structure, with the City Attorney to proceed with the pending criminal and civil complaints for court-ordered compliance limiting the use of the structure to a liquor store and professional offices. 2. Approval of the uses as existing, specifying the following criteria: First floor sales area: 2,440 max. sq. ft. (12.2 parking spaces) First floor kitchen area: 1,360 max. sq. ft. (0 parking) Second floor office area: Second floor storage area: Second floor dining area: 1,225 max. sq. ft. (4~08 parking spaces) 799 max. sq. ft. (0 parking) 1,117 max. sq. ft., limited to not more than 39 seats (13 parking spaces Total parking available = 29 spaces New Business No. 1 4/14/75 3 As a further consideration and finding, said authority for the authorized uses shall be predicated upon the recOrding of a document to the satisfaction of the City Attorney citing the findings and limitations for subject property. Respectfully submitted, R. Kenneth Fieagle/ Assistant City Administrator Community Development Director Attachment RKF:mw The Fi.re Department indicated a 15 foot wide fire lane with access gate is needed at the northeasterly corner of the mini-warehouse complex; 2~'~ x 4" fire hydrants are needed with 8" mains~ required 1 hour fire wall separations for each 3,000 square feet of building area for the protection of the complex and tenants who are storing valuables within their units. Another general comment was access to units by public safety personnel under supervision of residen~ manager is needed. Commissioner McHarris opened the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Everett Davis, Vice President, Don Koll Company stated that necessary steps are being taken to assure a minimum possibility of flammables being stored and that partitioned spaces would reduce fire possibilities; that a caretaker would be on duty 24 hours; and that Don Koll Company would be willing to work with the city on terms and conditions of the lease and any other factors or problems that might arise. Closed public hearing at 8:00 p.m. The Planning Commissioners were g~ad to hear that the warehouse complex was to be sprinklered, that the only electrical outlet in each unit was for a light bulk, and that the Don Koll Company was to retain a long term ownership of the development. They were concerned regarding the possibility 6f storing flammable materials, and hours of operations, and directed that these be resolved with staff plus placement of buildings, the tapered road- way on Moulton Parkway, and other design considerations indicated in the staff report. In addition, the Commission, with the concurrence of the Don Koll Company requested that the Fire Department specify the limitations and restrictions on the storage of any material that may be hazardous, explosive, or highly flammable, with these restrictions written into the lease agreement. Moved by McHarris, seconded by Dukleth to adopt Resolution No. 1436 granting a use permit for the construction of a mini-warehouse. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 PUBLIC CONCERNS - None Mr. Fleagle requested the Commission that due to the number of people in the audience who were here for agenda item #1 under new business, he would like to have that discussion next. Moved by Hill, seconded by Schier to take up first item under New Business. MOTION CARRIED: 4-0 NEW BUSINESS 1. Heritage House, 151 North Tustin Avenue, Change of Use Mr. Fleagle stated that on March 26, 1975, Amalgamated Restaurants, Inc., the owners of Heritage House, filed a letter requesting the Planning Commission make a finding approving a change in use from a liquor store and commercial office use to a liquor store, commercial office and food serving establishment use. In October 1969 the City approved site development plans for a structure with first floor t3 be used as a liquor store and take-out delicatessen with offices located on the second floor. The site design was'sub-standard by current design standards, especially as related to parking accommodations. The building owners without benefit of a permit or Commission authority modified the structure by changing a portion of the second floor to dining room use and converting operations to a sit- down eating establishment. Adjoining property owners protested to the City of the lack of parking which adversely impacted the use and enjoyment of their properties and congestion in the area. The City brought criminal and civil complaints against the company through the City Attorney after numerous attempts were made by staff to gain compliance of Heritage House with their authorizeu use. Mr. Fleagle added that the report of the Building Official indicates that 30 spaces would be the minimum parking accommodations required to satisfy the code requirements for the uses as proposed. PC Minutes 4/14/75 Page 3 The Planning Commissioners were concerne~ as to when the building was converted to a restaurant; are there signs which indicate "reserved for parking;" does the structure meet the Uniform Building Code; are there prc~isions for the handicapped; do they have re~t rooms on the second floor; and were the present owners aware of the non-Conformance of the Heritage House as to uses? David Baade, attorney representing Amalgamated Restaurants, Inc. told the Commission that the alterations which were made and change of uses were made prior to the present o~mership. At the time the property was purchased they did not look into this particular aspect and none of them were aware of the problems with the additional use. He stated that they are willing to reduce occupancy of dining room to conform with the parking standards. He feels this type of restaurant is badly needed in the area which is convenient to neighboring office buildings serving a modest-type meal with a place to sit down. Moved by McHarris, seconded by Schier to have staff write to the adjoining property owners advising them of a Planning Co~unission meeting on April 28, 1975 at which time they could attend and express their concerns and opinionsf re the change in use of this property. (~.