Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-1993 Item 8.1 92-083 EneaPropSubDiv TPM/VARTO: FROM: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: GENERAL INFORMATION: CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: February 1, 1993 Planning Commission Planning Staff ~ ~Associate Planner David Choy, PA 92-083 Enea Properties Subdivision/Variance at 6670-6690 Amador Plaza Road PROJECT: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: ASSESSOR PARCEL: PARCEL SIZE: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: Application for Tentative Parcel Map 6344 to divide an existing, improved 3.41+_ acre parcel into three separate parcels (Lot A=.96 Acres, Lot B=l.21 Acres, Lot C=1.24 Acres) and a Variance request to allow two of the new parcels (Parcels B and C) to have substandard effective lot frontages. Robert Enea, Enea Properties 6670 Amador Plaza Road Dublin, CA 94568 Ron Archer 4133 Mohr Avenue, Suite E Pleasanton, CA 94566 6670-6690 Amador Plaza Road 941-1500-50 3.41+ Acres Retail/Office and Automotive Development Zone 4 - Planned Mixed Uses PD, Planned Development/Office Complex North: South: PD, Planned Development/Retail Center Alameda County Flood Control Channel and 1-580 ITEM NO. ~. [ COPIES TO: Owner Representative Address File ZONING HISTORY: S-783: 1464 Z .U.: PA 91-048: East: West: PD, Planned Development/Vacant C-2, General Commercial/Service and Automotive Service Shops. On October 22, 1980, the Alameda County Planning Director approved a Site Development Review application for the location of six office buildings on approximately 2.75 acres of an approximate 23.49 acre parcel. Four of the six buildings were constructed, one of which has since burned down. On April 2, 1981, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved Ordinance No. 81-26 rezoning an approximate 23.49 acre parcel from the C-2, General Commercial District to a PD, Planned Development, allowing C-O uses and some C-1 uses, subject to the C-0 District regulations. On August 19, 1991, the Planning Commission approved Tentative Parcel Map 6179 to allow the division of an existing, improved ±4.5 acre parcel into two separate parcels (Lot 1=3.41 acres, Lot 2=1.10 acres) and approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow a minor modification to the Planned Development General Provisions, by allowing a minimum effective lot frontage of 25 feet. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-1.4(a) states that no real property, or portion thereof, within the City of Dublin shall be divided into two or more parcels for the purpose of sale, lease or financing, whether immediate or future, unless prior thereto a Tentative Map is acted upon and a Final Map or Parcel Map has been filed in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance. Section 8-60.13 states, in part, that whenever a new building site is hereinafter created by division of an existing lot, the Effective Frontage of each such new building site shall be equal to one-half of either the required or the actual median lot width, whichever is greater. The Planned Development General Provisions modify this policy to permit a minimum Effective Lot Frontage of twenty-five feet. Section 8-20.16(b) states that the term Effective Lot Frontage is the least Lot Width at any point between the front line of the Lot and the point at which the "Median Lot Width" is measured. Article 2, Section 8-2.6 of the City of Dublin Subdivision Ordinance states that no Tentative Map shall be approved which is not in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter, the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and any other Ordinance of the City of Dublin. -2- Article 3, Section 8-3.4 of the City of Dublin Subdivision Ordinance states that Lots shall be designed to meet or exceed the minimum standard for area, median lot width and effective lot frontage specified for the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance for the zoning district in which the subdivision is located. Section 8-93.0 Variance establishes the procedure for granting Variances and establishes findings which must be made affirmatively: 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 properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classifications; and 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; and c) That the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to this project pursuant to Section 15270 of the State CEQA guidelines. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the February 1, 1993 hearing was published in the local newspaper, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. ANALYSIS: The Applicant, Enea Properties, is requesting approval of Tentative Parcel Map 6344 to allow the division of an existing improved +3.41 acre parcel into three separate parcels (Lot A=.96 Acres, LoT B=l.21 Acres, Lot C=1.24 Acres) and a Variance request to allow two of the new parcels (Parcels B and C) to have substandard effective lot frontages. This property was involved in a previous lot split application (Tentative Parcel Map 6179 - PA 91-048), approved by the Planning Commission on August 19, 1991, which separated the building at 6665 Amador Plaza Road from the rest of the office complex. A Conditional Use Permit was also approved, modifying the Planned Development District General Provisions for establishing the minimum requirement for effective lot frontage, as defined by Section 8-60.13, allowing a minimum effective lot frontage of twenty-five feet. This was essential in approving Tentative Parcel Map 6179. The current Variance request seeks relief from this modified provision for Parcels B and C. Both the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Dublin Subdivision Ordinance include a minimum effective lot frontage requirement for all lots being subdivided, in order to prevent the creation of landlocked parcels when designing subdivisions. The effective lot frontage provision ensures that each lot created by subdivision has adequate vehicular, emergency vehicular and visual access, as well as proper exposure of the site from the street, in order to serve all existing, proposed or future development. The method for measuring the effective lot frontage, is established by Section 8-20.16(b) of the Zoning Ordinance. The effective lot frontage is defined as the least lot width at any point between the front line of the Lot and the point at which the "Median Lot Width" is measured. By this definition, the effective lot frontages for Parcels B and C measure five feet and eight feet respectively. Tentative Parcel Map 6344 does not comply with the effective lot frontage requirement of twenty-five feet, as established by the Planned Development District. The Applicant is proposing the utilization of reciprocal easements to provide vehicular access and utility service onto and across Parcels A, B and C. This would address the issue of vehicular and emergency vehicular access to each parcel, but there are several other issues which this proposal would not address. The Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) requires all new subdivisions to provide separate irrigation and domestic water meters, as well as separate sewer connections to each lot. The reciprocal utility easement would not provide compliance with this requirement. The property is currently served by single water and sewer lines. The Applicant would need to either make separate connections for each lot at the main lines in the street, or a branch main may need to be extended into the lot, which would be dedicated to DSRSD, and provide meters and connections off of this line. The proposed lot configuration would result in sheet flow drainage running across property lines. Each newly created lot should be designed to handle its own drainage on-site. A drainage release agreement would be required to permit the drainage to cross property lines. Perimeter landscaping and fencing would be required for each new lot in the subdivision. These two items have not been included with the proposal because they would completely separate the lots from one another. The Applicant would like to maintain operation of the office building complex as if it were still one site. Staff feels that a more effective way for the Applicant to accomplish this would be through the utilization of a commercial condominium map. A commercial condominium map would provide a means of separating the buildings for individual sale, while retaining all of the on-site improvements (parking, landscaping, internal roadways and utilities) on one separate parcel held in common ownership, without the need for reciprocal easements. In addition, a commercial condominium map could be processed in compliance with the applicable regulations of the City's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances. The Applicant contends that the buildings would be harder to sell if subdivided through a commercial condominium map, because the building and improvements would not be owned outright. Yet, the Tentative Parcel Map proposes the common use of many of the site -4- improvements. The site cannot be subdivided, nor operated, in a manner which allows the independent operation of each parcel. The property was developed as one office complex, and will continue to operate as such as long as the current site layout exists. Staff is concerned with the future development potential of the lots proposed by Tentative Parcel Map 6344. If future improvements were needed for one of the existing buildings, they may be impossible to accomplish if the proposed parcels were under separate ownership. Should something happen to the two existing buildings, one building on-site has already burned down, it would be very difficult to develop each separate parcel independent of one another, especially if each lot was under separate ownership. A condominium map would guarantee the joint use