HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.2 DubSecStorage Appeal CITY CLERK
File #
x~ r o 3 0
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: January 15, 2002
SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING PA 01-008 Dublin Security Storage -Appeal of
Planning Commission Denial of Variance and Site Development Review
Report Prepared by: Janet Harbin, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution affirming the November 27, 2001 Planning Commission
action and denying the Variance and Site Development Review
2. Applicant's Letter of Appeal
3. Applicant's Written Statement
4. Project Plans
5. Planning Commission Staff Report and minutes dated November
27, 2001
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 01-29 adopted November
27, 2001
7. Information on storage facilities submitted by the Applicant to the
Planning Commission
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Hear Staff Presentation
2. Open Public Hearing
3. Hear Applicant's Presentation
4. Question Staff, Applicant and the Public
5. Close Public Hearing and Deliberate
6. Options for Action:
A. Determine that the Planning Commission action be affirmed
and adopt Resolution (Attachment 1) affirming Planning
Commission action and denying the variance and Site
Development Review for PA 01-008; or,
B. Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed
and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning
Commission decision and granting the variance and Site
Development Review for PA 01-008; or,
C. Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed
and direct Staff to prepare a resolution reversing the Planning
Commission decision and granting the variance, and refer the
Site Development Review for PA 01-008 to the Planning
Commission for approval.
COPIES TO: Applicant/Owner
PA File
G:~pa~o~~oos~~~sr-aubSe~Stor ITEM NO.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Glenn Kierstead, of Dublin Security Storage is appealing the November 27, 2001 decision of the
Planning Commission to deny a request for a Variance and Site Development Review for expansion of
an existing warehouse and outdoor storage facility with additional storage units, totaling approximately
10,000 square feet. The site is located at 6005 Scarlett Court and consists of two parcels totaling 6.61
acres which presently contain approximately 98,600 square feet of building area. A variance is required
to allow azero-foot rear yard setback in place of the 20-foot setback required by the Zoning Ordinance
along the periphery of the rear property line. The proposal is to locate twenty-five 10x20 and eight 5x10
storage units in the rear portion of the northern parcel (APN 941-550-34) within the setback area, and
twenty-two 10x20 and four-5x10 storage units on the southern parcel (APN 941-550-33) for a total of
10,000 square feet of additional outdoor storage space. No other site improvements are proposed with
this project.
The applicant/appellant has filed a letter of appeal (Attachment 2) stating the grounds for the appeal. This
report will address this appeal in the analysis section below.
BACKGROUND.
The subject site is located in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Surrounding land uses are
..Nissan Auto Sales to the south, 84 Lumber Storage to the east, U-Haul Mini-Storage to the west and to
the north lies a corporation yard. The subject-site is accessed via private road shared with Nissan Auto
Sales and Service. The General Plan land use designation and classification for the site is Business
Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage.
The applicant/appellant has operated an outdoor storage facility at the subject location for approximately
twenty-two years. Initially, the County of Alameda approved an application for a Conditional Use
Permit allowing an outdoor storage facility containing 20,000 square feet of outdoor storage units.
Subsequently, the applicant applied for planning permits to expand the facility and other tenant
improvements. As evidenced by the following chronology of zoning and building permits, Dublin
Security Storage previously requested a similar variance for a zero lot line rear yard setback in August
1985.
Zoning and Building History:
12/16/68: The Alameda County Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit
(C-1959) to allow construction of an outdoor storage yard at 6005 Scarlett Court.
7/15/70: The Alameda County Planning Commission approved a variance (V-5053) to
waive the solid fencing requirement along a portion of the perimeter. This
variance expired on October 21, 1971.
12/8/71: The Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved: 1) a Conditional Use
Permit (C-2392) to allow a contractor's storage yard and 2) a Variance (V-5620)
to waive the solid fencing requirement along a portion of the perimeter.
2
4/27/77: The Alameda County approved: 1) a Variance (V-7281)to create two (2)
building sites without street frontage and 2) to allow a temporary"For Sale"
sign with a 120 square foot sign area. The sign was not allowed to be displayed
longer than four months from the date of installation.
10/4/78: The Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved: (1) a Conditional Use
Permit(C-3466)to allow office use and outside storage of recreational vehicles
in the M-1 District, and 2) a Variance (V-7766)to reduce the south side yard
setback to zero where 10 feet is typically required.
11/19/78: The Alameda County Planning Director approved a Site Development Review
request to construct seven, self-storage buildings.
3/10/82: Alameda County Planning Commission approved a Site Development Review
request to construct a repair shop building and storage addition.
5/7/84: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the outside storage of lumber. This permit expired on May 7, 1987.
5/30/85: The Dublin Zoning Administrator adopted a Negative Declaration finding no
significant environmental impacts for a proposal (PA 85-047)to allow
construction of two buildings totaling 21,780 square foot along the northern
_property line.
8/5/85: The Dublin Zoning Administrator denied a Variance (PA 85-047A)to allow a
21,780 square foot addition to encroach into a 10 foot required side yard setback
along the northern property line. The applicant appealed the Zoning
Administrator's action on August 8, 1985. The Dublin Planning Commission
upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision on September 3, 1985.
1/10/86: The Dublin Planning Director approved a Site and Development.Review
application (PA 85-047.2)to allow construction of a 7,225 square foot addition at
the outdoor storage facility.
3/12/86: The Dublin Building Department issued a permit for minor tenant improvements
to the caretaker's apartment which included redesigning the living room, laundry
and bathroom.
8/4/86: The Dublin Planning Commission approved: 1) Conditional Use Permit(PA 86-
060)request to construct three,two-story self-storage buildings (70,000 square
feet of cumulative area); and 2) Site Development Review to convert two existing
buildings to self-storage uses (12,600 square feet of cumulative area) for storage
of vehicles and truck rentals.
•
2/6/89: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit(PA 88-
054)to allow the continued operation of a self-storage facility with outdoor
storage of vehicles. This approval expired on August 14, 1989. Additionally,
3
approval was granted for installation of a single-faced 35-foot tall freestanding
sign with a maximum sign area of 84 square feet. The applicant appealed the
Planning Commission's action to the City Council requesting an additional 28.5
square feet of sign area. On February 27, 1989, the City Council approved the
request.
2/6/89: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow
the continued operation of an outdoor storage facility.
6/1/92: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (PA 92-
025) request to allow the continued operation of an outdoor storage and truck
rental facility, including an ancillary Pacific, Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
facility with outdoor storage of PG&E trucks, recreational vehicles, Ryder truck
rentals and equipment.
12/7/92: The Dublin Zoning Administrator approved a modification to a Conditional Use
Permit (PA 92-025) to allow Tag's Towing to utilize the outdoor storage
previously used by PG&E as storage for abandoned trucks and vehicles.
Historically, Conditional Use Permits have been granted for the expansion of Dublin Security Storage
since its initial construction in 1968 when the property was. under the jurisdiction of Alameda County.