~.TION CARRIED: 4-0 OLD BUSINESS 1. Commercial Planned Development District, First Street west of Prospect Mr. Fleagle told the Planning Commission that the proposal before them is to amend the zoning ordinance to create a Commercial Planned Development District overlay zone to encompass an area 300' northerly and southerly of First Street, west of Prospect, to enable greater flexibility in development criteria and encourage the consolidation of properties. Apprehension was voiced over the prospect of adverse impact upon adjacent residential properties that may result from the overlay proposal that would provide wide latitude of development criteria. It is suggested that this defect may be eliminated by a different approach to the objectives. Mr. Fleagle described the proposed model zoning ordinance which was adopted b-~ the City of Anaheim and the orange County Board of Supervisors request for cities and county to amend their zoning ordinances to achieve a uniform definition of terms and classifications. CG-PUD - To provide for and encourage the orderly development of commercial areas throughout the city in accordance with the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which will serve the demand for a wide variety of goods and services. Planned Unit Development (Suffix) - A large'scale development of a parcel or a combination of related parcels to be developed by a single owner or group of owners involving a related group of uses, planned as an entity and having a predominant developmental feature which serves to unify or organize development and is susceptible to development and regulations as one unified land unit rather than as a mere aggregatior~ of individual buildings and structures located on separate lots. Commissioner McHarris wanted to know how this action will accomplish what we are.striving for? Mr. Fleagle replied that this ordinance provides for the extension of commercial zoning where it can be accomplished without adverse impact upon other developments. Standardized classifications will assure orderly and sensible growth which would be acceptable for the city as well as persons wishing to locate businesses in Tustin. He said it is difficult at the present time to tell the difference between C-1 and C-2 commercial zoning in the city. OLD BUSINESS NO. i DATE: SUBJECT: LOCATION: APPLICANT REQUEST: May 12, 1975 Heritage House 151 North Tustin Amalgamated Restaurant Authority for Change of Use BACKGROUND: The Commission has considered the request of Amalgamated Restaurants, Inc., for authorization to conduct a restaurant operation at 151 North Tustin Avenue, on April 14, 1975 and April 28, 1975. Staff reports and background infOrmation from those dates are included for further Commission consideration. On April 28, 1975, the Commission continued a determination to the meeting of May 12, 1975 to provide an opportunity for the adjoining property owner, Mr. William Zink, to present testimony. The City Attorney was requested to furnish information on the applicability of the State requirements for handicapped facilities. The Building Official was requested to determine the dates of permits for the installation of dishwashing equipment. The Community Development Department has conducted daily parking counts during noon hours. The requested reports are attached. DISCUSSION: The property was not designed for restaurant operations, which compound an undesirable traffic and parking design. One of the complaints, Mr. William Zink, was the principle in presenting and defending the design of the plot layout to the Development'Preview Commission. The design was approved over the objections of the staff, on the basis that the structure, and the two adjoining structures were under one ownership and it was a consolidated development. Subsequent to development, Mr. Zink has obtained separate title to the adjoining southerly property. Old Business No. 1 5/12/75 Page 2 Conversions to the property were made without benefit of permit. The property was poorly designed for its authorized use, as related to parking accommodations. It is even more of a hazard and nuisance under its expanded use as a restaurant. If there is a hardship, it is a self-made hardship without benefit of permits or sanction of the city. If there is action in equity, it would not be directed toward the city. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Commission determine whether or not the use.of the existing structure is appropriate and authorized for restaurant use. This office believes that it is not appropriate. Draft Resolution No. 1440(A) authorizes the continued use. Draft Resolution No. 1440(B) determines that the use is unauthorized and orders the owner to cease and desist restaurant operations. Respectfully submitted, R. Kenneth Fleagle Assistant City Administrator Community Development Director Eno. RKF:mw MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION May 12, 1975 The regular meeting of the City of Tustin Planning Commission was held on the twelfth day of May, 1975, at the hour of 7:30 p.m. of said day, in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Centennial at Main, Tustin, California. ROLL CALL Present: Co~nissioners: McNarris, Dukleth, Hill, Kennedy, Schier Absent: Commissioners: None