HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-019.1-.4 Bradford/Amador Valley Lanes 05-18-1987
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING COMMISSION
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 18, 1987
TO:
SUBJECT:
Planning Commission
Planning Staff ~ ~
PA 87-019.1, .2, .3 and .4 Douglas W. Bradford
(Applicant)/Amador Valley Lanes (Owner)
Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review,
Tentative Parcel Map, and Variance requests,
6000 Dougherty Road.
FROM:
DETAILED PROJECT REQUEST DESCRIPTION:
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests for the
proposed remodeling of the existing 3l,000~ sq. ft. Amador Lanes Bowling Alley
(6000 Dougherty Road) and for two new single story commercial stuctures
(6,000~ and 3,000~ sq. ft. respectively). Proposed uses for the complex
include auto and motorcycle related sales and repair uses. Concurrently
submitted are Tentative Parcel Map and Variance requests for the division of
the 2.8~ acre property into three parcels with the following variances from
the M-l District requirements: 1) Minimum Lot Size Variances (20,000 sq, ft,
minimum required - Parcel A - 9,115~ sq. ft. and Parcel B - l8,230~ sq. ft.
requested), 2) Median Lot Width Variance (100 ft. minimum required - Parcel A
- 86 ft. requested), 3) Front Yard Setback (20 ft. minimum required - Parcel A
- 8 ft. requested and Parcel C - 4 ft. requested), and 5) Side Yard Setback
(10 ft. minimum required - Parcel A - 8 ft. requested).
PREVIOUS ACTION AND SUPPLEMENTARY ANALYSIS:
This item was initially heard at the Planning Commission meeting of
May 4, 1987. Following a brief Staff presentation, the Applicant outlined to
the Commission the specific Conditions of Approval from the Draft Resolution
for the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests which he
desired to be modified.
Following the Applicant's presentation, and additional input from Staff,
the Commission conducted a series of "straw votes" on the individual items
raised by the Applicant. These votes were taken to provide direction to Staff
and the Applicant. The Commission then continued the matter to the hearing of
May 18, 1987.
The remaining portion of this report addresses the items where direction
was received from the Commission. The format utilized below identifies each
May 4th draft condition in question and summarizes the issue involved with the
Commission's direction on the item. For each item, the Applicant's subsequent
response to the Commission's direction is indicated (as expressed by the
submittal of the Revised Site and Building Elevations on May 12, 1987), and,
where applicable, additional Staff comments are provided.
- - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - - - - - - ----- -- ---- ------- -- ----- - - - - - ---
ITEM NO.
<6,3
COPIES TO: Applicant
Owner
File PA 87-019
Draft Condition #3 a.: This Condition called for a 30' setback off of Sierra
Lane for proposed Shop Building A. The Applicant's original plans showed a
15' setback to the building wall with an additional 5' encroachment by the
overhang. The Commission's consensus direction on this item was to require
the structure to observe the minimum M-l District standard (20') in
conjunction with extensive use of mounded landscaping adjoining the structure.
The Revised Site Plan received on May 12th reflects a 22'6"~ setback to the
building wall and a 2'6"~ encroachment into the 20' setback zone by the
proposed 5' building overhang. To meet the minimum Ordinance standards, the
overhang encroachment would have to be reduced to a maximum depth of 24"
(Section 8-60.37 Yards: Exceptions: Projections Permitted Therein). Within
the May 4, 1987, Staff Report Staff recommended the front setback standard for
this structure be increased to 30'. Staff continues to recommend the
increased setback be applied, to both proposed Shop Building A and C, to
reflect the setback standard observed by surrounding uses and to acknowledge
the site's location along a major road. Draft Condition #2 of Exhibit I
(Revised Draft Resolution regarding the Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review requests) reflects the requirement for the 24" eave
encroachment, but would have to be modified to reflect a 30' setback standard
if that is determined appropriate by the Commission.
Draft Condition #3 b.: This Condition called for a 30' setback off of
Dougherty Road for proposed Shop Building C. The Applicant's Revised Site
Plan from April 7, 1987, increased the originally proposed setback for this
building from 15' to 25'. The Commission's consensus direction on this item
was to require observance of the minimum M-l District standard (20') in
conjunction with extensive use of mounded landscaping adjoining the structure.
The Revised Site Plan received on May 12th continues to detail a 25' setback
to the building wall and a 20' setback to the proposed 5' eave overhang. As
noted above regarding proposed Shop Building A, Staff continues to recommend
the new structures developed on this site observe a 30' setback. If the
Commission concurs with this recommendation, a new condition would have to be
added to Exhibit I.
Draft Condition #3 c,: This Condition called for a 10' sideyard setback from
the north property line for proposed Shop Building C. The Applicant's
original plans would have required a Side Yard Variance be granted to allow an
8' sideyard (M-l District requires a 10' minimum). The Commission, on a four
to one "straw vote", directed the Applicant to adjust the plan to show the 10'
minimum. The Revised Site Plans received on May 12th reflect the 10' sideyard
setback (no eave overhangs are proposed for this elevation, but the revised
Building Elevation Plans show two decorative half columns projecting 1'4"+
into the 10' sideyard).
Draft Condition #7: This Condition called for additional architectural
detailing to the southwest building elevation of proposed Shop Building A.
Staff recommended use of "store front" glazing and use of two decorative half
columns along the southerly quarter of this building elevation. The
Applicant's Revised Building Elevation Plans of May 12, 1987, propose use of
three half columns along this building elevation in response to the
Commission's consensus direction to provide additional architectural detailing
to this elevation. The Commission also directed that "store front" glazing
not be required. The Applicant has also proposed changes to the Site Plan
which would allow the landscape strip along the base of southwest building
elevation of Shop Building C to be increased 3'~ to a total width of 7'6"~.
Staff feels the proposed changes to the architectural detailing of this
structure remain inadequate. Staff has strong concerns regarding two areas of
the architectural design proposed in the Applicant's Revised Building
Elevation Plans:
1. the long, 8' tall, horizontal fascia band proposed to be made of
cement stucco surrounding each building; and
2. the lack of a consistent style on all building elevations.
Draft Condition #6 of Exhibit I calls for additional architectural
detailing to the fascia to:
a) break up the long, bland nature of the fascia by adding
appropriate vertical elements;
-2-
b) add texturing, shadow play and variety by use of either an
additional exterior building material or by a different surface
treatment to the cement stucco;
c) provide additional massing that is more proportionate with the
size of the proposed columns.
Draft Condition #7 of Exhibit I calls for additional
detailing to provide a consistent style on all elevations.
or other vertical elements need to be added to some of the
there is consistency around the structure.
architectural
Additional columns
elevations so that
The Project Architect and Staff met on Thursday, May 14, to discuss the
issues. The Project Architect and Staff could not agree on the additional
architectural treatment.
Condition #9: This Condition calls for modifications to the facia band
proposed to surround all three structures to provide additional architectural
detailing. As originally drafted, the Condition called for use of colored
tile band(s) inset, or other detailing determined acceptable to the Planning
Department. The Commission, on a consensus "straw vote", indicated a desire
to drop the tile band, but directed the Applicant to provide additional
architectural detailing. Draft Condition #6 of Exhibit I calls for additional
architectural treatment for the facia bands.
Condition #28: This Condition called for efforts by the Applicant to retain
up to five existing trees along side the west elevation of Building B. Staff
indicated at the May 4, 1987, Commission hearing that in all probability only
three of the large mature trees along this elevation would have a chance to be
retained. The Commission directed the Applicant to work with Staff regarding
this matter, The Condition (renumbered in Exhibit I as Draft Condition #26)
can be retained in its original form to reflect the Commission's direction.