Additionally, several variances were subsequently approved for encroachment into side yard setbacks over
the intervening years to allow construction of additional self-storage units, resulting in approximately
150,000 square feet of cumulative area of interior and exterior storage area. The applicant/appellant has
also been permitted to change uses to accommodate the varied nature of his business such as the addition
of the towing service, PG&E storage yard, and most recently, a Sprint facility approved by the Planning
Manager on August 24, 2001.
The City's General Plan establishes a maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for land use classifications and
the existing storage. area on the site exceeds the .40 FAR for this use by a ratio of .12. The
applicant/appellant has been informed that a General Plan Amendment would be necessary to deviate
from the established FAR for the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On November 27, 2001, the Planning Commission voted 4-0-1 to adopt Resolution 01-29 denying the
Variance and Site Development Review proposed for Dublin Security Storage. In denying the project, the
Planning Commission made findings that the project was inconsistent with the regulations of the Zoning
Ordinance related to required setbacks in the M-1 zoning district (Section 8.36.030), and was not in
conformance with the policies of the Dublin General Plan related to the Floor Area Ratio permitted for the
Business Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage land use classification (Chapter 1 Background, Section 1.8.1
General Plan Map, Land Use Classifications). The Planning Commissioners noted that it could not make
the findings required for issuance of a variance (set forth on page 5 of this report), including but not
limited to being unable to find conformance with the policies of the General Plan. Therefore, there was
no alternative but to deny the variance request (see Attachment 5, minutes of the Planning Commission
hearing).
4
ANALYSIS OF GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
In the appellant's letter of appeal (Attachment 2), Mr. Kierstad identifies the grounds for appeal of the
Planning Commission denial of the project. The text of the letter has been divided into three points for
clarity in the analysis as follows:
1. The variance to the setback regulations should be granted because other self-storage facilities have
received approval for zero rear or side yard setbacks;
2. The existing General Plan FAR density measurements substantially reduce the buildable area
allowed, and previously approved expansions of his facility prior to the addition of the density
ranges to the General Plan would not have been permitted; and
3. ,The City Council should allow a higher FAR for this site to permit further expansion consistent
with the 1987 General Plan (which did not contain density measurements) which was in effect
when the property was purchased. In other word, the property should be exempted from the
requirements of the current General Plan by "Grandfathering" it.
Response to Appellant's Point #1: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow deviation from the
rear yard setback required by the Zoning Ordinance to construct two storage buildings along the eastern
property boundary. The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance, Section 8.36.030 Commercial and Industrial
Development Regulations, requires, that properties in the M-1 zoning district maintain a 20-foot rear yard
setback in which no buildings, structures or additions may be located. Additionally, Section 8.112.060 of
the Zoning Ordinance establishes the procedure for granting Variances and requires that findings must be
made by the Planning Commission in order for a variance to be granted. All of the following findings
must be made for a Variance to be granted:
A. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property including size, shape,
topography, location or surroundings, such that the strict application of the requirements of the
Zoning Ordinance deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity
and under identical zoning classification.
B. That the granting of the Variance is subject to such conditions that will assure that the
adjustment shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations
upon other properties in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification.
C. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity
or to the public health, safety and welfare.
D. That the granting of the Variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable
zoning district.
E. That the granting of the variance is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any
applicable Specific Plans.
Granting of the variance is necessary because the appellant's proposal would be inconsistent with the
zoning regulations for this district which require 10-foot setbacks for side yards and a 20-foot setback for
the rear yard. The appellant has stated that other similar storage facilities have been granted variances to
build within the required setback area and the same consideration should be given for this project. The
facilities which the appellant discussed and provided information on at the Planning Commission hearing
(see Attachment 7) were Dublin Mini-Storage, Allsafe Self-Storage and a U-Haul facility.
5
Certain variances were granted in the past by the County of Alameda prior to incorporation of the City in
1982 which allowed encroachment into the required yard areas. However, after the City was
incorporated, the County policies were no longer in effect as the City developed its own set of standards
and policies.
One of the facilities that the appellant discussed at the Planning Commission hearing was Dublin Mini-
Storage located at 6100 Dougherty Road which was granted a variance to the regulations for side and rear
yard setbacks in 1977 by the Zoning Administrator of the County of Alameda. In 1978, Dublin Security
Storage (appellant's business) received a similar variance from the County to reduce the south side yard
setback to zero to build within the 10-foot setback on the south side of the property without providing
additional landscaping.
In 1985, a request was made to the City for the Dublin Security Storage site to reduce the rear yard
setback to zero, as presently requested, for construction of two buildings totaling 21,780 square feet. The
basis for denial of the variance was: 1) that it would constitute a granting of special privileges which
would be inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning
classification; and, 2) that there was already excessive building coverage with minimal landscaping on the
site.
In the case of Allsafe Self-Storage located at 6250 Sierra Lane, the property was within an existing
Planned Development which permitted a combination of both C-2 and M-1 type uses and was part of a
larger 11.3 acre parcel. However, under the conditions of approval for the Planned Development, M-1
development standards were to be applied to development projects for that property which in some
.instances, required greater setbacks from property lines. In 1993, a Conditional Use Permit was approved
for a minor amendment to the Planned Development conditions to allow the application of the
development standards of the C-2 General Commerical District, rather than those of the M-1 Light
Industrial District for development of the site. The application of the C-2 development standards allowed
a zero setback for the buildings in the side yard area. Additionally, the property owner paid Traffic
Impact Fees for mitigation of any related impacts to Dougheety Road resulting from the development.
In 1992, the U-Haul Company was granted a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to construct an
addition to an existing self-storage facility located at 6265 Scarlett Court with a 5-foot side yard setback
along the western property line and a zero setback from the eastern property line. The zero setback was
allowed in this instance by the Planning Commission because dedication of the land was needed for
improvements related to conversion of the existing private cul-de-sac adjacent to the property to a public
roadway.
Each of the storage facilities mentioned by the appellant at the Planning Commission hearing were
developed with Conditional Use Permits and variances that required a contribution of Traffic Impact Fees
and/or dedicated property for the construction of roadway improvements. These situations were different
from the variance request made by the applicant as certain amenities and improvements needed by the
City for the public good were provided with the projects. In other words, special circumstances existed
that do not exist in this case.
Response to Appellent's Point #2: The City's General Plan designation for the property is Business
Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage and allows a development intensity/density measurement or Floor Area
Ratio (FAR) of up to .40 for this land use classification (Section 1.8.1 of the General Plan). The building
and storage area on this site is presently approximately 150,000 square feet, resulting in a FAR of .52
which exceeds the maximum FAR allowed in this area by the City's General Plan. Allowing an
6
additional 10,000 square feet of storage area on the site would further exceed the standard by increasing
the FAR to .56 for the site, and be inconsistent with the General Plan.
