Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-159.2 FirstWestrnTMAP&VARTO: FROM SUBJECT GENERAL INFORMATION: CITY OF DUBLIN pLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: September 6, 1988 Planning Commission Planning Staff ~/~ ~ PA 87-159.2 First Western Develooment, Parcel Map and Variance, 7450 Amador Valley Boulevard PROJECT: APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: PROPERTY OP~ER: LOCATION: ASSESSOR PARCEL NL%IBER: PARCEL SIZE: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING ~ND LAND USE: DOWlqTO~ SPECIFIC PL,tN DESIGNATION: SURROUNDING LAND USE .~ND ZONING: Request to subdivide an existing parcel into two lots creating one substandard parcel. Variance request to allow lot with insufficient lot frontage. Rick Hess First Western Development 3470 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite A-150 Lafayette, CA 94549 / // Nancy Voves -- ~ Wm. Glass & Associates ~ . 22245 Main Street, #100 Hay~ard, CA 94541 Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,} ~)/~/,~ Western Office / ' Metropolitan Plaza, 6th Floor 101 Lincoln Center Drive Foster City, CA 94404 7450 Amador Valley Boulevard Dublin, CA 94568 941-305-8 Existing - 7~ acres Proposed: Parcel A - 5.91~ acres Parcel B - 1.09 acres Retail/Office C-1 Retail Business District Commercial Retail Development (Circuit · City/T. J. Maxx and Oshman's) The site is located within Development Zone 8, Restaurant and Specialty Retail. North: South: East: West: PD, Planned Development District with church and office uses. C-2, General Commercial District developed with a mixed use retail outlet. Alameda County Flood Control Channel and Interstate 680. C-i, Retail Business District developed with various retail and restaurant uses. COPIES TO: Applicant  Owner ITEM NO. · ~ File PA 87-159.2~' ZONING HISTORY: Fall, 1968 - S-276, approval was granted for development of the Handyman Store. Approval for the outdoor nursery was withheld pending a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to the C-1 District° November 19, 1969 - The Alameda County Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit Application C - 2105 allowing development of the open-air nursery adjoining the Handyman Store. July 2, 1970 - The Alameda County Board of Supervisors approved the appeal for S-276 and Variance 4852 allowing use of a 36 foot high, 280 square foot Freestanding Business Identification Sign for the Handyman Store. June 26, 1972 - The Alameda County Planning Director approved S-440 and Variance Application V - 5800 to allow development of the current sporting goods store. Action on the Variance provided for a Numerical Parking Variance. June 20, 1985 - The Dublin Planning Commission approved PA 85-026 (Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests) allowing the enclosure and remodel of a portion of the open-air nursery at the northeast corner of the Handyman Store. March 2, 1987 - The Dublin Planning Commission approved PA 87-009 (Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review requests) allowing Circuit City Stores to refurbish the vacant Handyman Store (including enclosing a 5,700~ square foot nursery area) and to construct a freestanding sign with a height in excess of 20 feet located approximately 40 feet from the front property line. March 16, 1987 - The Dublin Planning Commission approved PA 87-034 (Conditional Use Permit request) for a car stereo installation facility in conjunction with the proposed Circuit City Store refurbishment of the vacant Handy, an Store. October 5, 1987 - PA 87-096: The Dublin Planning Commission denied subdivision request and denied without prejudice a Site Development Review request to construct a 10,000± square foot commercial building. June 27, 1988 - PA 87-159.1: The Planning Director approved a Site Development Review request to construct a 10,000 square feet com~ercial retail building. 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 Alameda County General Plan and with the intent and provisions of the Alameda County 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 8-3.4 (a) states: "Lots shall be designed to meet or exceed the minimum standard area, median lot width, and effective lot frontage specified for in the Dublin Zoning Ordinance for the zoning district in which the subdivision is located." Section 8-3.11 states "The Advisory Agency may, in the exercise cf reasonable judgment, grant variances to the requirements of this Chapter for water and sewage disposal system improvements, for street alignment, grades, widths, lengths, block design, median lot width, and effective lot frontage, and to all subjects referred to in Section 8-3.5 and 8-3.7 as is determined warranted by topographic limitations or soil or geological conditions, the opportunity -2- for more effective and desirable land utilization, or the showing that under the particular circumstances an alternate standard would meet or surpass the intent of the given requirement." Section 8-60.13 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires "Building Site: Effective Lot Frontage" and requires that "Every Building Site shall have an Effective Lot Frontage equal to or greater than one-half the Median Lot Width required in the district, and in no case shall the effective lot frontage be less than twenty-five (25) feet. Whenever a 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 (1/2) of either the required or the actual Median Lot Width thereof, whichever is greater. Each new Building Site shall be recorded forthwith as a Lot in the office of the County Recorder." Section 8-93.0 establishes the following findings required for granting variances: a) That there are special circu~nstances 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 not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan establishes policies and standards to control development within the do,~nto,~n area. E~'IRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration which finds that the proposed project will not have a significant impact on the environment. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the August 15, 1988, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property o~ers, and posted in public buildings. BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission continued this item from the August 15, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting at the request of the Applicant. In October, 1987, the Planning ComMission denied the Applicant's previous subdivision request to create two parcels including one landlocked parcel and denied without prejudice the Site Development Revie'~ for construction of a 10,000 sq. ft. com~ercial building (PA 87-096). This action a!!o~ed the Applicant to apply for a substantially different subdivision and apply for a Site Development Review within a one year period. The Applicant subsequentl>~ applied for a new Site Development Review, a subdivision to create t~o parcels including 1.09± acre flag lot and a Variance for substandard effective lot frontage on the flag lot. Staff determined the application was complete for processing purposes in January, 1988. Staff provided the Applicant with a list of comments and corrections on the project in March, 1988. At that time Staff info~-med the Applicant that Staff would have difficulty recom~mending approval of the Subdivision and Variance request as proposed, but would likely recommend approval of the Site Development Revie~ provided the corrections were incorporated into the revised plans. In April, 1988 the Applicant requested Staff to process the Site Development Revie~ application separately from the parcel map and Variance request. On June 27, 1988, the Planning Director approved the Applicant's Site Development Revie~ request to construct a 10,000 sq. ft. commercial retail building on the existing parcel currently developed with Circuit City~ TJ Maxx and Oshmans. -3- ~YALYSIS: The Applicant is currently requesting Planning Commission approval of a minor subdivision to create two parcels of land from one existing 7~ acre parcel. Parcel A would consist of 5.91~ acres, currently developed with the 57,680 square foot Circuit City/TJ Maxx building and the 12,000~ square foot Oshman's Sporting Goods building and approximately 287 parking spaces. Parcel A would have approximately 690~ foot frontage on Amador Plaza Road and a 391~ foot frontage along Amador Valley Boulevard and 170~ foot frontage adjacent to the flood control channel. Parcel B would consist of a 1.09± acres flag lot within the existing eastern parking lot area between the Circuit City/TJ Maxx building and the Oshmans building located on Parcel A. This area, although currently supporting parking and drive aisles, will eventually be developed with the 10,000 sq. ft. retail commercial building and approximately 51 parking spaces previously approved (PA 87-159.1). Approval of the Applicant's proposed subdivision would result in the creation of a parcel (Parcel B) with substandard effective lot frontage necessitating approval of a variance. The City's Zoning Ordinance requires the effective lot frontage of all new building sites to equal one-half (1/2) of the median lot width, either actual or required, whichever is greater. The median lot width for the proposed Parcel B is 150 feet. A 75 foot wide effective lot frontage is required. The 'Applicant proposes a 25 foot wide effective lot frontage. The subdivision ordinance establishes provisions for granting variances from the effective lot frontage requirements, if warranted by 1) topographic limitations or soil or geological conditions, 2) the opportunity for more effective and desirable land utilization, or 3) the showing that under the particular circumstances an alternate standard would meet or surpass the intent of the requirement (see Attachment 2 for Applicant's position on granting Variance request). 1. There are no topographic limitations or soil or geological conditions which would warrant granting a Variance from the effective lot frontage requirements as the lot is a relatively flat site. 2. Granting of a Variance from effective lot frontage does not provide an opportunity for a more effective or desirable land utilization as development of the existing site is possible without subdivision of the site into separate parcels. From a Planning perspective, it is more desirable and effective for the site to develop as one parcel, functioning as a single retail center under one o,~nership. Development of the site under one parcel would eliminate or minimize the problems which have arisen in the Downtown area with future expansion of development on the site, obtaining access easements and location and placement of freestanding signage. 3. The Applicant has not identified any particular circumstances in which the granting of the variance would meet or exceed the intent of the effective lot frontage requirement. The primary intent of the effective lot frontage requirement is to provide adequate street frontage for parcels, thereby enhancing visability from adjacent streets, and promoting uniformity and compatibility of lot sizes and development within a zoning district. Staff met with the Applicant and his representative on July 29th, August 24th and August 30th, to identify and discuss the following major concerns associated with the Applicant's subdivision and variance proposal: 1. Future Development - Approval of a parcel with substandard effective lot frontage may adversely affect future development on the site, in that each separate property owner would not have the same interest or control over the adjacent development. In a worst case situation, having a substandard effective lot frontage without proprietary interest in development of the entire site could result in surrounding development effectively blocking visability on the flag lot development from the adjacent streets. 