of the common parcel, throughout the future use of the pad lots. Staff is also concerned that if the parcel were divided, each new lot would be entitled to one freestanding sign on-site. The street could potentially become cluttered with as many as four freestanding signs located along the Amador Plaza Road frontage. This site comprises only half of the street frontage along the radius of the cul-de-sac bulb on Amador Plaza Road. A commercial condominium map would create one large common parcel fronting on Amador Plaza Road, allowing one freestanding sign for the complex. In addition, the approval of Tentative Parcel Map 6344, along with the Variance, would create potential land use conflicts for future uses proposed on this site. For example, Staff has received an application for a Conditional Use Permit (PA 93-001) to allow a rental car agency, with outdoor storage of rental vehicles, to locate at 6670 Amador Plaza Road (Parcel C). Parcel C would not have sufficient parking spaces to accommodate the outdoor storage of rental vehicles on-site. The project would require the location of the rental vehicles on a separate lot, within the parking lot of Parcel B. The proposed Conditional Use Permit application, as submitted, could not be approved if Tentative Parcel Map 6344, along with the Variance, is approved. A subsequent Variance would be required for PA 93-001 to allow a reduction in the required number of parking spaces on-site (on Parcel C) and a binding agreement from the two property owners (Parcels B and C) would be required to allow the storage of vehicles to occur off-site (on Parcel B) throughout the duration of the car rental use (on Parcel C). If, however, a commercial condominium map were processed for this site, sufficient parking would be available (243 spaces provided, 148 spaces required) on the common parcel, requiring approval of only a Conditional Use Permit for PA 93-001 (extra parking is currently available on-site since one building was destroyed). Staff believes that the Tentative Parcel Map 6344 and Variance requests are not appropriate for the subject site. The proposed subdivision would result in substandard, irregular-shaped parcels that would be awkward to develop, operate and improve in the future. There is insufficient evidence to justify the granting of a Variance. The fact that the existing parcel cannot be subdivided in conformance with -5- the provisions of the City's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances is not the result of an existing physical hardship inherent with the land, which is depriving the property owner of any privileges. It is due to the fact that the property was originally built and intended to function as one integrated office complex. Approving Tentative Parcel Map 6344, along with the Variance request, may set an undesirable precedent for the development of the adjacent, vacant parcel which fronts on the east side of the bulb along Amador Plaza Road, which is owned by the Applicant, and for other vacant parcels and developed complexes in the City. The Applicant is proposing to split the parcel up for individual sale, while maintaining the operation of the site as one large office complex. Staff is not opposed to this objective. But, Staff believes that this can be accomplished in compliance with the City's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances by utilizing a commercial condominium map. It provides the Applicant with a viable mechanism for allowing the joint use of the property, allows for the individual sale of the buildings, controls signage for the complex, and can prevent many potential conflicts arising from the shared use of this site. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny PA 92-083 Tentative Parcel Map 6344 and Variance application. Should the Planning Commission wish to approve PA 92-083 Tentative Parcel Map 6344 and Variance application, Staff recommends continuing this item to the March 15, Planning Commission meeting to allow for the preparation of the necessary environmental documents and the resolutions of approval. RECOMMENDATIONS: FORMAT: ACTION: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. Take testimony from Applicant and the public. Question Staff, Applicant and the public. Close public hearing and deliberate. Adopt draft resolutions (Exhibits B) relating to PA 92- 083, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the draft resolutions denying the Tentative Map and Variance (Exhibit B) relating to PA 92-083. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Exhibit B: Project Plans Draft Resolution denying Tentative Parcel Map 6344 and Variance Background Attachments: Attachment 1: Location/Zoning Map Attachment 2: Applicant's Written Statement -6- tG lill,;,' ' I i; O ' ~ illi:Ill {: { i { ~ ~; lis. il ,,d: ,:~ J , Iii ~ ' i EXHIBI RON ARCHER CITY Or DUBLIN, ,.