Condition #33: This Condition called for the elimination of one parking space
at the Sierra Lane driveway. The Commission directed the Applicant to work
with Staff regarding this matter. The Revised Site Plan of May 12, 1987,
reflects the elimination of the one parking space and incorporation of that
area in perimeter project landscaping. The Revised Draft Conditions have been
modified to drop original Condition #33.
Condition #35: This Condition pertains to project signage and called for a
modification to the proposed tenant sign program to reduce the height of the
tenant wall sign to a maximum height of 24". The Commission concurred with
this recommendation and recommended the Applicant make the necessary changes.
The Condition (renumbered in Exhibit I as Draft Condition #32) can be retained
in its original form to reflect the Commission's direction.
Condition #48: This Condition called for the construction of a 6' (minimum
height) masonry wall or solid wood fence along the majority of the project's
west property boundary. The Commission did not give specific direction
regarding this matter, but indicated a collective desire to consider the
matter when they independently visited the site prior to the May 28, 1987,
public hearing. The Applicant has indicated a desire to have the Condition
modified to allow the option to use some combination of landscaping (on-site
and potentially off-site landscaping) and fencing to provide screening of the
rear of Building B. A more detailed review by staff of this issue resulted in
a determination not to support the Applicant's request and to provide more
detailed specifications to the fencing (requiring use of 2" X wooden plank
members for wood slats if a wooden fence is utilized - see Draft Condition #45
within Exhibit I).
Additional direction from the Commission was received as regards the
proposed sizing of the three parcels in the Minor Subdivision submittal. The
Commission, concurring with Staff's recommendation, directed that the three
proposed parcels be sized and configured to meet the minimum dimensional lot
standards of the M-l District.
-3-
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Sa)
Open public hearing.
Hear Staff presentation.
Hear Applicant and public presentations.
Close public hearing.
Consider and act on four Revised Draft Resolutions:
A - A Resolution regarding the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for PA 87-019.1, ,2, .3, and
4.
B - A Resolution regarding the Conditional Use Permit and
Site Development Review requests PA 87-019,1 and .2.
C - A Resolution regarding the Tentative Parcel Map request
PA 87-019.3.
D - A Resolution regarding the Variance request PA 87-019,4,
or
5b)
Consider Staff presentation and public testimony, provide
additional direction to Staff and the Applicant, and
continue the matter to the Planning Commission meeting of
June 1, 1987.
ACTION:
Based on the May 4, 1987, Staff Report and this Supplemental
Staff Report, Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt
the following Revised Draft Resolutions: Exhibit H
approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance for PA 87-019.1, .2, ,3, and .4, Exhibit I
approving the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review requests PA 87-019.1 and .2, Exhibit J approving the
Tentative Parcel Map request PA 87-019.3, and Exhibit K
denying the Variance request PA 87-019,4.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit H - Revised Draft Resolution regarding a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for PA 87-019,1, .2, ,3, and .4
Exhibit I - Revised Draft Resolution regarding Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review request PA 87-019.1 and .2
Exhibit J - Revised Draft Resolution regarding Tentative Parcel Map
request PA 87-019.3
Exhibit K - Revised Draft Resolution regarding Variance request
PA 87-019.4
Exhibit L - Revised Site and Building Elevation Plans, Conditional Use
Permit, Site Development Review, Tentative Parcel Map and
Variance Submittals
Background Attachments:
9 - May 4, 1987, Planning Commission Staff Report (without Attachments)
-4-
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE FOR
PA 87-019.1, .2, .3 , AND .4 DOUGLAS W. BRADFORD (APPLICANT)/AMADOR VALLEY LANES
(OWNER) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, AND
VARIANCE APPLICATIONS TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL AND AUTOMOTIVE CENTER
AT 6000 DOUGHERTY ROAD
WHEREAS, Douglas W. Bradford filed Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review applications for the proposed remodeling of the existing 3l,000~
square foot Amador Lanes Bowling Alley (6000 Dougherty Road) and for two new single
story commercial structures (6,000~ and 3,000~ square feet respectively) with
proposed uses of the complex including auto and motorcycle related sales and repair
uses; and
WHEREAS, Douglas W. Bradford concurrently submitted Tentative Parcel Map
and Variance requests for the division of the 2.8~ acre property into three parcels
with the following variances from the M-l District requirements: 1) Minimum Lot
Size Variances (20,000 sq. ft. minimum required - Parcel A - 9,115~ sq. ft. and
Parcel B - l8,230~ sq. ft. requested), 2) Median Lot Width Variance (100 ft.
minimum required - Parcel A - 86 ft. requested), 3) Front Yard Setback (20 ft.
minimum required - Parcel A - 8 ft. requested and Parcel C - 4 ft. requested), and
5) Side Yard Setback (10 ft. minimum required - Parcel A - 8 ft. requested); and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), together with
the State Guidelines and City environmental regulations, require that certain
projects be reviewed for environmental impact and that environmental documents be
prepared; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study of Environmental Significance was conducted
finding that the project, as proposed, would not have a significant effect on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been
prepared for this application; and
WHEREAS, public notice of the Negative Declaration of Environmental
Significance was given in all respects as required by State Law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review and consider the Negative
Declaration of Environmental Significance at public hearings on May 4, 1987, and
May 18, 1987;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission finds
as follows:
1. That the project PA 87-019.1, .2, .3, and .4 Conditional Use Permit, Site
Development Review, Tentative Parcel Map and Variance requests will not have a
significant effect on the environment.
2. That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been prepared
and processed in accordance with State and Local environmental laws and
guideline regulations.
3, That the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance is complete and
adequate.
f1;vIjep ~PT ~WT1tJtJ EXHIBIT /I
~~~. tJF ~\JIt.N. St(nJ. "., 7-D"
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission hereby adopts
the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 87-019.1, .2, .3, and
.4 Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review, Tentative Parcel Map, and
Variance applications.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-2-
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 87-019.1, AND .2, DOUGLAS W. BRADFORD (APPLICANT)/
AMADOR VALLEY LANES (OWNERS) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APPLICATIONS TO ESTABLISH A RETAIL AND AUTOMOTIVE CENTER AT 6000 DOUGHERTY ROAD
WHEREAS, Douglas W. Bradford filed Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review applications for the proposed remodeling of the existing
3l,000~ square foot Amador Lanes Bowling Alley (6000 Dougherty Road) and for
two new single story commercial structures (6,000~ and 3,000~ square feet
respectively) with proposed uses of the complex including auto and motorcycle
related sales, rental, and repair uses; and
WHEREAS, Douglas W. Bradford concurrently submitted Tentative
Parcel Map and Variance requests for the division of the 2.8~ acre property
into three parcels with the following variances from the M-l District
requirements: 1) Minimum Lot Size Variances (20,000 sq. ft. minimum required -
Parcel A - 9,115~ sq. ft. and Parcel B - 18,230~ sq. ft. requested), 2) Median
Lot Width Variance (100 ft. minimum required - Parcel A - 86 ft. requested),
3) Front Yard Setback (20 ft. minimum required - Parcel A - 8 ft. requested and
Parcel C - 4 ft. requested), and 5) Side Yard Setback (10 ft. minimum required
- Parcel A - 8 ft. requested); and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
prov~s~ons of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative
Declaration has been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 87 - ) for
this project as it will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearings for this project was provided as
required by local Ordinance and in accordance with California State Law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report and a Supplemental Staff Report were
submitted recommending conditional approval of the applications; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on May 4,
1987, and May 18, 1987, to consider all reports, recommendations, and
testimony;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby find that:
a) The uses serve a public need in that the uses will expand the
City's retail and service commercial base by establishing a new retail and
automotive center.
b) The use will be properly related to other land uses and transpor-
tation and service facilities in the vicinity in that daytime activities will
be commensurate with present use of properties in the neighborhood.
c) The use, under all circumstances and conditions of this particular
case, will not materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons
residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood, in that
all applicable regulations will be met.
d) The use will not be contrary to the specific intent clauses or
performance standards established for the District in which it is to be located
in that the rental car business is consistent with the character of the
commercial district.
e) All provisions of Section 8-95.0 through 8-95.8 Site Development
Review, of the Zoning Ordinance are complied with.