2. Easements - Obtaining cross access easements within the Downtown has proven to be a lengthy and cumbersome process for the City, property owners and tenants involved. Compliance with the effective lot frontage requirement reduces the need for cross access easements. 3. Signage - %he City's sign ordinance allows one freestanding sign per parcel with the exception of large parcels four acres or greater located adjacent to 1-580 or 1-680, or the Flood Control Channel, in which case a second freestanding sign may be permitted subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The existing site currently has one freestanding sign and is entitled to apply for a second freestanding sign. Under the Applicant's proposal it would be possible for the site to contain three freestanding signs. The Applicant's attorney suggests that the issues of future development, easements and signage identified by Staff can be addressed through the Conditions of Approval for the project and through the Declaration of Encumbrances recorded for the property. The Applicant has indicated that the T J Maxx lease requires maintenance of the common area parking lot for parking purposes with the exception of a maximum 10,0002 square foot building (the proposed First Western Development building) and a maximum 3,000~ square foot building. From a City Planning and Zoning perspective, deed restrictions and lease agreements are difficult to monitor and enforce as the City is not a part of the agreements between property owners. Agreements can be entered into, broken or modified without the City's knowledge or approval. The Applicant's attorney proposed language for Conditions of Approval to address Staff's three primary concerns (see Attachment 3). Staff has reviewed the proposed language and does not believe it adequately addresses the major concerns identified with creating a lot with substandard lot frontage. Additionally, it is unlikely that language could be developed and incorporate within a deed restriction which would insure proprietary interest in development of the two lots to meet the intent of the City's effective lot frontage requirement and to justify granting the proposed variance. The restrictions and limitations necessary to insure proprietary interest present under a single ownership can be accomplished through approval of a commercial condominium parcel map and establishment of a Planned Development. Development standards would be established through the regulations of the Planned Development, maintenance of the common areas would be regulated through both Conditions of Approval and CC&R's subject to review and approval of the City Attorney and Planning Director. Staff recommends denial of the proposed Subdivision and Variance request. RECO~ENDATION: F 0 P~t&T: ACTION: ATTACI~MENTS: 1) 2) a) 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 Resolution denying Minor Subdivision and Variance request, or continue the item and give Staff and the Applicant direction. Staff recommends the Planning Com~issi0n adopt the attached Resolution denying PA 87-159.2 the Minor Subdivision and Variance request. Exhibit A: Resolution of Denial Background Attachments: Attachment 1: Attachment 2: Attachment 3: Attachment 4: Parcel Map dated received August 11, 1988 Letter dated received July 1, 1988 Letter dated received August 10, 1988 Location Map -5- RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN 1) DENYING PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT MINOR SUBDIVISION P~EQUEST TO SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 7.002 ACRE SITE INTO TWO SEPARATE SITES (PARCEL A CONTAINING 5.908 ACRES AND PARCEL B CONTAINING 1.094 ACRES) AT 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD; AND 2) DENYING PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A SUBSTANDARD PARCEL WITH INSUFFICIENT EFFECTIVE LOT FRONTAGE AT 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD WHEREAS, First Western Development filed an application for a Minor Subdivision request to subdivide an existing 7.002 acre site into two separate sites (Parcel A containing 5.908 acres and Parcel B containing 1.094 acres) and a Variance request to allow a substandard parcel (Parcel B); and WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act need not be fulfilled as Staff is recommending denial of the Subdivision request and denial without prejudice of the Variance request; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on August 15, 1988 and September 6, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the Subdivision request be denied and the Variance request be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereianbove set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that PA 87-159.2 First Western Development Minor Subdivision and Variance request is inconsistent with the intent of the applicable Subdivision regulations and City Zoning Ordinance in that: 1. The subdivision would result in a parcel that would not have the required effective lot frontage as defined in Section 8-60.13 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance; 2. There are no topographic limitations or soil or geological conditions which would warrant granting a Variance from the effective lot frontage requirements as the lo~ is a relatively flat site. 3. Granting of a Variance from effective lot frontage does not provide an opportunity for a more effective or desirable land utilization as developmenn of the existing site is possible without subdivision of the site into separate parcels. From a planning perspective, it is more desirable and effective for the site to develop as one parcel, functioning as a single retail center under one ownershp or proprietary interest. Development of the site under one parcel would eliminate or minimize the problems which could arise with future expansion of development on the site, obtaining access easements, location and placement of freestanding signage. 