Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC Res 4208 1993-03-08 RESOLUTION NUMBER /f,to8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DENYING AN APPUCATION FOR CUP NO. 92-12 AND VARIANCE NO. 92-2 TO PERMIT A CAR WASH/QUICK LUBE ON A LOT NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY AND ANDERSON STREET (ORANGE COUNTY AP# 178-502-46) 'I THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE: Section I. On September I, 1992, Jeff Overeem ("the Applicant") filed an application for CUP 92-12 and Variance 92-2 with the Department of Development Services. The applicant seeks a conditional use permit to permit an automobile car wash/quick lube on a vacant lot located at the base of the Sunset Water Tower residence, As proposed, the project cannot be built without a variance from the City's Zoning Ordinance to provide less than the required drive aisle for ingress onto the property, In addition, the proposal will require an easement through an adjacent parcel to provide egress from the property, /' Section 2, A duly noticed public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on November 18, 1992 to consider the application for CUP No. 92-12 and continued to December 9, 1992 and January 6, 1993. Evidence, both written and oral, was submitted for and against the project. The Planning Commission conditionally approved the I application. Section 3. An appeal of the Commission's decision was duly filed, and the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 22, 1993. The City Council considered all oral and written testimony and evidence presented at the time of the public hearing, including the staff reports. Nineteen persons spoke against the application. The Applicant spoke in favor of his project. Section 4. Based upon the evidence, and pursuant to Sections 28-2502, 28- 2503 and 28-2504 of the City's Code, the City Council hereby finds: 1, The proposed use is not permitted unless the applicant obtains a conditional use permit. A conditional use permit can only be granted if the evidence in the record will support findings that, inter alia, the proposed use is compatible with the General Plan and is compatible with, rather than detrimental to, surrounding uses and the community in general. a, The proposed use is not compatible with the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, nor is it compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general. One of the goals of the Land Use Element is to promote harmony I between adjacent commercial and residential uses. The subject property is located immediately adjacent to the water tower residence, a localJy significant historic structure to the northeast, and to the residential community of Surfside Colony to the southwest, The subject property is within 34 feet of homes within Surfside, and, pursuant to the plans submitted by the applicant, a row of parking stalls would abut the wall separating Surfside from the subject property, Due to this close proximity, noise, light, glare, dirt and exhaust fumes generated b) the use would be detrimental to adjacent residents. In contrast to other commercial uses, approval of a car I I I Resolution Number ~~l5 wash/quick lube business seems especially likely to cause conflicts with adjoining and nearby residential uses because of the nature of the proposed use and its proximity to residential uses, Therefore, the proposed car wash/quick lube facility would not be harmonious with the adjacent residential uses, and is incompatible with surrounding uses in the Pacific Coast Highway/Anderson Street area and in the community in general. b. The proposed use is not compatible with the goals and objectives of the Circulation Element of the General Plan and establishing a car wash/quick lube business at this particular location would be detrimental to surrounding uses and the community in general. The proposed car wash/quick lube facility is a uniquely vehicle-dependent use and will adversely impact traffic patterns, traffic safety and pedestrian safety in the Pacific Coast Highway/Anderson Street area and in the general area due to a confluence of factors, The proposed egress easement would intersect with Pacific Coast Highway approximately one hundred feet (100') westerly of the Pacific Coast Highway/ Anderson Street intersection. The existing road alignment of the Pacific Coast Highway/ Anderson Street intersection is an acute angle intersection, with a 1,040 foot radial curve in the immediate area, Pacific Coast Highway is a divided highway in this area, so that drivers wishing to travel northwest after leaving the easement must cross a bike path and merge into traffic in a relatively s~ort distance to be in position to make a u-turn at the Anderson intersection. In addition, this intersection provides access to a coastal bikeway which serves Sunset Beach and Huntington Beach, The turning movements of vehicles exiting the proposed car wash/quick lube facility at Pacific Coast Highway would cause substantial conflict with motor vehicles and bicycles travelling southeast on Pacific Coast Highway and those turning right onto Anderson Street to access the beach at this designated "Beach Access" point. Exacerbating this potentially dangerous situation are pedestrians, who park north of Pacific Coast Highway and cross it at the Anderson intersection, on their way to the beach. Evidence was presented that this intersection has already had a number of traffic accidents, According to an engineer who testified against the project, Pacific Coast Highway is a high speed road in this location, In his opinion, vehicles entering Pacific Coast Highway that may be dripping oil or water would exacerbate the above factors, increasing the potential for accidents. Traffic generated by the proposed use will also interfere with circulation on Anderson Street, which tends to become congested during the summer months. As proposed, all vehicles entering the site must use the ingress drive from Anderson Street. Cars slowing down to enter the site, or queuing on Anderson Street prior to entering the site, would conflict with beach traffic and drivers circulating around the Sunset greenbelt searching for parking. Especially during the summer, parking availability does not meet demand. Parking availability could decrease if employees of the car wash parked off-site. Therefore, a car wash/quick lube facility at that location would adversely impact traffic circulation and safety, and is incompatible with the community in general. 