Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZA ACTION AGENDA 8-8-05 ACTION AGENDA ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MEETING AUGUST 8, 2005 **** CALL TO ORDER: 10:30 a.m. Community Development Department Conference Room ROLL CALL: Dana Ogdon, Acting Zoning Administrator Staff present: Chad Ortlieb, Associate Planner Eloise Harris, Recording Secretary PUBLIC CONCERNS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda) CONSENT CALENDAR: No Items on Consent Calendar PUBLIC HEARING: Desion Review 05-008 - Authorization to construct a 988 square foot detached building for employee parking. The project is located at 140 Centennial Way within the Retail Commercial (C-1) zoning district. APPLlCANT/: PROPERTY OWNER: GENE A. SULLIVAN RECOMMENDATION That the Zoning Administrator deny Design Review 05-008 by adopting Zoning Administrator Action 05-014. The Public Hearing opened at 10:32 a.m. The Zoning Administrator introduced the staff in attendance and Gene Sullivan, the applicant. Robert Dawson, 11952 Marble Arch, stated he was in attendance because his property is near the proposed parking garage. The Zoning Administrator explained the procedure of the meeting and asked Mr. Ortlieb to describe the proposal. Mr. Ortlieb highlighted the proposal, including the design of the structure. and problems inherent with the design. The Zoning Administrator asked the applicant if he had an opportunity read the staff report. Zoning Administrator Agenda August 8, 2005 Page 2 Mr. Sullivan answered in the negative, indicating he has received other communication from Mr. Ortlieb but did not receive the staff report; and, stated he believes this is a quality parking garage that would be perfect for his business and would only provide covered parking where cars now park in open spaces. Mr. Dawson indicated his primary concern was with current traffic in the alley that exceeds the speed limit and often creates traffic jams; and, asked about the undisclosed use the proposed structure at the location. Mr. Sullivan stated that the undisclosed use was an oversight by the architect who neglected to indicate that an open room in the building was a parking space. Mr. Bowman asked if classic cars would be parked there. Mr. Sullivan indicated that he owns a 1933 Ford and 1957 Nomad that he drives to work; and, added that his partner also owns some fine cars. Mr. Bowman stated he observes classic cars from the back of his business, the Tustin Inn, that sometimes have for sale signs on them; and, asked if the proposed building is intended to be used for the selling of cars. Mr. Sullivan answered in the negative but added that his partner buys and sells cars as a sideline. Mr. Bowman asked if there would be adequate parking on the existing property for the employees at his business. Mr. Sullivan indicated the employees may park there but there are more than enough spaces-eight are required; he has eleven. The Zoning Administrator indicated his understanding from the staff report that there are a sufficient number of parking spaces at the site for the existing building and the new addition; the project would eliminate five existing surface parking spaces and replace them with two covered garage spaces. However, there is a Code requirement that there must be free and clear a 25-foot backup area from the back of the garage to any obstruction. If this project were approved, the number of parking spaces on the site would still meet the requirement; the speed in the alleyway is a concern for everyone but is not something that can be controlled by the applicant. The Zoning Administrator stated his concern that Mr. Sullivan had not received the staff report and asked if he would like a short recess in order to review it. Mr. Sullivan indicated that would not be necessary, because he believed he was familiar with the City's position as stated in various letters and in conversations with Mr. Ortlieb; and, asked if there was anything different in the staff report. The Zoning Administrator answered in the negative; and, added that the Code requires that a non-conforming site be brought into compliance. Thus, back-up distances and other requirements must be met. Mr. Sullivan stated his understanding of the Code requirements related to backing into the alley. Zoning Administrator Agenda August 8, 2005 Page 3 The Zoning Administrator affirmed that backing into alleys is no longer allowed; therefore, a brand-new garage would need to comply with the current Code. Mr. Sullivan stated there would be no backing into the alley. As the parking now exists, people pull into the lot and back into a parking space and drive out forward. Mr. Ortlieb indicated that when staff evaluates a parking lot back-up area, parking spaces are assumed to contain vehicles parked in them; when a person backs out of a space or out of the proposed enclosed garage, a free and clear turning radius of 25 feet is required so the car can then exit into the alley in a forward direction. Mr. Sullivan suggested that he could eliminate a parking space which would allow for plenty of space for a turning radius. Mr. Sullivan pointed out that peopie from Mr. Bowman's business park in the alley. If the City is suggesting he must remove existing non-conforming parking and move the planter, that does not seem feasible. The Zoning Administrator reiterated it is only when an addition is proposed that the property must be brought into conformance. If Mr. Sullivan chooses to continue to operate the site without the structure being proposed, he may do so. Mr. Sullivan stated that would be his choice, depending on what would be decided at this hearing. The Zoning Administrator restated the issues involved in the denial. Mr. Sullivan asked if he was correct in assuming it would be allowed if it