~ ~Fr ~lo-'l EXHIBIT I
cuP {Sf/If. fA e 1- DI'. I #,'2-
f) Consistent with Section 8-95.0, this project will promote orderly,
attractive, and harmonious development, recognize environmental limitations on
development; stabilize land values and investments; and promote the general
welfare by preventing establishment of uses or erection of structures having
qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance
standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and which are not consistent with
their environmental setting.
g) The approval of the project as conditioned is in the best interest
of the public health, safety and general welfare.
h) General site considerations, including site layout, orientation,
and the location of buildings, vehicular access, circulation and parking,
setbacks, height, public safety and similar elements have been designed to
provide a desirable environment for the development.
i) General architectural considerations as modified by the Conditions
of Approval, including the character, scale and quality of the design, the
architectural relationship with the site and other buildings, building
materials and colors, screening of exterior appurtenances, exterior lighting,
and similar elements have been incorporated into the project in order to insure
compatibility of this development with its design concept and the character of
adjacent buildings and uses.
j) General project landscaping prov~s~ons for irrigation, maintenance
and protection of landscaped areas and similar elements have been considered to
insure visual relief to complement buildings and structures and to provide an
attractive environment to the public.
k) The project is consistent with the policies contained in the City's
General Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby
conditionally approve PA 87-019.1 and .2 as shown by materials from the
Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 4, 1987, labeled Exhibit E and
Attachments #2 and #3, and as shown by materials from the Supplemental Planning
Commission Staff Report dated May 18, 1987, labeled Exhibit L, on file with the
Dublin Planning Department, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Unless stated otherwise, all Conditions of Approval shall be complied with
prior to the initiation of the requested land use activity, and shall be
subiect to Planning Department review and approval.
1, Redevelopment of the 3l,OOO~ square foot Amador Lanes Bowling Alley
facility and development of two new single story commercial structures
(6,000~ and 3,000~ square feet respectively) shall substantially conform
with the plans prepared by Frank Rupert Bryant, Architect, consisting of
six sheets, dated received by the City Plannng Department February 6, 1987,
as modified by the Revised Site and Building Elevation Plans prepared by
Frank Rupert Bryant, Architect, consisting of three sheets dated received
May 12, 1987. Redevelopment of the existing structure and development of
the two new structures shall reflect the changes called for in these
Conditions of Approval. Approval for the Conditional Use Permit shall be
until May 28, 1990. The approval period for the Conditional Use Permit may
be extended two additional years (Applicant must submit a written request
for the extension prior to the expiration date of the Conditional Use
Permit) by the Planning Director upon his determination that the Conditions
of Approval remain adequate to assure that the above stated Findings will
continue to be met. Approval for the Site Develoment Review shall be valid
until May 28, 1988. If construction has not commenced by that time, this
approval shall be null and void. The approval period for the Site
Development Review may be extended for a period of up to six months
(Applicant must submit a written request for the extension prior to the
expiration date of the permit) by the Planning Director upon his
determination that the Conditions of Approval remain adequate to assure
that the above stated Findings will continue to be met.
-2-
2, The building footprint location for proposed Shop Building A shall be
modified as necessary to observe a minimum building frontage setback from
Sierra Lane of 20', while observing a maximum overhang encroachment of 24"
into that frontage setback.
The revisions to the footprint of Shop Building A resulting from the above
Condition shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director
at the time building permits are requested.
3. Comply with the City of Dublin Site Development Review Standard Conditions
and the City of Dublin Police Services Standard Commercial Building
Security Recommendations.
ARCHAEOLOGY
4. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered,
construction in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted,
and the City Planning Department notified. If, in the opinion of the
archaeologist, the remains are significant, measures, as may be required by
the Planning Director, shall be taken to protect them.
ARCHITECTURAL
5. Exterior colors and materials for the new structure shall be subject to
final review and approval by the Planning Director. All ducts, meters, air
conditioning equipment and other mechanical equipment on the structure
shall be effectively screened from view with materials architecturally
compatible with the main structure.
6. Additional architectural detailing shall be supplied within the 8' tall
fascia band proposed for all three structures. The additional
architectural detailing shall 1) break up the long, horizontal plane by
appropriately spaced vertical elements, 2) provide additional texturing,
shadow play and variety by use of an additional exterior building material
or by use of different surface treatment, and 3) provide additional massing
more proportionate with the proposed columns or other vertical elements
below the fascia.
7. Additional architectural detailing shall be supplied so that there is a
consistent style on all elevations. Additional columns or other vertical
elements shall be added as needed.
DRAINAGE
8, A grading and drainage plan shall be prepared by the Developer and shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer. Calculations
(hydraulic) shall be prepared by the Developer for review by the City
Engineer to determine the sizing of drainage lines.
9, The area outside all buildings shall drain outward at a 2% m~n~mum slope
for unpaved areas and a 1% minimum in paved areas (with a maximum gradient
of 5%).
10. Roof drains shall empty into approved dissipating devices. Roof water, or
other concentrated drainage, shall not be directed onto adjacent
properties, sidewalks or driveways.
11. Where storm water flows against a curb, a curb with gutter shall be used.
The flow line of all asphalt paved areas carrying waters shall be slurry
sealed at least three feet on either side of the center of the swale.
DEBRIS/DUST/CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY
12. Measures shall be taken to contain all trash, construction debris, and
materials on-site until disposal off-site can be arranged. The Developer
shall keep adjoining public streets free and clean of project dirt, mud,
and materials during the construction period. The Developer shall be
responsible for corrective measures at no expense to the City of Dublin.
Areas undergoing grading, and all other construction activities, shall be
watered, or other dust-palliative measures used, to prevent dust, as
conditions warrant.
-3-
13. The Developer shall acquire easements, and/or obtain rights-of-entry from
the adjacent property owners for improvements or construction activity
required outside of the subject properties. Copies of the easements and/or
rights-of-entry shall be in written form and shall be furnished to the City
Engineer.
14. Cross access, cross parking and cross utility easements shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of
grading or building permits. These easements shall allow for practical
cross vehicular, cross parking and cross utility service access over the
three proposed parcels.
FIRE PROTECTION
15. Prior to issuance of building permits, the Developer shall supply written
confirmation that the requirements of the Dublin San Ramon Services
District Fire Department have been, or will be, met.
GRADING
16. A grading permit shall be obtained from the Public Works Department if more
than 150 cubic yards of grading will be done.
17. Grading shall be completed in compliance with the construction grading
plans and the soil engineering recommendations as established by a Soil and
Foundation Study prepared for this project (subject to review and approval
by the City Engineer). The report shall discuss the compaction of soil
under the proposed structures.