The Dublin Security Storage site on Scarlett Court is located in the Commercial/Industrial portion of the
Primary Planning Area of the City on the General Plan Map. Density measurements of FAR's for various
commercial and industrial land use classifications on the General Plan Map were added to the Dublin
General Plan in 1987 through adoption of a General Plan amendment (Resolution No. 55-87) for this area.
[Note: Proper noticing of the General Plan amendment and the related environmental documentation was
completed in accordance with State law through publication of legal notice in the newspaper with widest
circulation in the City.] The County ordinances and General Plan, which regulated development in
Dublin prior to 1982, did not contain standards for FAR's. Additionally, prior to the General Plan
amendment in 1987, FAR's and the development intensity of projects were not stipulated in the Dublin
General Plan. The last date that the facility was granted approval to expand the facility was in September
1986; therefore, all approvals for additions and expansions at the site were approved prior to 1987 when
this measurement was not used to evaluate development projects. Since that date, the facility has been
granted approvals to continue existing business operations on the site, and also for the minor addition of a
telecommunications use that consists of an antenna within a flagpole and associated equipment..
Response to Appellant's Point #3: The appellant believes that a "Grandfather Clause" should be used to
permit further development of the site in the rear yard setback axea and beyond the maximum FAR
allowed under the existing General Plan. In certain zoning situations, non-conforming land uses are
"grandfathered" and allowed to remain in zoning districts because their establishment preceded adoption
of new ordinance requirements. However, these uses are not allowed to expand or be substantially altered
unless all requirements of the existing adopted zoning ordinance are met. In the case of General Plan
policies, allowances are not made in the same manner. To deviate from the adopted policies such as the
maximum FAR would require initiation of a General Plan amendment. Approval of a General Plan
amendment for this project would change the maximum FAR for all properties in the
Commercial/Industrial land use classification in the Primary Planning Area of the City, except for
properties in the Eastern and Western Extended Planning Areas at the east and west ends of the City.
Additionally, density measurements in the form of FAR ranges are in General Plans such as Dublin's to
assure that properties are not overbuilt and do not overload the capacity of existing transportation systems
and related infrastructure. Deviations from the established density measurements and FAR standards
would require extensive environmental analyses and testing prior to approval to determine if the
transportation and infrastructure systems could accommodate the additional development intensity.
SUMMATION
The proposed project does not meet the requirements of the zoning ordinance related to setbacks and there
are no special circumstances applicable to the physical characteristics of the properly that deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same zoning classification.
Granting of the variance would appear to be a grant of special privileges by allowing buildings to be
located in required yard areas on a property that is overbuilt and has a minimal amount of landscaping,
while other properties have been required to meet the setback standards and to landscape yard areas.
Additionally, deviation from the maximum FAR for the land use category established by the General Plan
is inconsistent with the General Plan. A General Plan amendment and environmental analysis would be
necessary to support further development on the site. The applicant/appellant has the option of applying
7
for a General Plan amendment if he so desires. Given the City's present policies and regulations, it is
staff s opinion that the required findings for a variance cannot be made, and the Planning Commission
denial of the project should be upheld.
OPTIONS FOR ACTION
If the City Council wishes to affirm the Planning Commission action to deny the variance and Site
Development Review, Option A should be chosen. Option A is as follows:
Option A: Determine that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt Resolution
(Attachment 1) affirming Planning Commission action and denying the variance and Site
Development Review for PA Ol -008.
If the City Council wishes to reverse the Planning Commission action, Option B or Option C should be
chosen. With either Option B or Option C, the Council should: (1) identify the evidence in the record to
support the making of the necessary findings identified on page 5 of this report, and (2) take a "straw
vote" about which option to approve. These options are as follows:
Option B: , Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare
a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and granting the variance and
Site Development Review for PA 01-008.
Option C: Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare
a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and granting the variance, and
refer the Site Development Review for PA 01-008 to the Planning Commission for
approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines list those projects which are Categorically
Exempt from environmental review. Section 15301(e)(2) exempts minor alterations of existing facilities of
10,000 square feet or less. This proposal is to expand a Vehicle Storage Lot with storage units of
approximately 10,000 square feet. Therefore, the project is considered categorically exempt from the
provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hear Staff s presentation; open the public hearing; hear
Applicant's presentation; question Staff, the Applicant and the Public; close the public hearing and
deliberate; and either:
Option A: Determine that the Planning Commission action be affirmed and adopt Resolution
(Attachment 1) affirming Planning Commission action and denying the variance and Site
Development Review for PA 01-008; or
Option B: Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare
a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and granting the variance and
Site Development Review for PA O 1-008; or
8
a t .M P
Option C: Determine that the Planning Commission decision be reversed and direct Staff to prepare
a resolution reversing the Planning Commission decision and granting the variance, and
refer the Site Development Review for PA 01-008 to the Planning Commission for
approval.
9
r~
l~
RESOLUTION NO® - 02
A RESOLUTION OF THE -CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF NOVEMBER 27, 2001, AND
DENYING A VARIANCE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO ALLOW
CONSTRUCTION OF TWO BUILDINGS WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK
FOR PA 01-008 DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE
WHEREAS, Glenn Kierstead, the Property ®wner and Applicant/Appellant, has filed an
appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny a Variance and Site Development Review and
has requested approval to allow construction of two storage unit buildings totaling approximately
10,000 square feet within the required rear yard setback area at Dublin Security Storage located at 6005
Scarlett Court; and
WHEREAS, a complete application for the above noted entitlement request is available and on
file in the Department of Community Development; and
WHEREAS, Applicant/Appellant has submitted Project Plans dated received August 27, 2001;
and
WHEREAS, Applicant/Appellant has submitted a Letter of Appeal dated received December 3,
2001 to appeal the Planning Commission action of November 27, 2001 denying the request for a Variance
and Site Development Review; and
WHEREAS, the Project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental
Guidelines, under Section 15301(e)(2), Class 1, as the project is an addition to an existing facility where
the net increase in area is no more than 10,000 square feet and all services are available; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said project application on
November 27, 2001; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and
considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did by a vote of 4 ayes and 1 absent adopt Resolution No.
01-29 to deny PA 01-008 for Dublin Security Storage; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hold a public hearing on said project application on January
15, 2002; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law;
and
~ m ~ ` ls~v
ATTACHMENT ~
a
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE City Council of the
City of Dublin does hereby make the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed
Variance and Site Development Review:
1) There are no special circumstances applicable to the physical characteristics of the property that
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same zoning
classification
2) Approval of the variance would appear to be a grant of special privileges by allowing buildings to
be located in the required rear yard area while other properties in the vicinity have been required
to meet the zoning district building setbacks.
3) Approval of the variance would be inconsistent with recent project approvals in the Scarlett Court
area.
4) Approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the General Plan Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for
the land use classification and would result in fixrther overbuilding of the site with minimal
landscaping.