4. There are no particular circumstances in which the granting of the Variance would meet or exceed the intent of the effective lot frontage requirement. The primary intent of the effective lot frontage requirement is to provide adequate street frontage for pacels, thereby enhancing visability from adjacent streets and promoting uniformity and compatibility of lot sizes and development within a zoning district. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby deny PA 87-159.2 First Western Development minor Subdivision and Variance request for substandard effective lot frontage on Parcel B. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of September, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director SMITI~, ETIqI1RE, POLSON & SCOTT June 30, 1988 ~ E~C' E I ~ E D, dU1 I~83 DUBUN PLANNINO Ms. Maureen O'Halloran Planning Department .. City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, California 94568 Re: Minor Subdivision Request Circuit City Specialty Shops Parcel S.W.C. Amador Plaza Road and Amador V~lley Boulevard Dear Ms. O'Hallo~an: First Western Development (FWD) has requested that I supplement their minor subdivision request, as referenced above, with a brief narrative, including brief discussions concerning the variance issue and reciprocal easement agreements. It is the wish of F~ that the contents of this letter be considered by the staff in the drafting of its recommendations on this minor subdivision request. General CoMments Re Subdivision Aoplicaticn. The present request by ~ for a minor subdivision differs markedly from the rgquest submitted by FW~ submitted in 1987. The staff report recommended denial of the 1957 proposed subdivision for the following reasons: 1) A landlocked parcel would be created. 2) There would be no frontage on a public street. 3) Concerns about the adequacy of a reciprocal easement agreement. 4) Site Development Review concerns, such as: Ms. Maureen O'Halloran June 30, 1988 Page 2 (a) Failure to comply with on-site parking requirements. (b) Failure to comply with maximum floor area ratio of thirty percent (30%). (c) Failure to meet design criteria, such as landscaping, pedestrian amenities, and special design features. In response to the staff report on the first re_a/lest and directions from the Planning Commission, ~w~ has come in with a request for a different subdivision, addressing head-on each concern expressed by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. Specifically, the *request for the new minor subdivision addresses the above concerns as follows: (1) No landlocked parcels are created. 2) The parcel to be created does have both actual and "effective" lot frontage. 3) A reciprocal easement agreement has been proposed following guidelines established by the City Attorney for Dublin. . 4) The Site Develogment Review has already been completed and approval given. FWD deliberately separated its request for Site Development Review approval and its request for a minor subdivision approval. The reason for this separation was simply that Site Development Review disposes of most of the site development issues, which isolates and narrows the factors that need to be considered with regard to the subdivision request. That is, the fact that FWD has satisfied parking requirements, circulation concerns, floor area ratios, and special design concerns means that Planning Commission may address the narrow subdivision issue with the confidence and knowledge that, should the subdivision be granted, the site design criteria have already been met. In reviewing the subdivision request, it will be important for the Planning Commission to keep in mind that the Planning Director has already made the following findings in the Site Development Review: (t) "Consistent with Section 8-85.0, 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 er erection of structures having qualities Ms. Maureen O'Hal!oran June 30, 1988 Page 3 which would not meet the specific intent clauses or performance standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance and Downtown Specific Plan and which are not consistent with their environmental setting." (2 "The approval of the project as conditioned is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general welfare." (3 "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." "General architectural considerations, 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." 5) "General project landscaping considerations including the locations, type, size, color, texture and coverage of plant materials and provisions 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." 