18. Where soil or geologic conditions encountered in grading operations are
different from that anticipated in the Project Soil and/or Geologic Report,
or where such conditions warrant changes to the recommendations contained
in the original investigation, a revised Soil and/or Geologic Report shall
be submitted for approval by the City Engineer.
IMPROVEMENT PLANS, AGREEMENTS, AND SECURITIES
19. Prior to filing for building permits, precise plans and specifications for
street improvements, grading, drainage (including size, type, and location
of drainage facilities both on- and off-site) shall be submitted and
subject to the approval of the City Engineer.
20. The parking and driveway surfacing shall be asphalt concrete paving. The
project's Soils Engineer's structural pavement design shall be subject to
review and approval by the City Engineer. The Developer shall make tests
of the soil over which the surfacing and base is to be constructed and
furnish the test reports to the City Engineer. The Developer's Soils
Engineer shall determine a preliminary structural design of the road bed.
After rough grading has been completed, the Developer shall have soil tests
performed to determine the final design of the road bed.
21. The Developer shall enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City for
any public improvements. Complete improvement plans, specifications, and
calculations shall be submitted to, and reviewed by, the City Engineer and
other affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements prior
to execution of the Improvement Agreement. All required securities, in an
amount equal to 100% of the approved estimates of construction costs of
improvements, and a labor and material security, equal to 50% of the
construction costs, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City and
affected agencies having jurisdiction over public improvements, prior to
execution of the Improvement Agreement.
22. An encroachment permit shall be secured from the City Engineer for any work
done within the public right-of-way where this work is not covered under
the improvement plans.
-4-
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION PLANS
23. A detailed Landscape and Irrigation Plan (at 1 inch = 20 feet or larger),
along with a cost estimate of the work and materials proposed, shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director. Landscape and
Irrigation Plans shall be signed by a licensed landscape architect.
24. The Developer/Owner shall sign and submit a copy of the City of Dublin
Landscape Maintenance Agreement.
25. All efforts shall be taken to assure that the proposed site work along the
west property boundary shall be of a design, and shall be installed in such
a manner, as to not damage existing off-site landscaping.
26. An effort shall be made to retain up to five of the existing on-site trees
located along the western property boundary adjoining the south half of
Building B. The trees involved with this Condition are those situated more
than 18 feet west of the existing western wall of Building B. Retention of
the two southerly trees shall be made only if a narrower drive aisle (16'~)
along that section of the building is determined acceptable by the City
Engineer, DSRSD Fire Department and the Planning Department.
27. The Developer shall diligently pursue the necessary approvals to provide
the installation of off-site landscaping within the adjoining property to
the north (10' strip running 50~' along the shared property boundary
extending from the northeast corner of the subject property). If, upon
demonstration that a diligent effort has been made by the Developer to
pursue the necessary approvals for the referenced landscaping improvements
and no approval can be secured, discharge of the requirements of this
Condition may be granted by the Planning Director.
28. The perimeter landscaping strip to be established along the north property
boundary shall be a minimum width of five feet for that section of the
property line within 40 feet of the northeast corner of Building B.
29. A perimeter landscaping strip of a minimum width of three feet shall be
established along the west property boundary adjoining the west elevation
of Building B, and along the portion of the north property boundary
adjoining the north elevation of Building B not addressed by the previous
Condition.
30. A combination of mounding of landscape areas and intensive shrub planting
shall be established along the property's Sierra Lane and Dougherty Road
frontages to provide screening of the adjoining parking areas and to
compliment the two new proposed structures. Unless otherwise allowed by
the Planning Director upon his review of the detailed project Landscape and
Irrigation Plans, the existing landscaping along the project frontages
shall be removed in conjunction with the introduction of the required
landscape mounds. The Applicant is encouraged to enlarge the Dougherty
Road frontage planter by 2'~ in conjunction with on-site repair of the
linear north-south cracking - failure within the adjoining parking area.
LIGHTING
31, Exterior lighting shall be of a design and placement so as not to cause
glare onto Sierra Lane or Dougherty Road, or on to adjoining properties.
Lighting used after daylight hours shall be adequate to provide for
security needs. Wall lighting around the perimeter of the new buildings
and along the west and north elevations of the existing structure shall be
supplied to provide "wash" security lighting. Photometrics for area
lighting shall be submitted to the Planning Department and the Dublin
Police Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of building
permits.
SIGNAGE
32, A modified tenant sign program shall be prepared and submitted for review
and approval by the Planning Director prior to the issuance of building
permits. The tenant sign program submitted with the project application
shall be modified to decrease the height of wall-fascia mounted signs on
proposed Shop Buildings A and C to a two-foot maximum height. The tenant's
-5-
obligation to conform with the approved tenant sign program shall be
incorporated into the individual tenant lease agreements as a binding
tenant requirement.
33. Freestanding Signs established for this project shall be subject to review
under separate Site Development Review applications. The proposed
Projecting Sign at the southwest corner of Building B shall be subject to
review under a separate Variance application unless modified to conform
with Section 8-87.33 of the Ordinance.
STORAGE AND EXTERIOR ACTIVITIES
34. With the exception of authorized motorcycle display (to occur only within
the 18' x 23' raised concrete pad within the parking lot area at the
northeast corner of Building B) all demonstrations, displays, services, and
other activities associated with the new structure shall be conducted
entirely within an enclosed structure. No loudspeakers or amplified music
shall be permitted outside the new structure. Any additional car or
motorcycle sales involving exterior display shall be subject to review
under a separate Conditional Use Permit.
MISCELLANEOUS
35. Five-foot flares shall be provided on the new driveway connection to
Dougherty Road. The existing power pole proposed to be retained within the
center of the proposed new driveway along Dougherty Road shall be removed
unless the City Engineer determines its removal costs are economically
prohibitive and also determines that retention of the pole in the current
location will not constitute a traffic safety hazard. The existing
Dougherty Road driveway at the northeast corner of the site shall be
removed.
36. New pedestrian walkways established throughout the complex shall be of a
uniform design. The pedestrian circulation system shall include
handicapped access to meet the requirements of Title 24 of the Building
Code.
37. The detailed design, placement and construction materials of on-site trash
enclosure areas shall be subject to review and approval by the Livermore-
Dublin Disposal Service and the Planning Department prior to the issuance
of building permits. Concrete apron pads in front of each trash enclosure
area shall be supplied with the design and location of the aprons subject
to review and approval by the Planning Department and the Livermore-Dublin
Disposal Service. The location of trash enclosure areas shall be adjusted
as necessary to assure that at least one trash enclosure is present within
the boundaries of each proposed parcel.
38. All improvements shall be installed as per the approved landscaping and
irrigation plans and the drainage and grading plans prior to the release
of occupancy of the new structures.
39. If the project is developed in phases, all physical improvements shall be
required to be in place prior to occupancy except for items specifically
excluded in a Phasing Plan approved by the Planning Department. No
occupancy shall be allowed until the entire area, or approved phase, is
finished, safe, accessible, provided with all reasonable expected services
and amenities, and completely separated from remaining additional
construction activity. Any approved Phasing Plan shall have sufficient
cash deposits, or other performance guarantees determined acceptable by
the Planning Director, to guarantee that the project and all associated
improvements shall be installed in a timely and satisfactory manner,
40. The Developer shall be responsible for correction of deficiencies on the
existing frontage improvements to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
This work shall include, but not be necessarily limited to, correction of
sidewalk cracking and uplifting involving a 20 foot ~ stretch of sidewalk
directly north of the southerly Dougherty Road driveway depression, and
repair of concrete curbing and asphalt failures in vicinity of the
northerly Dougherty Road driveway depression.