5) Approval of the Site Development Review for the project is not consistent with the General Plan
and Zoning Ordinance related to required setbacks, landscaping and intensity of development on
the site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby affirm the Planning
Commission's decision on November 27, 2001, and deny the Variance and Site Development Review for
PA 01-008.
PASSED, APPROVED. AND ADOPTED this 15~` day of January, 2002.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
G:1pa 01-008\CCReso.doc
2
~.1~n ~c~..ty t~ra~e
6543 Regional Street a Dublin, CA 94568 ®(925) 829-5600
~GVE~V~®
November 30, 2001
DEC ~ 2001
City of Dublin
100 Civic Plaza ®U~LIN PLANNING
Dublin, CA 94568
Re: PA 01-008
Dublin Security Storage
Attention: City Clerk's Office
Please consider this letter the appeal by Dublin Security Storage to the denial of our
application for variance for a zero rear yard setback for new proposed construction on the
westerly boundary of DSS, 6005 Scarlet Court, Dublin, California.
The request for zero setback should be approved due to the fact that all other self-storage
projects in Dublin have received either zero rear setback approvals or zero side yard
setbaci~ approvals or both. rear and side yard. setback. approval on specific. properties, It is
DSS' position that all of the self storage projects have received approval for zero lot line
variances and we axe requesting we receive the same consideration.
The denial was also based on the '1994 New General Plan (FAR} floor density
requiremerns that substantially reduce the buildable area that was allowed when the
expansion plans were reviewed by previous planning staffs. It is our opinion that the City
Council has the authority to approve higher densities and allow development of the site
using the 1987 guidelines under the mantel of a "Grandfather Clause". We request the
City Council allow completion of the original development plan with the original density .
that was in effect when the land was purchased and the expansion was initiated in 1987.
Thank you for your consideration.
amours truly,
Glenn E. hierstead
General Fanner
Cc: Eddie Peabody, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT
~_.y~
l~ubliu Security Storage
~ 6543 Regional Street • Dublin, CA 94568 • {925} 829-5600
July 1 i, 2001 RECEi1iE®
Johnlyn Whales ~ , j ~ ~ 3 Z p (jt
.Planning Department `
City of Dublin - DUBLIN PLANNING
100 Civic Plaza
Dublin, CA 94568
RE: Findings on Variance for 7100 Dougherty Road
Dear Johnlyn:
The Variance issued on Dublin Self Storage located at 7100 Dougherty Road was granted
on October 12, 1977. The Zoning Administration approval is based on the findings of the
Resolution. (See enclosed copy of Resolution Number 2-3138, Variance V-7447).
Our property, located at 6005 Scarlett Court, has special circumstances effecting the
. rrraximum. use of
our property do~ to~-our-required-front-set-back.of 69~feet; ~vhYCh is-.listed _ .
E below: .
m n.~, .~.,tY..~,~.:_.~~_~....._,~, M,.. ~~.......,~._.m.~._._ 4.._~ .
~~"1. The"drainage canal"located on the east aide of our property is 15 feet'vvide.
2. There is a road easement on the east side of our property that is 32 feet wide.
3. There is a landscaping area west of the drainage canal that is 3 feet wide.
4. There is a landscaping area located in front of the office that i~ 19 feet wide.
It is clear that the existing set-backs are almost three times the normal requirement. Tri
relation to the above special circumstances, the owners are unable to have full use and
enjoyment of their property. Dublin Security Storage respectfizlly requests the approval
of the zero lot line set-back on the west side of their property.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Should you need any additional information
or require any assistance, please do not hesitate,to contact me directly. My office number
is 828-1888 and my cell number is 250-8280.
` Sincerely,
ohn Bannert
f
Dublin Security Storage
~~T~~Hn~~~-~~
.Jul Ub U1 U6:13a p.2
a
R SO 0. 8 OF .
THE ZONING AOM 1 N i STRATOR flF ALAMEDA COtlIiTY
ADOPTED AT THE HEARiIVG 41. 8CT0$ER i2, 1977, CONCERAtiNG V-7Tt47 ~
WEIt:RiAS Ribca, Inc. and Reeves Construction Company have f i led an appl ica-
tion fore 11AAIANlrE, V-'~+~47, to allow construction of mini-warehouses thereEry
reducing the side yard and rear yard from tftie required l0~ to zero and reduce -
parking from 77 spaces to TT in an "M-1" {Light industrial} District, located at
i)ougherty Road, west side, 400' north of the intersection with Sierra Lane, i?ublin,
Assessor's No. J4T-205-23; and
WHEREAS it satisfactorily appears from affidavits an fife that proper Hart€ce
of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS th,e Zoning Administrator did hold a public hearing on said app]ica-
Lion at the hour of 1:30 p.m. an the 12th day of October, 1977, in the A1a~da County
Publ is Works Building., 3gg Elmhurst Street, Haywar~f, California; and,
WHEREAS this a.ppTication has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions
of the Calt~arnia Environmental ~uaTity Act and i~as been found to be categorically
ex~rnpt; and
WHEREAS a Are-l~iearing Analysis was submitted recommending the app]icatiort
tae disapproved; and
Wf1ERt=AS a representative for tfie applicants did appear at-said meeting and
p.resen~esl....t.es.t.i.mo.n-y::i.c~,_s..up.por-t._.of.._Lite__aispl-TcaLian•;--and.
WfiEREAS the Zoning Adrttinistrator did hear and consider aT] said reports,
recommendat ~ c~r~s and testimony as,_ mere i nahous „set fort;, xt3ow _ T#ler~fore _ .
BE iT RE50LVE£1 that the Zoning Administrator finds that:
{a} The shape of the property and the location and shape and proposed
use buildings are special circumstances applicable to the-property
which deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property
in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification. =
(b} As proposed, the granting of the application will not uinstitut.e a
grant of spec#al privileges inconsistent Frith the limitations upon
other properties in the vicinity and none.
{c} The use will not be detrimental to persons or property 'sn the ne_ighbnr-
hood ar to the public welfare.
lit: IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Coning Administrator doss hereby coedi-
ti~snaliy approve said ap.pl.:icatian as s.ha~m by materials labelled d:xhibit "S" on
fire with the Alemeda•County Planning Department, subject to the following conditions:
1, A1T construction shall be.iimited to single story.
2. Residential use shall be limited to a caretaker and .family not to
include school-age ch-iidren. -
t:xcept•as speeificalTy stated above, the land and use of said property Shall comply.
with ail provisions of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance. -
Said Variance shall remain revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3
of the Rlameda County Zoning Ord':Hance. •
R I CHARE3 f', FLYNN - Zt3tT I NG AUM I N f STRATOR
~ ~ /
i
i
;I'oo\
~ooo .