2, The applicant seeks a variance to provide a driveway that does not meet the City Code's minimum width requirements, A variance from the Zoning Code's minimum requirements can only be granted if the evidence in the record will support findings that, inter llllil, due to special circumstances, such as topography, size, shape, or location, the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance would deprive the ~\Ibject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. Su.:h variance must be consistent with the General Plan. Moreover, the City's Code prohibits the granting of a special privilege. a. There are no special circumstances which, through the strict application of this Chapter, deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the same vicinity and zone. While the lot may have an irregular shape, such shape does not deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by property in the same vicinity and zone. The property can be developed, consistently with the Code and applicable zoning, without a variance. Indeed, with a 2S-feet wide street frontage on Anderson, the applicant can comply with the Code required minimum of a 24-feet wide, two-way drive aisle. The subject development application is for a single-story, 1,800 square foot automobile car wash/quick lube facility, with five off- street parking spaces located within the 25-feet wide area that provides street frontage on Anderson, It is possible to provide six off-street parking spaces on the site without encroaching into the 2S-foot driveway ,area and to provide an approximately 1,800 square foot office complex above the parking area, and comply with all development standards of the City, Providing the Resolution Number ~~i7J? , l Code-required minimum driveway to Anderson Street would have the additional benefit of eliminating the need for egress onto Pacific Coast Highway, thereby mitigating the hazards identified above, In sum, the applicant may develop a structure of similar size on the subject site and comply with all development standards, without deviation from Code requirements. b, Variance No. 92-2 is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Circulation and Land Use Elements of the City's General Plan, A single lane drive-aisle cannot safely accommodate the traffic reasonably to be expected from this uniquely vehicle-dependent use. As shown with more specificity above, the car wash/quick lube facility, with the proposed one-way access drive from Anderson Street, and proposed egress to Pacific Coast Highway, would adversely impact the adjoining residential areas due to noise, traffic, light, air quality and parking impacts caused by customers and employees. Approval of the application seems especially likely to cause conflicts with adjoining and nearby residential uses because of its proximity to residential uses, Accordingly, the issuance of Variance No. 92-2 would be inconsistent with the General Plan, I c, The granting of this variance would be the granting of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the same vicinity and zone. Other properties in the area with adequate street frontage are required to comply with the Code's minimum driveway width requirements, Section 5. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby grants the appeal, and denies the requested conditional use permit and variance for a car wash/quick lube facility on the subject property. Section 6, The time within which judicial review, if available, of this decision must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedures and Section 1-13 of the Code of the City of Seal Beach, unless a shorter time is provided by other applicable law. I Section 7. While finding, inter alia, that this particular application for a car wash/quick lube business is not appropriate for the subject property and would be incompatible with surrounding uses, the City Council encourages the Applicant to submit an application for other, less vehicle-dependent uses that would be compatible with surrounding uses and the community in general. PASSED, APPROVED AND ~nOPTED ?);e City Council of the City of Seal Beach at a meeting thereof held on the 'f!. day of ~ 1993, by the following vote: AYES: Council members I NOES: Council members ABSENT: Council members ABSTAIN: Counciln,embers _ d./..tI/ ~/JrL MA YOR I I I ~esolution Number 1':?()R ATTEST: ...~~'''\\\\\\\ .$" ~ SEAL f \11 .::- 0 ......... #".., " .=r.....s... ....0...01/4'.. c..'h. #" ..+~ '0.0 -, 'fl. f;!u.' ... ~. ~*!~\...~ ~ . :,d ~O: .:_2 ~?)~O I:!:;;:~ " .,. . l), ... .oICH .~~ ""_ o. 0 ~., .' ~ ~-v"".o ./11 .., ,~ 0- ~ # ~:,... ....\;- h: lIi" ........ c..~ ..:' "IIt~OUNl'l"'; \\\~IM. STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF SEAL BEACH } } } SS I, Joanne M, Yeo, City Clerk of Seal Beach, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution is the original copy of Resolution Number~~n file in the Office of the City Clerk, passed, approved, and ad~y the City co",~ ;~ Beach, at a regular mer-ting thereof held on the day of , 1993, ~