-6-
41. The design, materials, height and location of any proposed perimeter
fencing shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Department
and the Dublin Police Services Department prior to the issuance of building
permits. Fencing in disrepair shall be repaired or replaced.
42. The design and use of any vehicle wash/service areas shall be subject to
review and approval by ACFC & WCD - Zone 7 and DSRSD prior to installation,
43. The cracked/uplifting concrete slabs adjoining the west side of the 288+
lease space occupied by the Enterprises Car Rental outlet at the southeast
corner of Building B shall be replaced or shall be repaired in a manner
approved by the Planning Director.
44. Handicap parking spaces at this site (five spaces minimum) shall be
modified as necessary to conform to the Site Development Review
requirements for Handicapped Accessibility outlined in the State Building
Code.
45. The Developer shall construct a six-foot (minimum height) masonry wall or
solid wood fence (with 2" X planking members) along the west property line
extending from the northwest corner of the site for a minimum distance of
375 feet. The precise location, height, design and materials of this wall
or fence shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director.
The wall/fence shall be established to help screen the rear of the
refurbished building as viewed from the adjoining office-research complex
to the west. Portions of the wall/fence may be jogged or eliminated if the
Planning Director finds that effective buffering will be achieved by
intensive landscaping.
46. All tenant occupancies in the retail and automotive center shall be subject
to review and approval by the Planning Director prior to their respective
occupancies in the center. Said review shall serve to verify compatibility
of the uses with zoning district requirements and to allow determination on
the adequacy of available on-site parking. Occupancy of the three
structures shall conform to the numerical parking requirements of the City
Zoning Ordinance.
47. Existing failures within the parking lot and at driveway entrances to the
site shall be repaired in conjunction with the proposed new development.
48. The Conditional Use Permit shall be revocable for cause, in accordance with
Section 8-90.3 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance, at any time during the
effectiveness of the approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-7-
RESOLUTION NO. 87 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 87-019.3 DOUGLAS W. BRADFORD (APPLICANT)/AMADOR VALLEY LANES
(OWNERS) TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP SUBDIVIDING 2.8~ ACRES INTO THREE PARCELS,
6000 DOUGHERTY ROAD
WHEREAS, Douglas W. Bradford has filed a Tentative Parcel Map and
Variance requests for the proposed subdivision of the 2.8~ acre Amador Lanes
Bowling Alley Facility (6000 Dougherty Road) with the following variances from
the M-l District requirements: 1) Minimum Lot Size Variances (20,000 sq. ft.
minimum required - Parcel A - 9,115~ sq. ft. and Parcel B - l8,230~ sq. ft.
requested), 2) Median Lot Width Variance (100 ft. minimum required - Parcel A
- 86 ft. requested), 3) Front Yard Setback (20 ft. minimum required - Parcel A
- 8 ft. requested and Parcel C - 4 ft. requested), and 5) Side Yard Setback
(10 ft. minimum required - Parcel A - 8 ft. requested); and
WHEREAS, Douglas W. Bradford concurrently submitted Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review applications for the proposed remodeling of
the existing 3l,000~ square foot Amador Lanes Bowling Alley facility and for
two new single story commercial structures (6,000~ and 3,000~ square feet
respectively) with proposed uses of the complex including auto and motorcycle
related sales/rental and repair uses; and
WHEREAS, the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the adopted
City of Dublin Subdivision Regulations require that no real property may be
divided into two or more parcels for the purposes of sale, lease or financing
unless a Tentative Parcel Map is acted upon and a Final Parcel Map is approved
consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, and City of Dublin Subdivision
Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on said
application on May 4, 1987, and May 18, 1987; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report and a Suplemental Staff Report were
submitted recommending conditional approval of the application, with
modification involving changes necessary to eliminate all the requested
variances; and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and a Negative
Declaration has been adopted (Planning Commission Resolution No. 87- ) for
this project as it will not have a significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that:
a. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map request, as modified, is consistent with
the intent of applicable subdivision regulations and City Zoning and
related Ordinances.
b. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map, as modified, is consistent with the
City's General Plan.
c. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map, as modified, will not have a
significant environmental impact.
d. The proposed Tentative Parcel Map, as modified, will not have substantial
adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to
the public welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvements,
fell5n) PRMrf!tilJT1CN EXHIBIT J
'e'NTJi.nve- ~ Ph 87-DI', 3
e. The site is physically suitable for the proposed development.
f. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development in
that the design and improvements are consistent with those of similar
existing developments which have proven to be satisfactory.
g. This project will not cause serious public health problems in that all
necessary utilities are, or will be, required to be available and Zoning,
Building, and Plumbing Ordinances control the type of development, and the
operation, of the uses to prevent health problems after development.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission approves
PA 87-019.3, Tentative Parcel Map request subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed lotting configuration detailed on the Tentative Map submitted
with the original application submittal shall be modified to eliminate all the
requested variances to the M-l District standards (lot size, median lot width,
and front, year and side yards). The resultant lotting configuration shall be
as substantially shown on the April, 1987, Staff Study, or as otherwise
approved by the Planning Director.
2. Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, a soils investigation report shall
be prepared which shall include recommendations to make the building pads
suitable for future development.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for the structures, the recommenda-
tions outlined in the soils investigation report shall be completed under the
constant inspection of the soils engineer, and shall be certified by the soils
engineer as suitable for foundations.
4. The Applicant shall provide DSRSD with plans showing the water and sewer
services to the lots.
5. The Applicant shall pay all sewer, fire and water connection fees prior to
recordation of the Final Parcel Map.
6. If, during construction, archaeological remains are encountered, construc-
tion in the vicinity shall be halted, an archaeologist consulted, and the City
Planning Department notified. If, in the opinion of the archaeologist, the
remains are significant, measures, as may be required by the Planning
Director, shall be taken to protect them.
7. Roof drains shall empty onto paved areas, concrete swales, or other
approved dissipating devices.
8. Cross access, parking, and utility easements shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City Engineer prior to recordation of the Final Parcel
Map. These easements shall allow for practical vehicular and utility service
access across the three proposed Parcels. Accompanying these documents shall
be copies of a cross maintenance agreement addressing ongoing maintenance
responsibilities for parking and driveway areas and for project landscaping,
irrigation lighting and drainage facilities. This document shall also be
submitted for review and approval by the City prior to recordation.
9. All improvements within the public right-of-way, including curb gutter,
sidewalks, driveways, paving, and utilities, must be constructed in accordance
with approved standards and/or plans.
10. Copies of the Final Map and improvement plans, indicating all lots,
streets, and drainage facilities within the subdivision shall be submitted at
I" ~ 400-ft. scale, and I" = 200-ft. scale for City mapping purposes.
11. Electrical, gas, telephone, and Cable TV services shall be provided
underground to each lot in accordance with the City policies and existing
ordinances. All utilities shall be located and provided within public utility
easements, sized to meet utility company standards.
12. Prior to the filing of the Final Parcel Map, the subdivider shall furnish
the City Engineer with a letter from Dublin San Ramon Services District
stating that the District has agreed to furnish water and sewer service to
each of the dwelling units and/or lot included on the Final Map of the
subdivision.
-2-
13. Water facilities must be connected to the DSRSD system, and must be
installed at the expense of the developer, in accordance with District
standards and specifications. All material and workmanship for water mains,
and appurtenances thereto, must conform with all of the requirements of the
officially adopted Water Code of the District and will be subject to field
inspection by the District.