~ `
~ i
N
~ ~
~4 ~
~ ~ O
\mq n
Q, ~~~f -.s ~ o
i ~ ~
i
I ~ s 1 o
$ _
I Ss
i I Z ~
~ I a.
Imo- f
SoC £
PAO I I
8 >o., r_
~ ' 1 ~
STRRAGE PPRKIN6
N £ ~ ~ I i ~ $
spa ~rn_ ~ I I I
i
vro ~ I I y~~
,w~~. m>s q
rv]n.r. ~ STORAGE PARKING I •i • - r • a9~1~
gg _ _ _ _ _ _'_~J '30' • r •
P _LIJ_ ~ S ~ L a 52.65° ~ _ _ _ _
f~ _ i ~ I
~ ~ ®I B
D •
~ I J ~ ~ I
rll ~ ~
N_-_ ~ ~ E J I ~ ~ Q.
q I ~
9 ~ ~ I
o g I
~g ~ ~ I ENGINEERING ~
IR ~ DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE ~ MANAGEMENT
J CONSULTANTS
z ~ ADDITION TO SEC
HASESI b ~G01-~8 ILITY
m: S
I - 6D65 SCARLETT COURT DUBUIN, CA
i
~
W
m
a
N
~ ~
m ~
~ m
< r
D m
~ D
O ~
Z Z
o_
i
}
~ N
Z
O ~ u-
A O
~ G ~ o'
_ ~
~ m
m ~
~ m
D y
~
O O
Z Z
f
~ ~ ~ ENGINEERING ~
1 MANAGEMENT
DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE CONSULTANTS
ADDITION TO SECURITY STORAGE;FACILITY ~
~ PHASE III ~ ~ w
6005 SCARLETT COURT DUBLIN, CA
N' 8
i
• i
•
crt '77
AGENDA STATEMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: November 27, 2001
SUBJECT: - PA 01-008 Dublin Security Storage-Variance and Site Development Review
Prepared by Jonelyn Whales, Associate Planner& Janet Harbin, Senior Planner)
ATTACHMENTS: .1. Resolution denying the Variance
2. Applicant's Written Statement
3. Project Plans
RECOMMENDATION: 1. Hear Staff Presentation
2. Open Public Hearing
3. Hear"Applicant's Presentation
4. Question Staff,Applicant and the Public -
5. Close Public Hearing and Deliberate
6. Adopt Resolution(Attachment 1) denying PA 01-008
DESCRIPTION
The applicant, Glenn Kierstead, of Dublin Security Storage is requesting a.Variance and Site Development
Review approval to expand an existing warehouse and outdoor storage facility with additional storage units,
totaling approximately 10,000 square feet. The site consists-of two parcels totaling 6:61`acres and contains
..pproximately 9.8,600 square feet of building area. A variance is required to allow a zero-foot rear yard setbacl"
....__...__in place...o;£the2.�fnotsetback requui.red_b_y..the..Zoning_Ordinance`along_the..periphexyof thexear_property_linev..--: :-=`_`__.
Pre-fabricated storage units are proposed along the property line of the two contiguous parcels located at 6005
Scarlett Court. The proposal is for twenty-five 10x20 and eight 5x10'storage units for the rear of the northern
parcel (APN 941-550-34), and twenty-two 10x20 and four-5x10 storage units scheduled for the southern parcel
(APN 941-550-33) for a total of 10,000 square feet of outdoor storage. These units would be similar to those
presently on the site. The applicant proposes no other site improvements.
BACKGROUND'
The applicant has operated an outdoor storage facility at the subject location for approximately twenty-two
years. Initially, the County of Alameda approved an application for a Conditional Use Permit allowing an
outdoor storage facility containing 20,000 square feet of outdoor storage units. Subsequently,the applicant
applied for planning permits to expand the facility and other tenant improvements. As evidenced by the
following chronology of zoning and building permits, Dublin Security Storage previously requested a similar
variance for a zero lot line rear yard setback in August 1985.
Copies To: Applicant
Property Owner
PA File
Item No. 3. /
ATTACHMENT S
Zoning and Building History:
12/16168: The Alameda County Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (C-
1959) to allow construction of an outdoor storage yard at 6005 Scarlett Court.. f
7/15/70: The Alameda County Planning Commission approveda variance (V-5053) to waive the
solid fencing requirement along a portion of the perimeter. This variance expired on
October 21, 1971.
12/8/71: The Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved: 1) a Conditional Use Permit
(C-2392) to allow a contractor's storage.yard and 2) a Variance (V-5620) to waive the
solid fencing requirement along. a portion of the perimeter.
4/27/77: The Alameda County approved:. l) a Variance (V-728.1) to create two (2) building sites
without street frontage and 2) to allow a temporary "For Sale" sign with a 120 square
foot sign area. The sign was not allowed to be displayed longer than four months from
the date of installation.
10/4/78: The Alameda County Zoning Administrator approved: (1) a Conditional Use Permit (C-
3466) to allow office use and outside storage of recreational vehicles in the M-1
District, and 2) a Variance (V-7766) to reduce the south side yard setback to zero where
10 feet is typically required.
11119/78: The Alameda County Planning Director approved a Site Development Review request
to construct seven, self-storage buildings. ~
3110%82: Alameda County Planning Commission: approved a Site Development Review request
to construct a repair shop building and storage addition.
5/7/84: The Dublin Planning Commission approved. a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
outside storage of lumber. This permit. expired on May 7, 1987.
5/30/85: The Dublin Zoning Administrator adopted a Negative Declaration finding no
significant environmental impacts for a proposal (PA 85-047) to allow construction of
two buildings totaling 21,780 square foot along the northern property line.
8/5/85:. The Dublin Zoning Administrator denied a Variance (PA 85-047.1) to allow a 21,780
.square foot addition to encroach into a 10 foot required side yard setback along the
. northern property line. The applicant appealed the Zoning Administrator's action on
August 8, 1985. The Dublin Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Administrator's
decision on September 3, 1985.
1/10/86: The Dublin Planning Director approved a Site and Development Review application
(PA 85-047.2) to allow construction of a 7,225 square foot addition at the outdoor
' storage facility.
i.
2
•
3/12/86: The Dublin Building Department issued a permit for minor tenant improvements to the
caretaker's apartment which included redesigning the living room, laundry and
bathroom.
8/4/86: The Dublin Planning Commission approved: 1) Conditional Use Permit (PA 86-060)
request to construct three, two-story self-storage buildings (70,000 square feet of
cumulative area); and 2) Site Development Review to convert two existing buildings to
self-storage uses (12,600 square feet of cumulative area)for storage of vehicles and
truck rentals.
•
2/6/89: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (PA 88-054)to
allow the continued operation of a self-storage facility with outdoor storage of vehicles.
This approval expired on August 14, 1989. Additionally, approval was granted for
installation of a single-faced 35-foot tall freestanding sign with a maximum sign area of
84 square feet. The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's action to the City
Council requesting an additional 28.5 square feet of sign area. On February 27, 1989,
the City Council approved the request..