6) "The project is consistent with the policies contained in the City's General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan." Given the evident value to the City of this development, as described in the above findings, the remaining question is whether someone other than the present o%~ner cf the existing buildings may develop the site. That is, the only issue remaining is whether the dra%~ing of property lines, which is a paper exercise, would have such an adverse impact on the actual physical use of the project that a subdivision should be denied. The property line question raises the issues of effective lot frontage and reciprocal easement agreements. Ms. Maureen O'Halloran June 30, 1988 Page 4 Comments Re Effective Lot Frontaqe. The requirement stated in Section 80-60.13 is that the Effective Lot Frontage, however that phrase may be defined, be equal to one-half of the Median Lot Width (one-half of 150.08 feet is 75.04 feet). The new proposed minor subdivision includes 25.08 feet of "actual" lot frontage on Amador Valley Boulevard and approximately 1,117 feet of "usable" or "effective" lot frontage, through the use of an easement agreement, on A~ador Plaza Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. FWD understands that it may have been staff's position that the subdivision, as proposed, may lack the necessary Effective Lot Frontage and that a variance may be required. FWD does wish to make the argument that the proposed minor subdivision does meet the Effective Lot Frontage requirements and does not require a variance. This argument is presented here for two purposes. First, the alternative interpretation of the "Effective Lot Frontage" requirement would mean that a variance is not necessary. Second, if a variance is deemed to be necessary by the Planning Department, this alternative interpretation provides an "alternate standard" allowed by Section 8-3.11 on the granting cf variances. The argument that a variance is not required in this situation may seem novel, but it is the interpretation followed by the County of Alameda (Dublin adopted the county codes virtually verbatim in this area) and several other come, unities. The argument may simply be stated as the position that "Effective Lot Frontage" must mean something different than "Actual Lot Frontage." That is, the phrase "Actual Lot Frontage" would have been used had the drafters of the codes intended that the requirement of lot frontage be taken literally. Under this argument, the term "Effective Lot Frontage" refers tc that physical curb frontage which is, for all practical purposes, frontage for the parcel in question, including both actual frontage and frontage created by cross easement agreements. With regard to this argument, two questions immediately occur. First, the underlying policy which generated the rule may shed some light on which interpretation is correct. Second, is the specific language used in the cedes such that this common sense definition of the word "effective" must be abandoned? The policy of the provision is to limit, over a large planning area, the ratio of actual building frontage and, Ms. Maureen O'Halloran June 30, 1988 Page 5 indirectly, floor area) to curb frontage. With regard to this particular development, it is apparent that a total building frontage (including the existing buildings and the proposed building) totals less then fifty percent (50%) of the actual curb frontage of the property. It is also apparent that the proposed building has, for all practical purposes and from the viewpoint of potential users, substantial "frontage" on public roads. It is also apparent that the ratio of floor area to curb is quite small. Section 8-60.13 provides 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 thereof, whichever is greater." Section 8-20.16 provides that the term Effective Lot Frontage means whichever is smaller of the following two specified dimensions: (a) The length of the Front Lot Line . (b) 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. As pointed out by the attorney for the City of Dublin (see memo from Michael Riback dated August 26, 1987), the above provisions are "vague." Riback recom~.ended amendment to this provision to clarify the intent. Section 8-20.16 defines Effective Lot Frontage, on this particular application, as the length of the front lot line. The question is whether that front lot line should be deemed to be actual frontage only (25.08 feet on Amador Valley Boulevard) or deemed to include the frontage which is, for all practical purposes, available for use (an additional 1,117 feet). FWD understands that the City of Dublin may view this argtunent that a variance is not required as a novel argtunent. There are communities cn both sides of this issue and the intention of FWD in presenting this argument is simply tc point out that there are two reasonable interpretations of the requirement, one of which does not require a variance. What is clear is that custom and practice, in virtually all communities, is that shopping centers are frequently allowed to have flag lots and landlocked parcels, whether this be by variance or by an interpretation that a variance is not necessary. Ms. Maureen O'Ha!toran June 30, 1988 Page 6 Comments Re Reciprocal Easement Agreements. if a reciprocal easement agreement can be drawn which answers the concerns of the City of Dublin with regard to ingress and egress and future planning control, then ownership and development of this parcel by FWD is no different than ownership and development of this land by the present owner of the larger parcel. In a memorandum dated August t0, 1987 Rod Barger, who was then Senior Planner and assigned to this project, presented the following question to Michael Nave: "Second, by creating this landlocked parcel,1 there is also a need to create reciprocal easements for parking, ingress, egress and utilities between the two properties. Staff's experience indicates that agreements of this nature can be cumbersome, difficult to enforce, unfairly binding and difficult to revise. In an effort not to duplicate similar problems in the downtown area, Staff has asked the Applicant to submit a reciprocal easement agreement that contains a clause which gives the City the authority to revise the agreement at any time in the future if found necessary (in order avert ~r intervene problematic issues)." "Can the City require a clause of this nature as a condition of apprcva! of the subdivision?" Michael Riback responded on behalf of Nave, indicating as follows: "You ask whether with respect to the creation of reciprocal easements for parking, ingress, egress and utilities between the two proposed lots, the City may require that the developer and its successor in interest comply with any conditions the City may find necessary to impose upon the properties in the future in order to alleviate any problems that may arise with respect to the creation of a landlccked parcel."