~...,.".D~. COUNTY C^LIFORNI'A Il-i{--- RESOLUTION NO. 93 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING PA 92-083 ENEA PROPERTIES TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 6344 AND VARIANCE APPLICATION AT 6670-6690 AMADOR PLAZA ROAD WHEREAS, Robert Enea, on behalf of Enea Properties has submitted an application for Tentative Parcel Map 6344 to divide an existing, improved 3.41+ acre parcel into three separate parcels (Lot A=.96 Acres, Lot B=~.21 Acres, Lot C=1.24 Acres) and a Variance request to allow two of the new parcels (Parcels B and C) to have substandard effective lot frontages; 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 purpose of sale, lease or financing unless a tentative map is acted upon, and a final map or Parcel Map is approved consistent with the Subdivision Map Act and City of Dublin subdivision regulations; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said application on February 1, 1993; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and it was found that CEQA does not apply to this project pursuant to Section 15270 of the State CEQA guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Tentative Parcel Map 6344 and the Variance be denied; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: Tentative Parcel Map 6344 is not consistent with Article 3, Section 8-3.4 of the City of Dublin Subdivision Ordinance, which states that Lots shall be designed to meet or exceed the minimum standard for area, median lot width and effective lot frontage specified for the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance for the zoning district in which the subdivision is located. o Tentative Parcel Map 6344 is not consistent with Article 2, Section 8-2.6 of the City of Dublin Subdivision Ordinance, which states that no Tentative Map shall be approved which is not in conformance with the provisions of this Chapter, the EXHIBIT City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance and any other Ordinance of the City of Dublin. There is not sufficient evidence to justify the granting of a Variance. o There are no special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classifications. The fact that the existing parcel cannot be subdivided in conformance with the provisions of the City's Subdivision and Zoning Ordinances is not the result of an existing physical hardship inherent with the land, which is depriving the property owner of any privileges. It is due to the fact that the property was originally built and intended to function as one integrated office complex. The granting of the application may constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 6344, along with the Variance request, may set an undesirable precedent for the development of the adjacent, vacant parcel which fronts on the east side of the bulb along Amador Plaza Road, which is owned by the Applicant. The granting of the application may be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 6344, along with the Variance, may create potential conflicts for future businesses arising from the shared use of this site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby deny PA 92-083 Tentative Parcel Map 6344 and Variance application. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of February, 1993. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Director - 2 - SEE SlIEE¥ '* iiiI A ?.-',,RT OF THE ZONING MAP THE C'ITY OF DUBLIN AITACflMENT ~ THE TOTAL AREA OF PARCEL MAP 6344 IS 3.41 ACRES, TO BE DIVIDED INTO 3 PARCELS. EACH OF THE PARCELS WAS COMPLETELY DEVELOPED-AND ALL IMPROVEMENTS WERE IN PLACE (INCLUDING LANDSCAPING) UNTIL RECENTLY. WHEN THE MIDDLE BUILDING (PARCEL B) WAS DESTROYED BY FIRE. THE INTENT OF .THIS. PARCEL MAP IS TO ALLOW THE OWNER TO INDIVIDUALLY SELL THE TWO COMlV[ERCIAL OFFICE BUILDINGS. THE BUILDING CODE SECTION 8-20:16 (a) AND (b) AMENDED BY SECTION 3, ORD. 68-27 APPEARS TO WORK FOR RESIDENTIAL AREAS BUT DOES NOT WORK VERY WELL FOR LARGE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES SITUATED AT THE END OF A CUL-DE-SAC. THE THREE EXISTING BUILDINGS HAVE SUFFICIENT PARKING, ACCESS AND UTILITIES BY MEANS OF JOINT USE PUBLIC SERVICE AND PRIVATE EASE- MENTS ESTABLISHED BY C.C.& R'S, WHICH EACH OF THE PRESENT TENANTS ARE.RESTRICTED. THIS SITUATION IS NOT INTENDED TO CHANGE AS IS THE CASE WITH THE 4TH SEPARATELY OWNED BUILDING (NOT A PART) WHICH HAS ACCESS TO THE SAME DRIVEWAYS, PARKING AND UTILITIES AS THE PROPOSED ~ITE. THE VARIANCE APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED TO ALLOW THE PROPERTY LINES TO BE CREATED ~HICH WILL HAVE 25' FRONTAGE BUT WILL NOT MEET THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENTS IN ONE SPECIFIC AREA. THE ACCESS PARKING AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE NEW LOT LINES NOR ARE ANY PHYSICAL CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY ANTICIPATED. THE PROPERTY IS NOT LOCATED ON A DESIGNATED HAZARDOUS WASTE SITE. RECENT PHOTOGRAPHS ARE ATTACHED AND A KEY MAP IS PROVIDED TO SHOW THE PRESENT CONDITION OF THE SITE. NOV 0 DUBLIN pLANNIN~