14. Comply with all zoning provisions, including Zoning Ordinance and
Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review
applications PA 87-019.1 and .2.
15. Building permits shall be secured and construction commenced for proposed
Buildings A and C prior to the filing of the Final Parcel Map.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-3-
RESOLUTION NO. 87-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING PA 87-019.4 DOUGLAS W. BRADFORD (APPLICANT)/AMADOR VALLEY LANES (OWNER)
VARIANCE REQUESTS FROM THE M-l DISTRICT STANDARDS (LOT SIZE, MEDIAN LOT WIDTH,
FRONT YARD SETBACK, REAR YARD SETBACK AND SIDE YARD SETBACK) PROPOSED
IN CONJUNCTION WITH CONCURRENT REQUESTS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
(PA 87-019.1), FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PA 87-019.2),
AND FOR A TENTATIVE MAP (PA 87-019.3), FOR A PROPOSED RETAIL AND
AUTOMOTIVE CENTER AT 6000 DOUGHERTY ROAD
WHEREAS, Douglas W. Bradford has filed a Tentative Parcel Map and
Variance requests for the proposed subdivision of the 2.8~ acre Amador Lanes
Bowling Alley Facility (6000 Dougherty Road) with the following variances from
the M-l District requirements: 1) Minimum Lot Size Variances (20,000 sq. ft.
minimum required - Parcel A - 9,l15~ sq. ft. and Parcel B - l8,230~ sq. ft.
requested), 2) Median Lot Width Variance (100 ft. minimum required - Parcel A
- 86 ft. requested), 3) Front Yard Setback (20 ft. minimum required - Parcel A
- 8 ft. requested and Parcel C - 4 ft. requested), and 5) Side Yard Setback
(10 ft. minimum required - Parcel A - 8 ft. requested); and
WHEREAS, Douglas W. Bradford concurrently submitted Conditional Use
Permit and Site Development Review applications for the proposed remodeling of
the existing 3l,OOO~ square foot Amador Lanes Bowling Alley facility and for
two new single story commercial structures (6,OOO~ and 3,OOO~ square feet
respectively) with proposed uses of the complex including auto and motorcycle
related sales/rental and repair uses; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings on said
applications on May 4, 1987, and May 18, 1987; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearings was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study of Environmental Significance was
conducted finding the project would not have a significant effect on the
environment; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has
been prepared and adopted for this project (Planning Commission Resolution
No. 87 - ); and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report and a Supplemental Staff Report were
submitted recommending denial of the Variance application; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby find that:
A) There are no special circumstances pertaining to the size, shape, topo-
graphy, location or surroundings, applicable to the subject property which
would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity under the identical zoning classification, in that the property,
identified as APN 941-205-21, is commensurate with other property in the
vicinity under the identical zoning classification.
B) The granting of the Variance requests will constitute a grant of special
privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the
vicinity and zone, in that the observance of the established standards from
the M-l Distict for the minimum lot size, minimum median lot width, and
minimum front, rear and side yards would not adversely impact the
developability of the subject property. No special circumstances peculiar
to this subject property exist relating to size, shape or topography.
~ ~tP.salOlTO~EXHIBIT 1-
V/rt.NJCE /!.e&\leST IA- 87- 01'1. 'I
C) The granting of this Variance application may be detrimental to persons or
property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare, in that establish-
ment of substandard parcels may ultimately lead to the development of
marginal land uses inconsistent with the intent of the property's
underlying zoning designation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission
denies PA 87-019.4, Variance request.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of May, 1987.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Planning Director
-2-
I ,
r--
I
I,', "
". ..
~ ........
~ ~..: ",:
. " " ~
, . ,
" :.:, .
rr-=----
I,
I:'
H
~
,~--
'r-------- l
, I
I
:......): ',. '.'
". .
. ':,' :-: :;.~ ...: ''':': ~'). '.::: .>= .:
o
o
I ~.:
,I
" ,
: '.i . ~ .:.
. ,
. '. .
.. " .'
0'. ".
.;:.,' "
"'(
'J' '
',: 't:,
- ',',
I"
-/",
l..,
,t
J:: ' . 1
" "" .l~ --- --'-."'.'"
" '., '[' ,
~. ',' ~ "-------r-"-
o
-- ',.
I
,
I
~I
I
~~
e
I ~
t:ICI~
:r.::~
cs~
~~
~,
~~
X
Q.
~
~
~
~
. ,
k
.::j'
j ....,'
<
"
-,;I,
. .
L '
~,:",t.,.
I:' '
:J' : .~.
:~.:"; .
~-I~"'"
~:,~. -~.
II,'. ~>:
;,~..'
..<.
".:....,.('
.."
~,..
~~
~1>~~ . .
~~~.
iI'\_~...''lL;
~:r"
ti.'?1' .
~; t~.,~
~,,:~
.)i.~.,.;' .~~
,~
,"" 'J~""., ,~" -- -- -
"~::'&;!r~~~~f!\;k
":,,
".,:;- -,;~
~~.r..(.:_t~ .
'. " . '.
'," : ~.){~;<,~ 's:io."'l""I,dJ-,J.
-:;';> ~.~ .,~-" ~,',... ~n.L)(I~
"'!- '",,> '::?::).H.,n:-a-a~'zI.
'''~<::H<:'(~~':T::J;;::~> '. '
. ' " ',' "'::',~::,:\;"~':t......
V e>NI(].,ltlS'~'I6?\::'
.
~.Pl
f.:,:3'~:':
.... .<;,'
.. ~
.."j
';1
:~!
1. ."
;~;lN
:':~:I~
.:".(~~
.,!'t~~
,~.Y~~,'
q~
....{.;.... ","
.;~..~?::
~:..i~. ~
.-, ',- ~
,.X)~;'
a J ":..~.;
,.
!,' ".<
.~ ".\; ":.""
";~ :,;,~.~:
:-:,':'
.'
.t,~;."<:
.~t~\~~
~.\;~~E~~t
'. ~ ~ \.. ;.
"'., .
'1
~
,
',,',' ".,",','~ ", ,:.,.,. .
_.' ..., ~t\.IIQ
~ "."" ,';-" ," ,,' " " ',' ~n line
l,',N0IL~V.^31' 3.'.H"?,U, 0" 'N' '. .
, : 1-.1"'" ':~ ~c. .,'
.- ..".-. ',"' " '. ~
;a:j~2:
~J!:.: ..'
, ~:,:<~:~:
':(' ~ . k".'''~
:::,;'}'4\>
~~
.~J...~~:
'},,', C\,"
;,~:~;t.:.:~,,: .~-'
~./ .
'1:
'~
),
'...
1-
...
.~
,'.
'"
:~ '.
~~i:lt,
~'. .,..~>..i: "i..
-' ..........
't
....
"
~':;>:;.,.,<
~,
;.
~t
,
.'
"
:r
'''-
CITY OF DUBLIN
PLANNING CO~ISSION
...: .
AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT
FROM:
Meeting Date: May 4, 1987
Planning Commis~ion ~
Planning Staff
TO:
SUBJECT:
PA 87-019.1, .2, .3'and .4 Douglas W. Bradford
(Applicant)/Amador Valley Lanes (Owner)
Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review,
Tentative Parcel Map, and Variance requests,
6000 Dougherty Road.
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROJECT:
Conditional Use Permit and Site Development
Review requests for the proposed remodeling of
the existing 3l,000~ sq. ft. Amador Lanes
Bowling Alley (6000 Dougherty Road) and for two
new single story commercial stuctures (6,000~
and 3,OOO~ sq. ft. respectively). Proposed uses
for the complex include auto and motorcycle
related sales and repair uses. Concurrently
submitted are Tentative Parcel Map and Variance
requests for the division of the 2.8~ acre
property into three parcels with the following
variances from the M-l District requirements:
1) Minimum Lot Size Variances (20,000 sq. ft.
minimum required - Parcel A - 9,l15~ sq. ft. and
Parcel B - l8,230~ sq. ft. requested), 2) Median
Lot Width Variance (100 ft. minimum required -
Parcel A - 86 ft. requested), 3) Front Yard
Setback (20 ft. minimum required - Parcel A - 8
ft. requested and Parcel C - 4 ft. requested),
and 5) Side Yard Setback (10 ft. minimum
required - Parcel A - 8 ft. requested).
APPLICANT:
Douglas W. Bradford
3180 Crow Canyon Place, Suite 120
San Ramon, CA 94583
PROPERTY OWNER AND
REPRESENTATIVE:
Robert Feuchter, President
Amador Valley Lanes, A California
General Partnership
P.O. Box 60729
Sacramento, CA 95860
LOCATION:
6000 Dougherty Road
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER:
941-205-21
PARCEL SIZE:
2.8+ acres
GENERAL PLAN
DESIGNATION:
Commercial/Industrial - Retail/Office and
Automotive
z
'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------..---------
ITEM
Pc 5;(1ffFr~r ATTACH ErU 9
of /lA1 ~, 1'8 7 (wJlt'J ~"h,".,;:ts)
..
EXISTING ZONING
AND LAND USE:
PD, Planned Development District allowing M-l,
Light Industrial District and C-2, General
Commercial nistrict Uses as established by the
l4llth Zoning Unit, which applies the M-l
District development standards. The site is
currently occupied by Amador Valley Lanes
(Bowling All~y, Snack Bar and Cocktail Lounge).
ZONING HISTORY:
On March 26, 1975, the Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved
Conditional Use Permit C-2913 to allow a Commercial Recreation Facility
(bowling alley, snack bar and cocktail lounge) on the subject property, at
that time in an M-l, Light Industrial District.
On October 4, 1979, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors rezoned the
subject property as part of a nine parcel - 40~ acre Rezoning Study, placing
it in the PD, Planned Development District.
On December 15, 1986, the Dublin Planning Commission approved a
Conditional Use Permit request for the proposed operation of an auto rental
service in a 288+ square foot portion of the Bowling Alley (the area
previously used ;s the pro-shop at the southeast corner of the structure).
SURROUNDING LAND USE
AND ZONING:
North: PD, Planned Development District - Mini
Warehouse Uses
East: PD, Planned Development District - Mixed
Commercial and Light Industrial Uses
South: C-2, General Commercial District -
Pac 'n Save Shopping Center
West: M-l, Light Industrial District -
Business Park
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS:
Section 8-1.2. (INTENT) of the City's Subdivision Ordinance states: "It
is the intent of this Chapter to promote the public health, safety, and
general welfare; to assure in the division of land consistency with the
policies of the Dublin General Plan and with the intent and provisions of the
Dublin Zoning Ordinance; to coordinate lot design, street patterns, rights-
of-way, utilities and public facilities with community and neighborhood plans;
to assure that areas dedicated for public purposes will be properly improved
initially so as not to be a future burden upon the community; to preserve
natural resources and prevent environmental damage; to maintain suitable
standards to insure adequate, safe building sites; and, to prevent hazard to
life and property."
Section 8-49.2 (CONDITIONAL USES) establishes, in part, auto and
motorcycle sales, service and rental as conditional uses in the C-2, General
Commercial District.
Section 8-51.5 (BUILDING SITE:
use in an M-I District shall be on a
not less than one hundred (100) feet
(20,000) square feet.
M-l DISTRICTS) establishes that every
building site having a Median Lot Width
and an area not less than twenty thousand
Section 8-51.6 (YARDS: M-l DISTRICTS) establishes the following Yard
requirements in M-l Districts:
Depth of Front Yard - not less than twenty (20) feet;
Depth of Rear Yard - not less than twenty (20) feet;
Width of each Side Yard - not less than ten (10) feet provided that
where the abutting Lot is any R District, the width of the Side
Yard shall not be less than thirty (30) feet.
..
>-
-2-
~~~~'__~!'m!.~~~1~:<:'-;::C!.'-.,
"'~:_;';:}"I...~",_,,_~.,,~,J' J"~~'!1<k..r.:f'.}""_-'~)~-ti'?!l.,I': ,. _ .... _'. _.,' ." . ," . ~ . '"', .". _ _ _ . . . '. _.!~~.c_~",,~_,_, "~'.__"'.' ","".:
::~(....:.;..:;~;:: '-',:::I_~~'):"':'--f:~/~"}:-';('~1"~:t;;" .,~€, ."Jll! _ < ~1J';.."ii ~~_ _ . . _ '.. , _._;';:'<';_:, - , ..........' _. _ ,_ , . ' - ~ _ ,.,:,,- ~_. ''''''','L"' ~.' ,,_ '_ .
Section 8-93.0 (VARIANCE) indicates that the ~trict terms of the Zoning
Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact
upon each of the folloiwng three requirements:
a) That there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings, applicable to the property which deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity under
the identical zoning classification.--
b) That the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of
special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other
properties in the vicinity and zone.
c) That the granting of the application will npt be detrimental to persons
or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare.
Section 8-93.1 - .4 establishes the procedures, required action and
effective date for granting or denying a Variance, and indicates the granting
of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitations and guarantees.
Section 8-94.0 states that conditional uses must be analyzed to
determine: I) whether or not the use is required by the public need;
2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses,
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the
use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the
specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the district
in which it is located.
Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be
valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the
acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited
to the following matters:
a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings;
b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities;
c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the
proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall
lapse and be void;
d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including
the posting to bond;
e) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County
Government.
Section 8-95.0 states that the Site Development Review is intended to
promote orderly, attractive and harmonious development; recognize environ-
mental limitations on development; stabilize land values and investments; and
promote the general welfare by preventing establishment of uses or erection of
structures having qualities which would not meet the specific intent clauses
or performance standards of this Chapter or which are not properly related to
their sites, surrounding traffic circulation, or their environmental setting.
Where the use is proposed, the adjacent land uses, environmental significance
or limitations, topography, or traffic circulation is found to so require, the
Planning Director may establish more stringent regulations than those other-
wise specified for the District.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance which finds the proposed project
will not have a significant impact on the environment.
NOTIFICATION:
Public Notice of the May 4, 1987, hearing was published in
The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted
in public buildings.
~
-3-
ANALYSIS:
The 2.8~ acre subject property fronts along the northwest corner of the
intersection of Sierra Lane and Dougherty~Road. The site was developed as a
commercial recreational facility (bowling alley, snack bar and cocktail
lounge) following approval of Conditional Use Permit Number C-29l3 in March of
1975.
-"
A recent Conditional Use Permit approval (PA 86-125) authorized use of
the 288+ square foot area at the southeast corner of the structure (the "Pro-
Shop") ;s the office for an auto rental facility. Use of 20 existing on-site
parking spaces for the car rental facility was also authorized by that permit.