* "it is my opinion that the City may impose such a requirement and that such a requirement should be set forth as part cf the documentation approving the 1 *Note: The original subdivision request was for a landlocked parcel. Ms. Maureen O'Halloran June 30, 1988 Page 7 subdivision and recorded with the County Recorder. If, in the future, conditions are necessary to impose and the-then property owners refuse to comply with those conditions, the City could record a notice of non- compliance against the property and refuse to issue any building permits or other zoning approvals thereafter applied for. Additionally, such a notice of non- compliance would make it difficult for the owners to either sell or lease the property or to obtain any loans using the property as collateral." Mr. Riback has indicated that other cities, including San Leandro, have successfully used 'the type of provision he is recommending. Mr. Riback has indicated that this can be acccmplished by using a standard Reciprocal Easement Agreement and adding a pr~vision similar to the following: If problems arise within five years from completion of the structure which is presently planned for the subject parcel and these problems are attributable to the subdivision approval, the City of Dublin may impose such additicna! reasonable requirements as may be necessary to mitigate those problems. Given that a Reciprocal Easement Agreement may be drafted which meets the needs cf the City, the final planning concerns of ingress and egress and future control by the City have been met. Grantina of Variance. Should the interpretation cf the City of Dublin be that a variance must be granted, ~D respectfully requests that the Staff recommend the granting of that variance. The requirements of the granting cf a variance are easily met in this matter: (1) That there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which deprive the property of privileges enjoyeg by other property in the vicinity ~__ca~_on. · ~ , Section S- under the zdent_caz zoning class::i ~ 93.0(a). Each cf the special circ~v, stances cited in this requirement is met with regard to this application. With reference to size, the subject parcel is quite large and, compared to neighboring parcels, substantially underdeveloped. The total floor area ratio of the two existing buildings and the proposed building does not even approach the thirty percent (30%) maximum. With Ms. Maureen O'Halloran June 30, 1988 Page 8 reference to shape, this ~arcel is a corner lot, providing it with a great deal more effective street frontage than neighboring parcels. The ratios of total building frontage to curb frontage and total floor area to curb frontage is extremely high. With reference to location, there are several special considerations. The back line of the property is contiguous to a flood control district and Highway 680, with a result that there is not the normal access to surface streets at the rear of the property. The proposed parcel is contiguous to the location of important destination retail outlets (Circuit City and T. J. Maxx), making small satellite retail stores a substantial convenience for the public. Placing the building at the rear of the property would be a better planning decision than putting it at the front of the property, where it would have sufficient actual lot frontage, but where it would also block access to an exposure of the large retail cutlets. It is the planning staff's desire to have this new building located at the rear of the property rather than the front and the rear lot line is, in fact, the ordinary location of retail outlets in most shopping centers. That this "special circumstances" re_cuirement is met by this a~Dlicaticn when one reviews the actions of the City with regard t~-the application of Bedford properties to subdivide property it owned so that each building would be on a separate parcel. The reason for the request was internal to Bedford (it had tc do entirely with the financing cf the property). The subdivision in that case was, as is this case, entirely a paper exercise, with no visible signs of the subdivision to the public and to users of the property. The Planning Commission made the follo%~ing findings: There are special circumstances, including the site's existing building locations, zoning boundaries, and existing lot lines, that make it extremely difficult to subdivide the land in a reasonable and economic manner, withou~ the granting of a side and rear yard variance for Lot C, and an effective lot frontage variance for Lot E. Section 8-93.0(a). In the FWD application,' as in the ~edford application, the "site's existing buildin~ location, ~cning boundaries, and existing lot lines . · . make it extremely difficult to subdivide the land in a reasonable and economic manner without the granting of . an effective lot frontage variance." Ms. Maureen O'Halloran June 30, 1988 Page 9 (2) That the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone. It is clear that the granting of this subdivision would not constitute a grant of special privileges to this property inccns!stent with the limitations on properties in the vicinity and in the zone. The proposed subdivision and development meet or exceed the requirements for floor area ratio, on-site parking, pedestrian amenities, traffic circulation, and design considerations. Similarly, the 'Planning Commission in the Bedford application found that this requirement number two was met "given that adequate access, parking, and circulation is available, and the adjacent future and existing uses on neighboring properties shcu!d not be constrained by the granting of the variance. 