Others Present: R. Kenneth Fleagle, Assistant City Administrator- Community Development Director Bruce Lenorovitz, Assistant Planning Director James Rourke, City Attorney Marge Will, Recording Secretary PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Commissioner Dukleth. INVOCATION was led by Commissioner Hill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Moved by Schier, seconded by Kennedy, that the minutes of April 28, 1975 be approved. MOTION CARRIED:' 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING To reclassify properties from the C-1 and C-2 District to the Classification of "CG" (Commercial, General) District, subject to a Use Permit for Development Mr. Fleagle explained that a public hearing for the proposed zone change action has been advertised with notice of hearing being provided by letter to all property owners of record. The proposal creates a "Commercial, General" District, establishes a precise land use classification for each parcel westerly of Prospect Avenue, and requires the submission of an application for a Use Permit in conjunction with any proposed development. Flexibility in height limitations are. incorporated into the resolution for any property removed from a single-family residential district. The proposed ordinance accommodates all of the known concerns related to the previously considered overlay zone. The intent of the proposal is to authorize commercial uses on the frontage of First Street properties including the depth of existing lots and to remove the non-conforming status of many of the structures and uses now there, and to establish criteria and review process for any new proposals. Opened and closed public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Moved by Dukleth, seconded by Kennedy to adopt Resolution NO. 1441 as drafted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 OLD BUSINESS rity for Change of Us~ Heritage House' Mr. Fleagle reported that since the last meeting of April 28, 1975, staff has conducted daily parking counts during noon hour, the Building Official Has requested to determine the dates of permits for installation of dishwashing equipment, and the City Attorney was requested to furnish information on the applicability of the State requirements for handicapped facilities. The property was not designed for restaurant operations, conversion to the property was made without benefit of permit, and the property was poorly designed for its existing use. If there is a hardship, it is a self-made hardship without benefit of permits or sanction of the city. It is for PC Minutes 5/12/75 Page 2 the Planning Commission to determine whether or not the existing use is appropriate and authorized for restaurant use. David Baade, attorney for Amalgamated Restaurant~ stated that in talking to the manager he understood ~hey used only paper and plastic plates and did not use a dishwasher in that sense -- only utensils and serving dishes are washed in the dishwasher. The people who are using zink and Carter parking lots are usually ~he ones who are at the take-out counter. The problem will not be solved by closing down the dining room. The problem can be lessened by use of signs and altered configuration in parking in front of the building as suggested by staff. We would certainly be willing to alter spaces in front of the building, and reserve the right to present additional testimony after adjoining property owners have appeared. Mr. Fleagle replied that the plates are plastic and require washing, and that the dishwasher does require a permit. Commissioner McHarris inquired if the deli had changed any in character since the original opening of the establishment, John Schmitz, Vice President, A~malgamated Restaurant said he checked with the ~hef who has been there 'for 4 years and that Heritage House has the same type Of operations for 4 years and that people were going upstairs for sit-down eating at that time. Mr. Baade said it was their understanding that when the building was constructed the authorization was for the catering kitchen and carry-out deli -- the dining upstairs came in at a later date. Conunissioner Schier asked whether alterations have been mede on the ground floor for the physically handicapped. Mr. Baade replied the only alteration he was aware of at the moment is that the cash register area has been moved from one side to the center of the ground floor. William Zink_, owner of Tustin Office Building, told the Planning Cor~mission he brought with him the approved plans by the.City. The structure was started in February 1969 and completed in spring of that same year. The building was designed by Design Inc., and Mr. J. P. Anderson was the Civil Engineer (8972). The original plans calked for 29 spaces and Reiss Bros. used the building as a first class liquor store, with catering service in the rear of the building. When the Tustin Office Building was completed parking became a problem and Mr. Zink, at the urgency of the owner, Mr. Tubbs, leased 5 parking spaces to ' Heritage House for a period of one year to help get their liquor store and catering service going (1973). Five or six tables were added in the balcony to try to make business more successful. Mr. Zink purchased the Tustin Office Building in April 1973. That summer Heritage House removed walls upstairs and converted office space to restaurant use, and it was at that time that his tenants could not find parking spaces. On June 10, 1974, Mr. Zink wrote a letter to the owner of Heritage House requesting a meeting in which they could discuss the parking situation and never received an answer, nor was any attempt made to solve the problem by the manager