2/6/89: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow the
continued operation of an outdoor storage facility.
6/1/92: The Dublin Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit (PA 92-025)
request to allow the continued operation of an outdoor storage and truck rental facility,
including an ancillary Pacific;Gas aiitrEIectric Company(PG&E) facility with outdoor
( storage of PG&E trucks,recreational vehicles,Ryder truck rentals and equipment.
12/7/92: ^ .The Dublin Zoning Administrator approved'a modification to a Conditional Use Permit
(PA 92-025)to allow Tag's Towing to utilize the outdoor storage previously used by
PG&E as storage for abandoned trucks and vehicles.
Historically, Conditional Use Permits have been granted for the expansion of Dublin Security Storage.
Variances were approved to encroach into side yard setbacks to allow construction of additional self-storage
units, resulting in approxirriately 150,000 square feet of cumulative area of storage. The applicant has also been
permitted to change uses to accommodate the varied nature of his business.
ANALYSIS
The subject site is located in the M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. Surrounding land uses are Nissan Auto
Sales to the south, 84 Lumber Storage to the east,U-Haul Mini-Storage to the west and to the north lies a
corporation yard. The subject site is accessed via private road shared with Nissan Auto Sales and Service that is
approximately three hundred feet long and 110 feet wide.
The applicant believes the variance should be granted because the property has special circumstances related to
easements,which are identified in the written statement (Attachment 2)..Mr. Kierstead states the special
circumstances affecting the maximum use of his property are the location of the drainage canal and a roadway
easement to the east, and landscaped areas west of the canal and in front of the office on the property.
Variance Findings Required: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow deviation from the rear yard
setback required by the Zoning Ordinance to construct two storage buildings along the eastern property
3
•
.
boundary. The City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance,-Section 8.36.030 Commercial and Industrial Development
Regulations, requires that properties in the 1VI-1 zoning district maintain a 20-foot rear yard setback in which no
buildings, structures or additions may be located. Additionally, Section 8.112.060 of the Zoning Ordinance
establishes the procedure for granting Variances and requires that findings must be made by the Planning
Commission in order for a variance to be granted. All of the following findings must;be made for a Variance to
be granted:
A. That there are special circumstances applicable to the property including -size, shape, topography,
location or surroundings; such that the strict application of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance
deprives the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical
zoning classification.
B. That the granting of the Variance is subject to .such conditions that will assure that the adjustment-
shah not constitute a grant of.special privileges inconsistent with the. limitations upon other
properties in .the vicinity and under. the identical zoning classification
C. -That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to persons or property in the vicinity or to
the public health, safety and welfare.
D. That the granting of the Variance is consistent with the purpose and intent of the applicable zoning
district.
E: That the granting of the variance is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and with any applicable
Specific Plans.
Consistency with Required Findings: Staff `s opinion is that the.project does. not meet the requirements of the-
findings because. there are no special circumstances applicable to the physical characteristics of the property that
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same zoning classification. t.
Other properties are limited by roadway locations and easements and landscaping requirements. A roadway
- ----easewent-is neesessary-Afor access-•to,the~pr-opery, and-all--developed~properti~s-°require •sorrle ~form•of~aecess - - -
relative to the use. of the property. The landscaping on the site is minimal and is shown on the Site Plan
submitted by the applicant (Attachment 3) as only 3 feet in depth on the north and west side of the property.
The City has landscaping standards that would be applied to any property that proposes to develop for a
particular land use.
Granting of the variance would be inconsistent with the zoning regulations for his district which require 10-foot
setbacks for side yards and a 20-foot setback for the rear yard. The applicant has received variances in the past
to deviate from the zoning regulations and has been allowed to build within the 10-foot setback on the south
side of the. property without providing additional landscaping. This has resulted in excessive building and
storage area on the site. The City's General Plan designation for the property is Business Park/Industrial
Outdoor Storage and is permitted to develop to a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to .40. The building and storage
area on this site is presently approximately 150,000 square feet, resulting in a FAR of .52 which exceeds the
maximum FAR allowed in this area. Allowing an additional 10,000 square feet of storage area on the site
would further exceed the. standard and be inconsistent with the General Plan.
Additionally, approval of the variance would appear to be a grant of special privileges by allowing buildings to
be located in the required rear yard area. Other properties in the vicinity under the same zoning district
classification have been required to meet the 20-foot rear yard setback standard and to landscape the rear yard
area. As a result of maintaining this standard with recent development in the Scarlett Court area, a significant
improvement in the visual appearance of the area has occurred.
•
4
Site Development Review: The project is subject to Site Development Review under Section 8.104.030(D)
and (E) of the Zoning Ordinance as it consists of modifications to the site layout and improvements, and new
_ construction with a gross floor area of more than 1,000 square feet. The procedure for approval of Site
development Review for a project requires that the Planning Commission make specific finding related to
compliance with the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, the. suitability of the type and intensity of the
development, and the~use of landscaping to provide an attractive environment for the public. As the proposed
project is not consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as discussed in the previous section, the
findings necessary for approval of the Site Development review cannot be made.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act {CEQA) Guidelines list those projects which are Categorically Exempt
from environmental review. Section 15301{e){2) exempts minor alterations of existing facilities of 10,000
square feet or less. This proposal is to expand a Vehicle Storage Lot with storage units of approximately 10,000
square feet. Therefore, the project is considered categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to
Section 15301(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:
1. Adopt. Resolution {Attachment 1) denying the Variance and Site Development Review to allow expansion of
the existing. storage facility at 6005 Scarlett Court.
5
GENERAL INFORMATION:
PROPERTY OWNER/
APPLICANT : Glenn Keirstead
bublin Security Storage
6005 Sierra Court
Dublin, CA 94568
LOCATION: 6005 Scarlett Court .
ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.: 941-550-033.& -034.
EXISTING ZONING: M-l, Light Industrial. Zoning District
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Business Park/Industrial Outdoor Storage
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines list;
those projects which are Categorically Exempt from environmental
review. Section 15301(e)(2) exempts minor alterations of existing
facilities of 10,000 square feet or less. Therefore, the project is
considered: categorically .exempt from the provisions of CEQA.
pursuant to Section 15301(e)(2) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
6
~
RESOLUTION NO.O1- 29
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
DENYING A VARIANCE AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF TWO BUILDINGS WITHIN THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR
PA 01-008 DUBLIN SECURITY STORAGE
WHEREAS, Glenn Kierstead, the Property Owner and Applicant, has requested approval of a
Variance and Site Development Review to allow construction within the rear yard setback area of two
storage unit buildings totaling approximately 10,000 square feet at Dublin Security Storage located at 6005
Scarlett Court; and
WHEREAS, a complete application for the above noted entitlement request is available and on file
in the Department of Community Development; and
WHEREAS, Applicant has submitted Project Plans dated received August 27, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the Project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), State CEQA Guidelines and the City of Dublin Environmental Guidelines, under Section
15301(e)(2), Class 1, as the project is an addition to an existing facility where the net increase in area is no more
than 10,000 square feet and all services are available; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on said project application on
November 27, 2001; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and use their independent judgment and considered all
said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission of the
City of Dublin does hereby make .the following findings and determinations regarding said proposed
Variance and Site Development Review:
1) There are no special circumstances applicable to the physical characteristics of the property that deprive
the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and the same zoning classification
2) Approval of the variance would appear to be a grant of special privileges by allowing buildings to be
located in the required rear yard area while other properties in the vicinity have been required to meet
the zoning district building setbacks.