3) That the granting of the application will not be detrimental tc persons or property in the neighborhocd cr tc the public welfare. The findings of the Site Development Review clearly indicate that the welfare of the neighbcrhcod and the general public is best served by the allowance of this subdivision and develoFment. (4) The advisory agency may, in the exercise cf reasonable judgment, grant variances to the requirements . . . of · effective lot frontage . as is determined ~a~ranted by topographic li~i[ations or soil or geological conditions, the co~ortunitv for more effective and desirable land utilization, or the shcwing that under the particular circumstances an alternate standard would meet cr suroass the intent of the aiven requirement · Section 8-3.1i. [ r~mphasis added] This re.zuirement number 4 is actually a very important modification of the preceding three requirements. That is, this provision instructs the Planning Cc~mission that the "special clrcu_~s~=nces requirement is met if there is a finding of either (a) opportunity for more eff-~cnive and desirable land utilization or (b) that under the circ'Lmstances an alternative standard would meet or surpass the intent of the given ( "Effective Lot Frontage") requirement. The FWD application meets both of these conditions. With regard to condition (a), this parcel of land is certainly more effectively and desirably utilized in the event that the shopping center is completed. The finds of the Site Development Review included findings that "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 Downtown Specific Plan and which are not consistent with their environmental setting." The findings also included the statement that "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." As stated above, the destination retail outlets would draw many citizens and users who will be well served by specialty retail stores located nearby (without additional driving). With regard to condition (b), this particular location is a prime example of particular circumstances where there is an alternative standard which would meet the intention of the "Effective Lot Frontage" requirement. One alternative standard might be, as discussed above, the alternative definition of effective lot frontage to include all usable frontage (actual frontage plus frontage which is there for all practical purposes pursuant to easement agreements). Other alterative standards would be such established standards as floor area ratio (which limits to (30%) the building footprints on both the new and old parcels), parking requirements, traffic circulation requirements, and the like. That the alternative standards of floor area ratios, on-site parking, and traffic circulation are met is a specific finding of the Site Development Keview. The point here is that other establishe~ standards are sufficient to protect auality cf this develoDment and that it is not necessary to ~igidly enforce the "Effective Lot Frontage" requirement. Conclusion. The bottom line here is that the Planning Department has concluded that the project is proper and desirable from the point of view of the City. The only remaining question is whether the subdivision (which is necessary to al!ow the development in the first place), because cf its shortage cf actual lot frontage, cause such substantial problems with the use cf the development that the FWD application should be denied. Ms. Maureen o,Ha!loran June 30, 1988 Page 11 i. ~ ~ranting of the. FWD -~in!v justz~Y ~= ~ ~ the t~ree The city ca~~lt~7~ on the grounas ~ ~he ~round - · t~e ¥~ .... met an~ plicatlon a~d. _ variances have bee~ _~-~-2~ ~ective and a~__~rd condltzon~ ~f ..... o~nortunity ~or m ~napplicatlon provides ~n= There is no possible source desirable land uti!lzat~o - criticism for the granting of this application- o~ this n may approve and have this There is simply no technical barrier to the granting · ~t~, of Dubli . Z_~ The findings 'cation. Tne~ ~ ~ have this de~eio~m~n~[~ ~he ~roject of the szte ~=¥~ r DowntoWn specific Plan and tha~ it meets the standards of the in the best interest of the public health, safety, and oenera! welfare- sincerely, SMITH, ETNItAE, POLSON & SCOTT A Professional LaW corporation G~tnire GJE/Jf cc: First Western Development company ~EcEIYED. DUBUN pLANNI~t_~. SLvJ:ITI-I, ETNIRE, POLSON & SCOTT August 10, 1988 Ms. Maureen O'Halloran Planning Department City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, California 94568 H~D DELIVERED Re: Minor Subdivision Request Circuit City Specialty Shops Parcel S.W.C. Amador Plaza Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Dear Ms. O'Halloran: Enclosed is the most recent draft of the proposed language. I believe (and hope) that this language goes a long way to overcoming the inadequacies on which you commented in our telephone conversation of August 9, 1988. The first suggestion is the easement agreement and subdivision. that this language be included in in the conditions cf approval of the The second change is that I have incorporated Michael Riback's language with regard to the power of the city of impose additional conditions to resolve any problems which may arise because of the granting of the subdivision. Third, I have added language to provide that First Western Deve!cpment will not be allowed tc construct a free-standing sign on its property or the property owned by Metropolitan Life. Larry had expressed some concern about this factor. Fourth, I modified the language to make it clear that the principal concern is to allow the City of Dublin the maximum amount of control and flexibility in planning decisions relating to future applications by Metropolitan Life. Larry had expressed the concern that First Western Development might be able, in Ms. Maureen O'Halloran August 10, 1988 Page 2 ~o v.