of Heritage House. When Mr. Zink wrote the letter there were 56 chairs in the upstairs restaurant--as of this date there are 26 chairs and an employee of Heritage House has been directing traffic to keep cars OUt of the adjoining parking lots. Mr. Zink said that the Heritage House had made alterations to the building w~--t~ permit and they have operated without city license for 2 years. The take-out counter could be a workable attraction but the sit-down restaurant will always be a problem in that building. Mr. Fleagle wanted to know for the record the date that the present OWner acquired the property? Mr. Baade ~eplied his clients acquired the business on October 3, 1973. Harry Carter, 171 N. Tustin Avenue, said Mr. Zink covered everything very thoroughly, and that the only thing is that the change in uses has interfered with-his business. When he applied for the building and business license nothing was said about convenience for next door parking. PC Minutes 5/12/75 Page 3 David Baade's rebuttal= Object strongest way possible to the classification of his client being a lawbreaker and criminal. His client did not initiate the serving of the food in the upstairs area ~nd did not make the alterations. When .they acquired the business it was substantially in the same condition as it is today. The parking report indicates sufficient parking for all cus- tomers who want to use the facility. The faci-lity is not a nuisance but an asset and with the safeguard restriction on the number of seats and parking signs, business could go on with no undue hardship. Commissioner Kennedy wanted to know why Heritage House was not more cooperative with Mr. Carter and Mr. Zink, and also the City of Tustin. did they become aware of the parking problem? When The President of Amalgamated Restaurant said he never saw the letter referred to by Mr. Zink, and that all of the owners (6) are in the building every day. They knew that there was a parking problem and told their employees not to park on the adjoining lots but to park elsewhere. Mrs. Harry Carter, 171 N. Tustin, felt with such an i~portant emphasis being put on liquors and wines, Heritage House carry-out service should be de- emphasized. Carter Lighting gave up convenience parking in order to get their building permit, which creates a problem as at times they will have four cars involving around one sale, plus other customers as well. She said they moved to this prestigious area, and did not want tO put up any additional "parking" signs. In response to Commissioner McHarris.'question, Mr. Fleagle explained that the applicant has the right to petition to the City Council within 5 days if the Commission fails to continue the present use of the Heritage House. David Baade stated that the City of Tustin approved the first floor take-out service, liquor store with offices on the second floor. The Building Dept. inspected the structural stability of the second floor restaurant and Heritage House was not aware of any building violations. According to State Law we are not required to provide access to handicapped as stated in the City Attorney's letter. We would be willing to discuss the entire situation with Mr. Carter and Mr. Zink and see what we can reach as far as a compromise or solution to the problem. Ronald Schwartz, attorney and one of the owners, added we have attempted to run a low-key operation. We do not want to advertise the take-out service which will increase traffic. Run the business as we found it -- natural and within confines. We are amenable to work out a use that will be acceptable to the community resulting in benefits to the city as a whole. Moved by McHarris, seconded by D~kleth, ~o adopt Resolution No. 1440, alternative B as drafted, which states that the sit-down restaurant operations will not be allowed nor permitted.. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 Mr. Fleagle added that this action does not prevent the three owners to come to some agreement and make reapplication through proper channels, and that staff will be glad to review an integrated plan.. 2. Resolution of Approval for Amendment to EIR 74-2 (Tract 8490). Moved by Schier, seconded by Hill, to adopt Resolution NO. 1439 as drafted. MOTION CARRIED~ 5-0 3. Resolution of Aprpoval for Noise Element to the Tustin Area General Plan. Moved b.y McHarris, seconded by Dukleth, to adopt Resolution No. 1442 as drafted. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 PC Minutes 5/12/75 Page 4 4. Newport Freeway Off-Ramp Mr~ Fleaqle reported that the attached report and photographic overlay on the feasibility of a NaWpor= Avenue off-ramp from the San%a Ana Freeway was requested by the Planning Commission. From the perspective of economic feasibility and benefit to be gained, it would appear that the proposed project would not warrant the expenditure, in relation to other alternatives. In addition, the off-ram~ on Newport would probably require the loss of the Red Hill on-ramp, which is considered essential to accommodate existing traffic patterns. He added ~hat s~aff concurs with the evaluation of the City Engineer and recom~ ~ mends that all efforts of the city be directed toward the improvement of Jamboree Road. The Planning Commissioners agreed, that they would like to reduce traffic on Red Hill and increase traffic on Newport Avenue and E1 Camino Real to get business improved in the downtown area. They asked if it might be possible to have an Ad Hoc Committee of Planning Commissioners, Traffic Commissioners and perhaps members of the Council in further pursuing the project in order to be able =o approach the State Engineers with some alternatives. Mr. Fleagle replied the