were attached to the building. Mr. Ortlieb stated that when the application first carne in for a personal storage garage use, staff looked at the possibility that personal storage may not be permitted; at the time Mr. Sullivan stated the office use needed storage, staff indicated perhaps an addition to the building to support the use could be considered. Mr. Sullivan indicated it did not seem practical to him to cover up more of the parking lot with the footprint of the building rather than a garage for cars and storage racks on the wall of the garage. Mr. Ortlieb stated that the proposal to provide two usable spaces and removal of five existing surface parking might occur with redesign and compliance with the Code. The project could be redesigned to include a 25-foot drive aisle by moving the existing landscaping toward the northerly property line. The applicant could remove four legal non-conforming parking spaces that back out onto the alley, with the remaining spaces sufficient to support the existing office building and perhaps support additional expansion of the building. For that reason, staff does not see that this proposed addition to the property is the best use for the property. The Zoning Administrator pointed out the staff report also discusses the General Plan and zoning requirements; the design of the proposed building is similar to the existing building but could have been more attractive. Mr. Sullivan stated that he believed the proposed parking facility should look the same as the structure that already exists on the site. Zoning Administrator Agenda August 8, 2005 Page 4 The Zoning Administrator restated that the property needs to be brought into conformance and also introduce more attractive buildings into Old Town. Mr. Sullivan asked what sort of features would be acceptable. The Zoning Administrator stated the goal is to bring the parking spaces and the site and the landscaping and the drive aisle into conformance, which would require improvements to be made and the property owner to do things within the site that make the property better looking. Mr. Sullivan stated that suggestion was never made to him. The Zoning Administrator stated that, if the goal was to have storage space for the existing office use, the four spaces could be removed, keeping all the existing number of parking spaces in the back, and redesign the parking area. Storage space could be placed in the front and incorporated into the architecture of the existing office building. This kind of proposal would bring the property more into conformance with the Code, and it would be something staff might support. A detached two- or three-car garage is not something that can be supported in a commercial district. It is necessary to have parking for the employees and building additions need to be designed to upgrade the area. Mr. Sullivan asked if it was staff's opinion that his proposal was not an upgrade to the property. The Zoning Administrator indicated his agreement with the staff report that the proposal would not be an upgrade to the property, because the project is not in conformance with the Code or the General Plan. Mr. Sullivan suggested that conformance with the Code would only require a change to allow a bigger turning radius. Mr. Ortlieb stated the Tustin City Code does relate to the required drive aisle width. Mr. Sullivan asked if he moved the planter four or five feet and left the landscaping would the parking conform to the Code. Mr. Ortlieb answered that the drive aisle would conform to the Code; however, the landscaping on-site now may not be what the Code requires. Mr. Sullivan stated he provided photographs and assumed that staff had seen property. Mr. Ortlieb responded that he had seen the property but what would be required would be to know the percentage of all the landscaping now in existence and compare that with Code to see if the percentage is correct. Mr. Sullivan asked what the Code requirement is. Mr. Ortlieb stated the percentage is based upon the size of the parking lot area, the linear feet of the property, and which public right-of-ways it fronts upon. The Code also allows staff to consider the design of the project in order to meet the Design Review Standards. Architectural embellishments could be included to upgrade the building. Zoning Administrator Agenda August 8, 2005 Page 5 Mr. Sullivan asked if the staff is allowed to be subjective in criticizing the design. Mr. Ortlieb responded that staff is authorized to use their professional judgment. Mr. Sullivan stated he has owned property for twenty-five years in other towns, was happy to get the property in Tustin, and thought it would be a fun place to finish his professional career. Changing the existing building and parking lot to construct a new building that can hardly be seen seems unreasonable. The Zoning Administrator clarified that staff was not asking the applicant to upgrade the existing building, but seeking the addition to be forward-looking. For the reasons stated in the staff report and based upon the testimony at the hearing, the Zoning Administrator saw no reason to question the recommendation of staff. The Zoning Administrator approved Zoning Administrator Action 05-014 denying the application. The Zoning Administrator stated there is a seven-day appeal process if the applicant chooses to appeal this item to the Planning Commission. Mr. Sullivan asked for a copy of the staff report and the cover letter. The Zoning Administrator indicated that Mr. Ortlieb would provide a copy of those documents and further explain the appeal process. REGULAR BUSINESS: None ADJOURNMENT: The Public Hearing closed and the meeting adjourned at 10:56 a.m. The date of the next meeting of the Zoning Administrator will be scheduled when items are set for hearing.