3) Approval of the variance would be inconsistent with recent project approvals in the Scarlett Court area.
4) Approval of the variance would be inconsistent with the General Plan Floor Area Ratio (FAR} for the
land use designation and would result in further overbuilding of the site with minimal landscaping.
ATTACHMENT
5) Approval of the Site Development Review for the project is not consistent with the General Plan and
Zoning Ordinance related to required setbacks, landscaping and intensity of development on the site.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby deny the said application.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of November, 2001.
AYES: Cm. Johnson, Musser, Fasulkey and Nassar
NOES:
ABSENT: Cm. Jennings
Planning Commission Chairperson
ATTEST:
Community Development Director
2
iL
RESOLUTION NO. 2-3138 OF
• . . 1 ,� yy „OF -46f
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR OF ALAMEDA COUNTY . Say
ADOPTED AT THE,.HEARING OF OCTOBER 12, 1977, CONCERNING1
6.-/00
v(�
WHEREAS Ribco, Inc. and Reeves Construction Company have filed an applica-
tion for a VARIANCE, V-7447, to allow construction of mini-warehouses thereby
reducing the side .yard and rear yard from the required 101 to zero and reduce
parking from 77 spaces to. 11 in an "M-1" (Light Industrial) District, located at
Dougherty Road, west side, 400' north of the intersection with Sierra Lane, Dublin,
Assessor's No. 941-205-23; and .
WHEREAS it satisfactorily appears from affidavits on file that proper notice
of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS the Zoning Administrator did hold a public hearing• on said applica-
tion at the hour of 1 :30 p.m. on the 12th day of October, 1977, in the Alameda County
Public Works Building, 399 Elmhurst Street, Hayward, California; and
WHEREAS this application has been reviewed in accordance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act and has been found to be categorically
exempt; and
WHEREAS a Pre-Hearing Analysis was submitted recommending the application
be disapproved; and
WHEREAS a representative for the applicants did appear at said meeting and
presented testimony in support of the application; and
•
WHEREAS the Zoning Administrator did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; Now Therefore
BE IT RESOLVED that the Zoning Administrator finds that:
(a) The shape of the property and the location and shape and proposed
use buildings are special circumstances applicable to the property
which deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property
in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification.
(b) As proposed,• 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) The use will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighbor-
hood or to the public welfare.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Zoning Administrator does hereby condi-
tionally approve said application as shown by materials labelled Exhibit "B" on
file with the Alameda County Planning Department, subject to the following conditions:
1 . All construction shall be limited to single story.
2. . Residential use shall be limited to a caretaker and family not to
include school-age children.
Except as specifically stated above, the land and use of said property shall comply
with all provisions of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance.
Said Variance shall remain revocable for cause in accordance with Section 8-90.3
of the Alameda County Zoning Ordinance.
RICHARD P. FLYNN - ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ATTACHMENT
ALAMEDA COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
r..
r ~ F4 i ~
r ~i
a~ "
O ~ r ' } `
W ~ w' t ~ 1 ,y ~ a
y` _ K
(V'l ~ / j
r f
ij $
~
o r~ - ;I
t~
GO] ~ z - ~ ~
e ~ `
~ ~ sty.
r 5 y
Vj
O O _ f f_
Q y )
A ~ N
E `
~~t ~ Bf{'^Y J~
fl ilfl
~ A
L
W;. ~ 'h
X T
r
Fa; s.
Y~~! t
1..
~
y.i ti
4c
~ ~
1 4 f
~ r" ~ ` ~
~w.~
.h
?4i
'`rte ~ ~ .r
. _ r''
a~•
t
1 ~f
ti~ti, ,
. ~ ~ ,
t
~a~:.
W o''~ ~ l ~ r 1 ~ ~
`T`~,~~,'y/'If1 ~J ~ N ~ t
z° ~ _ :r
~ r
iii tw. ,cr ~ ~ ~ i ~ M ~
Gl fy ~
~ a
O ~'j ~ _ $
ra ~ C/1 ~y 'e~v
C O m x
O 4a .F .
~ t-7
Y~. v ~
~
j I ~ 4. il~~ III. ~p
S Y C i l~ ~ VIII I I ~i
~li
s
t
-...y
I-
~Y
~ _
w
r ~ i
µ
i ~
~ ,
M - ~ -
c,
„ , , ,
_ _ y .
r
_
_
yt
1 .
c.
~ ~ , T ~ ~
l -
v~,
Nti
yr
..4~ ~ '.Y,. °u °
~ ~ it
r 5 a ~
. ~"h l~
w~-
- .
._f.
~ Jy...ie
~ }
-r"t
~~n ~ r,
r ~,.v M
- t
1•'
`Sy l
,t ~
h~•
w
9 ~
5 ~ _ 1h~ r _
m~,vw-.
L
RESOLQTION NO. 93 -
A RESOLIITION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
r OF THE CITY OF DIIBLIN
APPROVING PA 93-017 ALLSAFE SELF STORAGE SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
APF~,ICATION TO ALLOW THE CONSTRIICTION OF FOIIR SINGLE-STORY SELF-
STORAGE BUILDINGS TOTALING 99,920 SQIIARE FEET DIVIDED INTO 894 STORAGE
UNITS AND A 2,100 SQUARE, FOOT MANAGER'S OFFICE AND RESIDENCE ON PARCEL
A, 'FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 5959 AND 5971 DOIIGHERTY ROAD.
WHEREAS, Ed Boersma, on behalf of Allsafe Self Storage, and John
Moore, on behalf of BJ Dublin Commercial, have made application to the
City of Dublin for 1) Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 6571 to divide
an existing ±11.3 acre vacant parcel into two separate .lots
(Parcel A - 4.2 acres and Parcel B - 7.1 acres}; 2) Site ,Development
Review request to allow the construction of four single-story self-
storage build' tota i~g 99,92a square feet divided into 894 storage
units and/ , square oot manager's office and residence on Parcel
A; 3) Sz'. ditional Use Per it approval to allow a Fninor amendment to
the Pl~ ned Development neral Provisions to allow development
propos s on the two ~ae-~rly created parcels to be reviewed in
conforma~i31~-vz-i--~~t°Y~e
~xC-2, General Commercial District development
standards instead of the M-1, Light Industrial District development.
standards; 4) Variance request to allow a reduction in the required
number of parking spaces provided on-site and to allow a substandard
effective lot frontage for Lot A; 5) Imposition of a Traffic Impact
Fee for the properties located at 5959 and 5971 Dougherty Road; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on
said application on May 25, 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 a
Mitigated Negative Declaration has been adopted (Planning Commission
Resolution No. 93- This project, as mitigated, will not have
significant effects on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
application be conditionally approved; 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:
A. The approval of-this app?ication is consistent with the
intent/purpose of Section 8-95.0 SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW.