first step would be for a circulation element study of the general plan. The Commission should request the City Engineer, in cooperation with the Community Development Department, to prepare a draft circulation element of the general plan ese~lishing priorities'as well as solutions to the inter- change system at Newport Avenue, which includes both Edinger and the Santa Aha Freeway. In preparing the draft, input would come from the City Engineer, Traffic Engineer and Traffic Commission. When a preliminary draft is prepared a workshop session could be held with all concerned parties to refine and in- corporate recommendations. A public hearing would be held for additional input. The Planning Commission by Minute Order requested the City Engineer and staff and be Traffic CommiSsion to prepare a circulation element of the General Plan for Planning Com~ission consideration with en~phasis being given to the study and feasibility of the Newpor~ Avenue interchange with the Santa Aha Freeway being an item of priority. The Planning Commission is willing to serve on a Ad Hoc Committee in cooperation with the Traffic Co~unission. It is also '--' requested this be done at the earliest feasible opportunity in order to have the review completed before final approval of the Newport Avenue Improvement Plans. NEW BUSINESS 1. Composite Plans for Tract 8031 Mr. Lenorovitz stated this is the fourth phase of the previously approved tentative Tract Map 7979, which is the townhomes portion of the Laurelwood develop- ment. Complete composite plans including landscape, irrigation and lighting plans have not been received a= this time. However, composite plot plans were reviewed and items 1-9 that need to be included are shown on the draft report. Stan Williams, Raub-Bein-Frost Associates, stated they were in full agreement with all items except they would like more flexibility re concrete curbing. He proposed perimeter or edging as approved by staff be made adjacent to all planters. The Planning Commission stated' that concrete curbing is to be installed adjacent to all driveways. Moved by Dukleth, seconded by Kennedy to approve by Minute Order the composite plans for Tract 8031 subject to the incorporation of items 1 thru 9 listed in the report, and subject to the submittal for review and approval by staff of landscaping, irrigation and lighting plans. MOTION CARRIED: 5-0 AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION - None CORRESPONDENCE 1. Orange County Zone Change 75-2 - 17th Street between Prospect and Yorba Mr. Fleagle reported that Orange County has scheduled a public hearing for the purpose of considering zone change 75-2 changing the property located on 17th Street between Prospect and Yorba from R-1 to 100-E4, single family to smell estates, with two alternatives. This property is owned by Mr. Vandenberg and proposal alternative A is in conformance with the Tustin Area General Plan and ! 8 8 ~0 15 RESOLUTION NO. 1440 (Alternative B) A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TUSTIN DENYING THE APPLICATION OF A~LG~TED RESTAURANTS, INC., THE RIGIIT OF UNLAWFUL CONVERSION OF A PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING TO RESTAURANT USE The. Planning Commission of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as follows: 1, The Planning Commission finds and determines: a) That a professional office building with authorized liquor store and catering service was authorized by the City of Tustin on October 21, 1969 for the property known as the Heritage House, located at 151 N. Tustin Avenue. b) That said building site accommodates 29 parking spaces, fcur of which are located in the front of the structure as parallel parking spaces, not conducive to convenience parking. c) That by ~onvenience, the parking spaces of the adjoining property owners are used by the customers of the Heri%age House, thereby creating a nuisance and hardship upon the adjoining property owners. d) That said property was ccnvcrted to restaurant operations without the ~;~i]ctiorl of the City or benefit of necessary permits for structural alterations. 2. The Planning Conunissi.~m hereby denies authorization for the establishment and maintenance of restaurant operations in a buil~]ing without facilities for the handicapped and without adequate parking design, and hereby reaffirms it's order to cease and desist the unlawful operations. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Co~ission, held on th~ 12th day of May, 1975. P~NN%~ CO~%SSION RECORD%NG SECRETARY DATE: J~ne 2, 1975 Inter-Corn THRU: TO: William Bopf, City Administrator Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appeal of Amalgamated Restaurants, Inc. re Heritage House By letter dated May 15, 1975 from David R. Baade on behalf of Amalgamated Restaurants, Inc., appealed to the City Council the determination of the Planning Commission on May 12, 1975 denying the request for conversion of an office building and liquor store delicatessen to include a sit-down eating establishment, pursuant to the findings of Resolution No. 1440. As stated in the letter of appeal, the Commission considered the case on April 14, April 28 and May 12. The appeal is based upon the grounds that the Planning CoA~ission's findings and decision in denying the use of the Heritage House as a sit-down restaurant were not supported by the evidence presented to it. The Commission's findings were to the effect that a permit had never been issued to the Heritage House as a restaurant operation. 2. That the parking for the subject use was not appropriately designed for the convenience of the patrons. 3. That the unauthorized use of the property creates a nuisance and a hardship upon the adjoining property owners. 