The Applicant proposes to discontinue the commercial recreational use
operating within the existing 32,500~ square foot structure and to refurbish
that structure for use as part of a retail and automotive center. Proposed
uses for the center are described in the Applicant's Written Statements of
February 9, 1987, and April 2, 1987 (see Attachment 2). Along with the
refurbishment of the existing structure, the Applicant proposes the
construction of two new freestanding structures (Building A - 6,000 square
feet and Building C - 3,000 square feet). While the proposed uses are
considered appropriate for the site (all except motorcycle and/or car sales
are allowable uses for this site), careful consideration should be given on
how to appropriately condition the project to regulate exterior activities to
avoid problems known to be occasionally related to car repair facilities.
Staff's review of the Applicant's initial submittal materials prompted
the preparation of a Staff Study. That Study was accompanied by a detailed
memorandum recommending specific modifications to the originally proposed Site
Plan Layout and to the proposed architectural treatment to the three
structures.
The Applicant subsequently submitted the Revised Site Plan which
responded to a majority of Staff's identified concerns. Additional
modifications are recommended by Staff and are detailed in the Staff Study -
Parking Plan/Landscape Plan (see Exhibit F) and a second study labeled Staff
Study - Building A (see Exhibit G).
The changes recommended by these Staff Studies, and as elaborated within
the Draft Conditions of Approval for the Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review requests, fall into the following sub-categories:
1. Site Plan Modifications
2. Site Landscaping
3. Project Architecture
The major adjustment recommended to the Site Plan involves a recommenda-
tion that a 30-foot (minimum) setback be observed for proposed Buildings A and
C. While this setback standard exceeds the minimum called for by the site's
M-l District zoning criteria, a 30-foot setback is considered appropriate to
provide a setback matching the minimum utilized by the adjoining land uses,
and which acknowledges the site's location along a major arterial (Dougherty
Road) .
Additional changes recommended to the site plan constitute "fine-tuning"
of the site's parking and driveway system to meet the City's dimensional
standards, to promote improved pedestrian and vehicular circulation, and to
allow increases in the size of on-site landscape areas.
Although the entire site has been previously developed for the
commercial recreational facility, the on-site landscaping established is
considered inadequate when compared to recent commercial entitlements in the
City. Internal landscaping areas should be established to break up the
expanse of the parking areas and help better define parking and driveway
areas. Perimeter landscaping along Sierra Lane and Dougherty Road should be
upraded and should include use of landscaping mounding. Special attention
should be given to landscaping installed along the street-side elevations of
proposed Buildings A and C. Staff is recommendinz tha.t the Applicant be
required to pursue authorization to install off-site landscaping adjoining the
north elevation of proposed Building C. This landscaping is considered
necessary to soften the visual impact of the structure resulting from its
>-
-4-
close proximity to Dougherty Road. Efforts should be taken to assure site
development does not impact existing off-site landscaping. The loss of trees
along the west side of the existing structure (to allow the creation of
vehicular access) should be mitigated by the construction of a screen wall or
fence to mitigate undesirable future views of the rear of the structure as
viewed from the adjoining office-research facility. Efforts should be taken
to retain some of the existing trees along the southern portion of that
building elevation (subject to review-andllpproval of a narrowed driveway
section for part or all of the rear driveway). The proposed architectural
treatment for structures of this project will be of an integrated design. The
design of the two new structures is planned to match the proposed refurbished
design of the large existing structure. The design of the fascia bands
wrapping around each of the three structures is considered the key
architectural element of the project. Staff feel~ additional architectural
detailing is warranted within the fascia band. One option for this
supplemental architectural treatment would involve the use of tile band
inserts (or some equivalent manner of alternate trim detailing). Due to the
proposed locations of Buildings A and C, these structures will have a high
visibility from off-site traffic. The southwesterly elevation of Building A
and the northerly elevation of Building C should be upgraded in response to
their high visibility. For Building A, Staff recommends that the adjustment
involve the use of columns and store front glazing for the southerly 70'+ of
the structure's proposed southwesterly building elevation (see Exhibit G),
Similar treatment, or some alternate method of architectural detailing, should
be provided for the easterly 1/4~ of the north elevation of proposed Building
C.
Since the Applicant has to date been unable to provide Staff with
details of the proposed Freestanding Signs, these signs will have to be
processed under a separate Site Development Review submittal.
The Applicant is proposing to subdivide the 2.8~ acre property into
three parcels. Staff recommends that no variances to the applicable lot
standards be granted, and as such recommends that Variance request PA 87-019.4
be denied. The lotting pattern for the three-parcel subdivision should be
modified as generally shown on the Staff Study - Parking and Landscape Plan to
assure compliance with the applicable lot standards (M-l District Standards
apply). A second concern regarding the proposed subdivision of the property
involves Staff's concern that no division occur until development of the site
as an integrated project is assured. To this end, Staff recommends that the
Final Parcel Map for the subdivision not be allowed to go to record until
building permits are issued and construction commenced for Buildings A and C.
Application of a condition of this type will provide assurance that the
parcels created around proposed Buildings A or C are not sold off and
developed in a manner conflicting with the overall concept and layout of the
remaining portions of the retail and automotive center.
RECOMMENDATION:
FORMAT:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Open public hearing.
Hear Staff presentation.
Hear Applicant and public presentations.
Close public hearing.
Consider and act on four Draft Resolutions:
A - A Draft Resolution regarding the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for PA 87-019.1, .2, .3, and
4.
B - A Draft Resolution regarding the Conditional Use Permit
and Site Development Review requests PA 87-019.1 and .2,
C - A Draft Resolution regarding the Tentative Parcel Map
request PA 87-019.3.
D - A Draft Resolution regarding the Variance request
PA 87-019.4.
'-
-5-
ACTION:
Based on the above Staff Report, Staff recommends the
Planning Commission adopt the following Draft Resolutions:
Exhibit A approving the Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significahce for PA 87-019.1, .2, .3, and .4,
Exhibit B approving the Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review requests PA 87-019.1 and .2, Exhibit C
approving the Tentative Parcel Map request PA 87-019.3, and
Exhibit D denying the V€tiance request PA 87-019.4.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Draft Resolution regarding a Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance for ~A 87-0l9.1, .2, .3, and .4
Exhibit B - Draft Resolution regarding Conditional Use Permit and Site
Development Review request PA 87-019.1 and .2
Exhibit C - Draft Resolution regarding Tentative Parcel Map request
PA 87-019.3
Exhibit D - Draft Resolution regarding Variance request PA 87-019.4
Exhibit E - Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review, Tentative
Parcel Map and Variance Submittals
Exhibit F - Staff Study - Parking Plan and Landscape Plan
Exhibit G - Staff Study - Building A
Background Attachments:
I - Zoning Map
2 - Copy of Applicant's Written Statements
3 - Environmental Assessment Form
4 - Site Photographs and Photo Key Map
5 - Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance - PA 87-0l9.I,
.2, .3 and .4
6 - Pertinent Agency Comments
7 - Site Plan and Conditions of Approval for C-29l3
8 - Site Plan and Conditions of Approval for PA 86-125 (Enterprise
Rent-A-Car)
~
-6-
CITY OF DUBLIN
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commissioners
Laurence L. Tong - Planning Director 11F
FROM:
DATE:
May 14, 1987
RE: Item 8.3, PA 87-019.1, .2, .3, and .4 Amador Valley Lanes
The Staff Report for Public Hearing Item 8.3, PA 87-019.1, .2, .3, and .4,
Amador Valley Lanes, will be delivered to you tomorrow.
LLT/ao