Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 86-07; Union Oil; Redevelopment Permits (RP)APPLICATION SUBMITTAL DATE: NOVEMBER ''QQ'=^ ^ STAFF REPORT DATE: APRIL 23, 1986 TO: DESIGN REVIEW BOARD FROM: PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: RP/CUP 86-7 - UNION OIL - Request for a minor redevelopment permit/conditional use permit to expand and renovate a service station at the northwest corner of Elm Avenue and Harding Street in Subarea 1 of the V-R zone. I. RECOMMENDATION That the Design Review Board ADOPT Resolution No. 072 DENYING RP/CUP 86-7, based on the findings contained therein. II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting to expand the usable floor area and renovate the exterior of a gasoline service station located on the north side of Elm Avenue, between Harding Street and Jefferson Street. The site presently consists of five gasoline pump stations, and a 1,224 square foot building which houses two lube bays, and a sales/storage/restroom area. The applicant is proposing to increase the usable floor area by adding 576 square feet which would provide another lube bay and a new storage room. The parking area has been striped to provide seven parking spaces and additional landscaping has been proposed to improve the site appearance. III. ANALYSIS Planning Issues 1) Does the project conform with the goals of Subarea 1 of the Village Redevelopment area? 2) Does the project conform with the standards of the Village Design Manual, the Zoning Ordinance, and engineering standards? 3) Does the proposed project comply with the development standards required for approval of a conditional use permit for an automobile service station? (See Exhibit "X" for details.) Discussion V-R Area Goals and Design Manual Standards The proposed project is located at the eastern end of Subarea 1 in the Village Redevelopment Area. It falls within the Elm Avenue Special Treatment area which encourages creating pedestrian traffic spaces, specialized commercial sections and landscaping along Elm Avenue. Special design criteria are to be established for developments with high traffic volume and designs that improved general circulation are to be encouraged. Because the service station has existed for many years, the proposal should be reviewed from the standpoint of how well the renovations and additions comply with the goals of Subarea 1. Also, because the structure is existing, several design manual standards are not applicable such as building coverage, setbacks, and height. Landscape guidelines and parking requirements do apply. As stated, this service station has existed for some years and is in need of renovation. Staff believes this is a desirable goal but also feels that development and safety standards should not be sacrificed to facelift the building. Staff has met with the applicant a number of times and several issues remained unresolved. The applicant wishes to proceed although staff cannot support the project. Issues which remain unresolved are as follows: 1. Expansion of Use The applicant feels three lube bays are a necessity on this site. Staff believes the existing service station is already congested and has a poor site design. Any further intensification of the use would, at the same time, intensify the problems. 2. Lack of Parking The recently revised parking ordinance requires four parking spaces for each work bay (up through three work bays). The applicant is required to provide 12 parking spaces but has provided only seven parking spaces. Staff believes this is inadequate. In addition, two of the spaces back into the queuing area at the service pumps. This situation increases onsite congestion and hazardous traffic manuevers. Field checks by staff have indicated an average of 10-12 vehicles onsite (exclusive of the pump stations) during the day. -2- 3. Site Design for Onsite Circulation Engineering staff believes the existing site design does not provide for safe and adequate traffic circulation. Stacking area at the service pump stations is poor and, at peak hours, causes cars to encroach into Elm Avenue. Truck access for gas delivery onsite is very difficult and requires numerous maneuvers. Queuing at the Harding Street driveway encroaches into the stacking area at the eastern pump stations. Overall, engineering staff believes the proposed redesign and expansion will increase unsafe traffic congestion onsite. Except for item (B)(ii)(I) on Exhibit "X", the applicant can meet all the requirements for a service station conditional use permit. This item requires planter areas adjacent to the structure. Because the building is existing, it would be difficult for the applicant to meet this requirement without further congesting the site. All the remaining conditions could easily be provided by the applicant. Staff would like to support the remodeling and renovation of this service station, however, basic design standards and Zoning Ordinance requirements have not been met. The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that "standards of development shall apply to existing service stations when renovated structurally, and any newly developed service stations". Although renovation of the station is desirable, staff does not believe it should have a higher priority than complying with design standards and Zoning Ordinance requirements. Staff, tiierefore, recommends denial of RP/CUP 86-7. ATTACHMENTS 1) Design Review Board Resolution No. 072 2) Vicinity Map 3) Background Data Sheet 4) Disclosure Form 5) Exhibits "A" - "F", dated March 31, 1986. 6) Exhibit "X", dated April 3, 1986 AML:bn 3/27/86 -3- VICINITY MAP UNION OIL RP/CUP 86-7