4. 'That the property was converted to restaurant operations without the sanction of the city nor benefit of necessary permits for structural modifications. The appeal states that the findings of the Commission were not supported by evidence presented to it. The following is presented in rebuttal to the appeal: Testimony and evidence were presented to the Commission that the conversion of the building was done without the benefit of a permit from the City Building Department. Evidence and testimony were presented indicating that restaurant equipment was installed in violation of County Health Ordinances without the benefit of a Health Department inspection. Honorable Mayor & City Council 6/2/75 Page 2 Evidence and testimony were presented by the adjoining property owners, both on the north and the south, that the operation of the restaurant facilities causes a nuisance and denies them and their customers the use of their property. Evidence and testimony were presented that the building has a restaurant operation which does not provide facilities for the handicapped. Evidence was presented that the building code requires that any change in use or occupancy of a structure requires a certificate of occupancy for that use. No certificate of occupancy was ever issued for the use of the building as a restaurant. Ail items of issue and findings of the Commission were supported by the evidence of city records and testimony of adjoining property owners. There was no evidence presented to the Commission at the public hearing that any of the operations, conversions of the existing structure, or the installation of equipment requiring plumbing permits and inspection were ever accomplished except in any unlawful manner without the benefit of required permits. This matter was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission at the request of the applicant after the filing of both a criminal complaint and civil complaint by the City Attorney. No new evidence has been submitted by or on behalf of Amalgamated Restaurants, Inc. that disputes any of the findings of the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the findings of the Planning Commission ordering the Heritage House to cease and desist restaurant operations, as contained in Resolution No. 1440, adopted on the 12th day of May, 1975 be affirmed, and the appeal of Amalgamated Restaurants, Inc.'be denied. Respectfully submitted, R. Kenneth Fleagle Encl: Resolution No. 1440 Staff Report May 12, 1975 Minutes of Planning Commission April 14, 1975 Staff Report April 14, 1975 RKF:mw City Council Minutes 6/16/75 Page three ORDINANCES FOR ADOPTION IX. ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTI ON BUSINESS Moved by Welsh, and seconded, that the Lease Agreement for Use of School District Buses for Sua~er Programs be approved as recommended. Carried unanimously. 1. ORDINANCE NO. 653 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN UNIN- hABITED T~RRITORY, DESIGNATED "COLUMBUS TUSTIN SCHOOL ANNEXATION NO. 89" TO ~ CITY OF TUSTIN. Moved by Sutcliff, seconded by Welsh, that Ordinance No. 653 have second reading by title only. Carried unanimously. The secretary read Ordinance No. 653 by title. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 653 be adopted. Carried by roll call vote. Ayes: Saltarelli, Edgar, Sharp, Sutcliff, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: none. 1. ORDINANCE NO. 654 An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Tustin, California, A~DING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 157, AS AMENDED, CREATING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) DISTRICT AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP FOR PROPERTIES ON FIRST STREET, WESTERLY OF PROSPECT AVENUE. Moved by Sharp, seconded by Sutcliff, that Ordinance No. 654 have first reading by title only. Carried unanimously. The secretary read Ordinance No. 654 by title. Moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar, that Ordinance No. 654 be introduced. Mr. Fleagle responded to questions from Mayor Saltarelli con- cerning the list of permitted uses within the ordinance, and the procedure for Planning Comm%ission determination of the com- parability of any use not specifically referred to on that list. Above motion to introduce Ordinance No. 654 carried by roll call vote. Ayes: Saltarelli, Edgar, Sharp, Sutcliff, Welsh. Noes: none. Absent: none. 1. APPEAL OF AMALGAMATED RESTAURANTS, INC., RE HERITAGE HOUSE Mr. Fleagle cited the late receipt of an additional customer letter protesting the closure of on-premise food service, from Gloria Cresswell. Mr. Ronald Schwartz, 610 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, attorney and minority shareholder in Amalgamated Restaurants which owns Heritage House, described the scrutiny the Heritage House had been placed under by the City, related to Building and Fire Code regulations, facilities for the handicapped, and parking regulations; and said that the result had been that no City Council M/nutes 6/16/75 Page four violations of the Building and Fire Codes, other than the tables upstairs, were found; ~hat the City Attorney had deter- mined that the standards for handicapped didn't apply to the original construction, and since no changes were made on the first floor, did not apply now; and that the Public Services Assistant's parking s%~rvey conducted between April 29 and May 5 concluded that the matter of parking was not a great problem. Mr. Schwartz presented to Council a petition containing 270 signatures of patrons opposing the closure of on-premise eating facilities, and read a letter from Carol