__ be approved by the City ~f .Du~li~. He an~I 'e e~eff~t'' to development plans by Metropolitan Life which ~ ~ ~ ~robtem that the City of Dublin is having presen~±Y S with the Target and Albertson's parcels. The expressed concern is that First Western Development would be able to object to future development because future development would restrict or impact on the easement that First Western Development has over the Metropolitan Life property. The solution that i have proposed is simply that First Western Development gives up its right to object to changes in the easement, allowing Metropolitan Life to unilaterally modify the easement if that modification is required by a development plan approved by the City of Dublin. I think that the above four factors, taken together, do address the planning concerns expressed by Larry. I am looking forward to meeting with you on August 24, 1988. I would welcome your suggestions on the language at that point and would be happy to try to address any additional problems that you might have. sending a copy of this letter to Ms. Silver and Mr. I am Riback. Sincerely, SMITH, ETNIRE, POLSON & SCOTT ~~~~,z__p r o f e s s iona! La,Corporation Geoffrey J. Etnire GJE/jf Enclosure cc: First Western Development Elizabeth Silver, Esq. ~Iichael Riback, Esq. PROPOSED LANGUAGE CONDITIONS OF DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL It is suggested that approval of the requested minor subdivision be granted cn the following conditions (among others): (1) If problems arise within five years from completion of the structure which is presently planned for the subject parcel and these problems are attributable to the subdivision approval, the City of Dublin may impose such additional reasonable requirements as may be necessary to mitigate those problems. (2) Applicant shall not be permitted to construct a free- standing sign on the subdivided parc%l. Nor shall the applicant be entitled to construct a free-standing sign on the parcel owned by Metropolitan Life, the parcel from which applicant's parcel is to be created. (3) The application for the minor subdivision anticipates that there will be a cross-easement for ingress, egress and parking by and between First Western Development and Metropolitan Life. Without further conditions, a problem may arise in the future in that a development project desired by Metropolitan Life and the City of Dublin could be effectively blocked by First Western Development on the grounds that any such development would impinge or cut back cn its easement rights. Therefore, it is a specific condition of the subdivision approval that First Western Development may not object to a reduction, change in shape, or other modification of its easement if: (a) The modification of the easement is reqluested by Metropolitan Life (or its successors) because cf development plans; (b) The plans for development by Metropolitan Life have been approved by the City of Dublin; and (c) The remaining easement fol!cwing such modification is sufficient to provide reasonable access to the First western Development property. It is a condition of the granting of the subdivision approval that First Western Development shall, in the future, execute any and all additional documents as may be required from time to time to effectuate modificaticns requested by Metropolitan Life, er its successors, which meet the above three conditions. (4) These conditions shall be included in a reciprocal easement agreement recorded in the official records of the County of Alameda. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: GENERAL INFOP~[ATION: CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: August 15, 1988 Planning Commission Planning Staff i'9(0'~, ~ PA 87-159.2 First Western Development~ Parcel Map and Variance, 7450 Amador Valley Boulevard The Applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission continue this item to the September 6, 1988 meeting to allow them to submit additional information for Staff consideration. RECOMMENDATION: FOR>D%T: 1) 2) 3) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. Take testimony from Applicant and the public. Continue public hearing. ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission continue PA 87-159.2 First Western Development to the September 6, 1988 Planning Commission Meeting. ITEM NO. COPIES TO: Applicant Owner File PA 87-159.2 S~IITI-I, ETNIRE, POLSON & SCOTT August 10, 1988 Ms. Maureen O'Halloran Planning Department City of Dublin 6500 Dublin Blvd. Dublin, California 94568 HAND DELIVERED Re: Minor Subdivision Request Circuit City Specialty Shops Parcel S.W.C. Amador Plaza Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Dear Ms. O'Halloran: This will confirm that i have requested, on behalf cf First Western Development Company, a continuance of its appearance before the Planning Commission from August 15, 1988 to September 6, 1988. The reason for this continuance is to allow First Western Development to address more fully certain concerns expressed by the Planning Department's staff. you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, GJE/jf SMITH, ETNiRE, POLSON & SCOTT A Professicna! Law Cormcraticn CC: First Western Development Elizabeth Silver, Esq. Michael Riback, Esq. REC£IYED DUBLIN