B. The approval of this application, as conditioned, complies with
the General Plan and with District Regulations and the general
requirements established in"the Zoning Ordinance. ~ ~
...,.~~r „T 7~
~ ~ tea.
.
~ ~ . 4~~.
w
~ ~ a~vr
'.5...~„_ bra-trf, a.. .c-!'--;*s
~5 i... a....
- J.^.. - -
,n. i .
~ _ _sd.
. .
.
t
.
w ,.rsti. + z :
iF
1-;~
~b"
pi
r\. ~
9
..'"~"'.id. F :.J.
.A
F~~.., .s x,,,:
,,Sf:
if is
0.i'.,, +~w
•f .71wT 6
3 ~7. v
1^ vVn aye
x~... ~ ~"'S !
- ,
'N"#~, . ;
f. sae
A~."c
.
}~~:yr~~tr3.3d
~~v
~yz j~7 4
.x;,
F L wQ
.:3, t u
Y
N.Y
w.y. . ' ~
.
I
aoa
~~N
~
~ _ ~
F
a,_
r
c
~ v.
4
1' i
l'..
``J
' Gad
~f
t ~
~V }
b
~i
Y. c .li].
RESOLUTION NO. 92-Q38 '
A RESOLUTION~OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
APPROVING PA 92-009 U°HAUL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN EXISTING
35 FOOT .TALL FREESTANDING SIGN WITH CHANGEABLE COPY AND THE OUTDOOR
STORAGE OF RECREATION VEHICLES, PETROLEUM GAS TANKS AND RENTAL
VEHICLES-AND EQUIPMENT LOCATED AT 6265 SCARLETT COURT
WHEREAS, Kirk T. Powell, on behalf of U-Haul of the East Bay,
requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit/Site Development
Review/Variance to construct a 25,200 square foot storage addition to
an existing self-storage facility; to install 8 additional customer
and employee parking spaces; to decrease the number of recreational
vehicle outdoor storage area from 57 parking spaces to 34 spaces.; to .
allow an existing 35 foot tall freestanding sign with changeable copy;
and to voluntarily contribute traffic improvement funds in the amount
of $6,480.00. The Variance is to allow 16 customer and employee
parking spaces instead of the required 86 parking spaces; and to-allow
a 5 foot .side yard setback from the western property line and a zero
foot side yard setback from the eastern property line (as a result of
the roadway dedication and improvements conditions of approval for the
project) instead of the required 10 foot side yard setback; and
g ° . P g°... _ _
_ _ ._.:WHEREAS; the Plann.n Commission .held- a ubl-ic-.-hearin on - aid
application on June 15, 1992; 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 a
Mitigated .Negative Declaration has been adopted (Planning. Commission
Resolution No. 92-035). This project, as mitigated, will. not have a
significant effect on the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
application be conditionally approved; 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:
A. The. proposed project will serve a public need by providing
additional self-storage units, with recreation vehicle storage
and equipment rental and retail services to the general public in
Dublin.
B_. The proposed use will be properly related to other land uses and
transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, as the
. proposed use will be compatible when compared to the type and
nature of operations typically found in the. neighborhood.
. _ _
Q. - ~ . 1 a ~ ijl
~
vi
~ ~ _
v° i Yom'
~ ~
v ~ a,
~ _
~ ~k _ _ 3
.
r _2
N.--~ -
_ ,
7~
.b.
_
~.r
~
~ w ;r y
F
- ~ Wit,
s
~ z
.v T -VY~
_
- r
~ ~4
'.I{:.
1:.~~ yF.
x. .K ~ >~~~i ,r4 ,yt.
=f~ Y~.M1
Gam:: '7'`.
r 1.
r .N'."~' ~ ptio-
~k. K r
~ Y
. 4 V _
~
h, ~ r ;
_ ,
# •t-
f
~I• i A
M i_
a
6. ~J-I~AtJL
6265 ~carlett Court
4' Set hack ~rorn Curb -West property Line
~ s ~a ~
~ d_
k ~ ~ ,
a
~a ~ n E~~ _ - ,
T ~'1 A +f ~ t, versa _ j t _ ~
6 • X X-
0 ~ / ~ D 1
® rw . 1 +I ~
WJ t~:~
W ~ I ~ ~
~ ~ ~
W V ~ 4~' 1 ~
. ,
~
~ _
hH COS t'4.
~~S
Q
d
p~ ~a9
~ ~ tS
~
~ ~ r ~ ~
~
~ ~ - .
~ r. .:5•
~ ty
.~.4
i .spa
x
w
- -
x.
~ - r
,5.. t
. - - -i
Y _ ~
4
f' f
~ a r
.-m c..
~il
.Y.+~
~ ~
. 9 Y
4
~
'IN
~E, ~
'1
I ~ e
?
~4_;_
N
h
!g 4
ms=s
' i
2 ~ ,
F ~ k
! ' ~ ~ -'1
f ~
f ~ tl' 1 ~
i. 1
i, ~ ;
t~, : 1 i 1~`
i
r,;, ~ .
•
~L~: '.YCZ "a.
t:.
i o-
_
s~ ~'a&y
x
a.
"a
L;
~ r
i
~ _;:4
•y
K`~. ~ "
;..5 .;=K:a.;~
.
. . ~ r,:..
~ rye
Pyy ~
&,~.z 1 ~ u
~ `~,.9+r~~?,:.y . ~ 'EST i s
av g
_
F.
:j.
a~ ~
p of .~r.'P'~
_ x
7 ~ ~ ~ •
.
.Y :r
, cv
.
•
me ~ ~
~g
l
x`' .
'Hn':K. i'~ f USS''¢y15
..:4 v'. .S~fc. ~::y::y :is~:tii':.!•'s'.l~~ey:-~..T.a`'~T.?L;5
v~.~}
n
.P~}~; ':::ice>j+s"~"c xs~,.''"_`:r
r r _
,t~~,
>
,.~p~~~
~xz,
>ti
x
.
4
~ _
~ f
~ ~
~~o ~ l
~
~ ~
ago ~
O ~
~ ~
01 ~ r
°
r, _
r _
F~ ~
tt ~
't
i
~
I'.
y
j
- ' ~ ~
._w _ ~-rr;
F.