S. Gordon supporting the food service at the Heritage House. Mr. Schwartz then cited the hardship imposed by the Heritage House being deprived of using the food service, as mmre profit is derived from the food service than from the ~ackage liquor sales; restaurant operations are Amalgamated's area of expertise; and the service was in existence when Amalgamated purchased the business. While he acknowledged that his firm has been remiss in the past in responding to the probl~m~, Mr. Schwartz assured the Council that they are willing now to cooperate, and suggested that safe~,ards and guidelines be established, such as seating limitation. Mr. William Zink, 4220 Park Newport, Newport Beach, stated he was owner of t_he T~stin Avenue offices on one side of the Heri- tage House, and the builder of all three buildings (Carter Lighting, Heritage House, and his offices). He related some of the history of the development, including the creation by the previous owner, Mr. ~3hhS, of common easements for driveways to serve all three businesses. After Mr. Zink had assumed full ownership of the office building, Mr. Tubbs in 1972 persuaded him to sign a one-year lease of f~ve parking spaces to the Heri- tage House because of parking inadequacies. Since then, because of a lack of responsiveness and cooperation from the management and owners of Heritage House, he and his attorney have not even been able to determine who owned the Heritage House. Because of this lack of cooperation, and the possibility that the tempo- rary situation o~ low occupancy and low employment in his build- ing could end at any time, thereby increasing his own parking requirements, he was now reluctant to lease any parking spaces to the Heritage House. In reply to a question, Mr. Zink said that his building has its own entrance, and a second entrance has a common easement with the Heritage House. To the suggestion of quitclaim of the easements so that people couldn't get to Carter Lighting's parking and would have to go to the back of the Heritage House, Mr. Zink explained that the area and configuration of parking arrangements wouldn't permit this; for the same reason, a fence couldn't be constructed along the easement as his tenants need the full width of the driveway to back out of parking spaces. Mr. Zink explained further that when Heritage House was built for the original occupants, Reese Brothers, they had a catering company in Newport Beach, and a food ~ake-out counter was in the building plans. To his knowledge, there was no intention on the part of the Reese Brothers to operate a restaurant. Mr. Schwartz claimed that Mr. Zink was aware of that use when he built and purchased his building, and therefore assumed the risk for the parking problems. He said his firm should be allowed to continue the operation at a lower density of occupancy. Mr. Zink responded that at the time the office building was con- structed, he didn't know the extent of the problem, and that he City Council Minutes 6/16/75 Page five had always encountered problems with take-out customers parking on his side. He knew there were about five tables upstairs, seating about 20 people, but he later learned that walls had been torn out and part of the office space used for additional tables. Councilman Edgar stated his presumption that this is a compatible use of the land if Heritage House is willing and able to comply with all applicable codes, and he would not oppose the use under those circumstances. But he expressed no tolerance for action being taken unilaterally four years ago in violation of the codes. Councilman Sutcliff agreed. She said she had attended the Plan- ning Co~.~ssion hearings on this matter, and felt that ignorance of the requirements is no excuse at this point. In reply to Mayor Saltarelli, Mr. Fleagle indicated that Heritage House has 20 parking spaces available, meaning that they could have a maximum of 39 seats. These 29 spaces are assigned only to the Heritage House, but including the remainder of the second story offices, now vacant and for lease. He explained further t_hat Heritage House had converted about 800 square feet of office space into storage, which wouldn't have to be accommodated with parking. He said it was possible to. meet the requirements of the City in accordance with the April 14th staff report: 12 spaces for the first floor sales area; none for the kitchen area; 4 for 1,225 square feet of office space; none for 800 square feet of storage area on the second floor; and 13 for the 1,117 square feet dining area (39 seats) on the second floor. But the estab- lishment cannot meet design requirements for the parking facili- ties; they are not conducive to the convenience of patrons and thereby encourage the use of parking accommodations of adjoining properties. Mayor Saltarelli felt that the driving habits of the public shouldn't be the basis for putting somebody out of business. If Heritage House modifies operations to fit the code, they should be allowed to continue. Although the City requires 30 parking spaces, some modification of the operation could be brought about to bring them into compliance with the 29 spaces available. Mr. Fleagle stated that no permits were issued by the City for structural alterations, and there are no records on file in the Health Department showing that the dishwashing equip- ment was ever inspected. He said that there is nothing related to the restaurant operation which meets Health Depar~nent and City requirements. Mr. Schwartz stated that there is no dishwashing equipment. Mayor Saltarelli stated that if they cannot bring the business they want to operate into full compliance With all requirements --Health D~partment, business license, building permits, parking, etc.--they shouldn't be pe~nitted to operate. Councilman Welsh, Mr. Rourke explained that th~~ In reply to requirements for facilities for the handicapped don't apply as they were not in effect when the building was constructed, and he didn't think there were any violations of the handi- capped facilities law. Feeling that City requirements have not b~en'~f-~t- this time, Councilman Welsh recommended that the Planning Co~ission findings be affirmed, and this appeal denied, with reconsideration possible City Council Minutes 6/16/75 Page six XI. NEW BUSINESS whenever all requirements have been complied with. Following brief Council co~nents, Mr. Rourke responded to a question from Mrs. Sutcliff by stating that the law regarding facilities for the handicapped provides that if a building is added to or reconstructed, the area where that is done must comply with the law; his findings in this case had been that there was no addition or reconstruction in ~ny area. Following further discussion, it was moved by Welsh, seconded by Edgar, that the findings of the Planning Cor~ission ordering the Heritage House to cease and desist restaurant operations, as contained in Resolution No. 1440, be affirmed, and that the appeal of Amalga~ated Restaurants, Inc., be denied. Mayor Saltarelli proposed giving the applicants a certain length of time to come back with resolutions to the problems cited, including parking. As the establishment is now co~- plying with the order of the City to desist from restaurant operations, it could be given a period of time within which they would have to comply with all requirements mentioned; if they don't', the Council could then affirm the action of the Planning Commission, and if they do, the seating capacity,etc., could be adjusted and the operation allowed. Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Sharp, that no action be taken on the appeal, and that ~eritage House be given 45 days to com- ply with all applicable standards, including Health Department requirements, Building Codes, parking requirements, occupancy lim/tations, business license, etc. Carried unanJ~nously. Councilman Edgar requested that staff respond to each person who indicated an interest in this matter, advising them of the Council's position that the issue is strictly one of compliance with codes. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE TUSTIN PLANNING COMMISSION Moved by Saltarelli, seconded by Welsh, that this matter be continued to the next regular meeting of July 7, 1975. Carried unanimously. Councilmen Edgar and Sharp agreed to act as a committee to inter- view candidates prior to the July 7th Council meeting. CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE DEVELopMENT PREVIEW BOARD OF APPEALS Moved by Sharp, seconded by Edgar, that the appeal function for development criteria be retained and placed with the Planning Co~nission; that the City Attorney be directed to prepare an amendment to Section 5.280 of Ordinance No. 587, creating an appeal procedure to the Planning Commission; and that the staff be directed to prepare letters for the Mayor's signature expressing appreciation to the members of the Development Pre- view Board of Appeals for their willingness to serve the City. Carried u~animously. HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FUND ALLOCATION FOR SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION Mr. Fleagle explained the proposed procedure to give the prop- erty owners within the old town center the opportunity to · ' No. 530713 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL NO III~INIANC~ ~OVEAA~E ~ HOT FOIl lIllERNA~ONAI. MAIL November 14, 1978 Heritage Ho~se 151 NOrth Tustin Avenue Tustin, California 92680 Attention Mr. and Mrs. Johnson Dear Mr. and Mrs. Johnson: On Monday, November 6, 1978 the Mayor-and City Council reviewed your letter requesting the continuance of your restaurant use at the Heritage House. After a lengthy discussion, by members of the City Council who were on the Planning Commission which denied the restaurant use before, and after discussions with the city attorney, who was involved in civil and criminal proceedings against the previous owner, I was asked to reply to your request on behalf of the City Council. Based on the information you and the staff presented, the Council was of the opinion that the conditions under which you are oper- ating a restaurant are almost identical to that which the City had previously denied and took court action against. Further, that this information was made available to you when you acquired the business from the previous owner. You have a right, under the zoning ordinance, to apply for another Use Permit ($250. filing fee). However, unless you can demonstrate a significantly different set of circumstances it would be my recommendation to have the restaurant use denied. I feel certain that this viewpoint is shared by the City Council, based on infor- mation you have already submitted. I would not encourage you to spend your money on a Use Permit I feel has little chance for success. It certainly is not a pleasant duty to require you to remove all of the dining tables and chairs in your establishment. Neverthe- less, your actions are illegal and are causing a hardship on the City Center Centennial at Main Tustin, California 92680 (714) 544-8890 Heritage House November 14, 1978 page 2. adjoining properties. Unless all of the dining tables and chairs are removed by Monday, November 27, 1978 this matter will be referred to the city attorney for legal action. Sincerely, Brian J. Chase Community Development Director BJC:n~