HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 7.1 First Western Development Rezoning (2) AGENDA STATEMENT
qoo— ,50
CI COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 26, 1990
SUBJECT: PA 89-050 First Western Development PD, Planned
Development Rezoning
REPORT PREPARED BY: Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Plans
Exhibit B: Resolution regarding Negative Declaration
Exhibit C: Resolution regarding General Provisions
Exhibit D: Resolution regarding Traffic Impact Fee
Exhibit E: Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance to
Rezone C-1 District to PD District
Attachment 1: Negative Declaration
Attachment 2: Location Map
Attachment 3: March 12, 1990 City Council Agenda
Statement without exhibits or
attachments
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Hear Staff presentation.
2) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
3) Deliberate.
4) Adopt Resolutions relating to PA 89-050 First
Western Development PD Rezoning, and introduce
Ordinance rezoning site from C-1 District to PD
District or give Staff and Applicant direction;
and
5) Continue the item to the April 9, 1990 City
Council meeting.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
DESCRIPTION:
On March 12, 1990, the City Council opened the public hearing and heard
the Staff presentation on PA 89-050 First Western Development Planned
Development Rezoning. The City Council took testimony, posed questions,
closed the public hearing, gave direction, and continued the item to the March
26, 1990 City Council meeting. The City Council directed Staff to 1) maintain
the drafted provisions regarding the freestanding sign and 2) develop language
for wall signage on the east building elevation subject to a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) :
Staff has revised the draft general provisions for the Planned
Development Rezoning (Exhibit C) . General Provisions 9-C-4 previously read:
"4) Signage shall not be permitted on the east building
elevation. "
The revised general provision 9-C-4 reads:
"4) The east building elevation may be considered a Secondary
Building Frontage for City Sign Ordinance purposes if a Conditional
Use Permit is granted. In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit
for signage on the east building elevation, the decision making
body must find, based upon facts in the record, that:
a) The color, size, shape, lighting intensity, and other
physical design characteristics of the signage will not have any
adverse effect on traffic safety conditions and safe traffic
operations on I-680.
b) The signage will be proportionate with human scale as
visible to traveler on I-680.
c) The signage meets all other applicable provisions of the
City Sign Ordinance with the exception that the projection of the
east building elevation need not be in a roadway or public open
space area such as a private street, an open plaza or square, or an
auto parking area, per Section 8-87.10(s) . "
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolutions related to
the rezoning (Exhibits B, C, D) , introduce the ordinance (Exhibit E) , and
continue the item to the April 9, 1990 City Council meeting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ITEM NO. 171 / — COPIES TO: Project Planner
Applicant/Owner
PA 89-050
• 1•Y:.• - .. • 4444 4444.. �.
• fib.
AMADOR PLAZA ROAD
11 I.
..4444 ..�: ;:•.:;• . j} 1
' 47 .{.'. .. .'iF.' '�Ir.1.wr..rrnrr \ \ • • • fir'. /.AF AI*
rrlon
a � CIRCUIT CITY rr I W O
02,000 SF r+
•IArr O OrW
W cr
.1..
r.>,9J+P��f J O / / / en sit-11.141"foal
n\h•er tri►T i�Ni• , wr l
d.4 U N (/ /
19,..e•e. fl. ��
1 f t.l•t fry.•n...r
4041 A
elf—it cit4j,"
MAXX
T f / . \ \
J \ t �• li:°eee:�: n .
••Ot"•r•44 wr _ r !1./J�/I /// co )).eee:q. ft. • r.•w.• • f00
• •^ • ,.,\••, . w• If rl�'r •I• Irr /� Tel•1 r•191M.•Tv 11••1 �t.
A 1 •\'. 1.• .. .....'.. . •I on tot. r•.►In•f t1wid.a
1 Ia\• ,\ \ ..1 I's �,I EXISTING
t\ �.. �..r ,\\\\'� Il .I1
,1 m RETAIL O Tet.1 r.rury►rw.leN
'r �� J
I ,o Irf
r''' , .•\ .\\`4444 \. •\ • N ' . I U ••fr,ort runmrrv• i ' r I''n"I
S •,Y Z '.,i:r':1;,� r It� A rU r•f yr
- ._. wr 4I♦ I). PMP"LL M 1471,x107 1V0,411 _
•� �lltr T• !4•TII M'L MAAldI.1,, ._ wAiyriw t•r�•••- ew•rnrwr,�rl.�•�' , I '`
r41wf AM.kw.re II•L•r Its IT",-(Wr_ . r'rnlrrr '�E -
tirN'Mt»trtDy law Y I• ►AOPaITr AOO.aa94
A..
LOCATION MAP (': SITE PLAN - ■TV911 44)1 a' ^L ^oo m. CA
Au TWAT C■RTAIN KAAL r.*Vff"T @IWATTD t■TwI Carr a IA/a Lt. twsur, ALIROr1 Ool.r77, K
DourrR a AIJN4NDA, 1TAra w CALIr4wwlA. D,DCr I1m AS rou.D,nr A. Olso-e'a IN�wtlw4 1441 AMD9r TALLCT 9.wlt.r&
O �AgltO RLELRYE - 1'-40 r- �� a,LO.,TO.11 anLU. "AouxsA ca"A"I7, rI•
'y•:, •I 4 rAACIL L AS B r ar n[ PAACLL KA9 M. IILm 111 Tat _
s as 'Nt. F ,,0 r' OaWaDOA',writ[or AWaDA WVRR CN OCrD0o1 7t. loll, IM ). AiAALDA cow"TM MtuOd•,PAoctL.WM1,ff1 fa1�
3. T/L 1•': > $1, ?AOs TO w RM,. _
is u. > fORCEO \ I / ). Mu].waa l4 1.497 • Acau
ncclmro T■C.■rwt Au OIL. eM. IIIMMLALA Awo Drxa RwxA•uor -
jcL y tv9atmcta iw A"vrDCA Do TvT my t[ rwowcaD rrw A Dam •• wlLOt.o Dllra/ra t a pro vw TASa1/a T:
Orld 909 rTR rnon Tna tVOfAC2 Or,AID LAW rIT/WT R1DwT w ►ACa w Twr aiRiwO MIILOIP",
TRAINING AREA a-TNT uPOr Twe tv1VACa w MAID LAID Iw Twa►v►/OfI w ntwlw4.
SITE DRILLIw4, ".Lost."a unAmwo avcw OIL. Du, NIwaAAU AwD S. lT}otlwlw0 iTO4 t, solmvLe, . ,sL�tow 7 or Do1.r
a"" wrD.DcAA.Drr SV9.TAIK[l w Drava. Vta w w Clown loop To TIM 1.avAMcar
MT PORTION w M IV.fACa w SAID LAND To A DOTI w 190 rasT
$.I*.TwL tvr11KL TN. we, w• 6CarTID Iw Tw[ D""'"VA PArcu 1 It Iv.sicIf To WAITS w ■Ia."w YAT,AID
DUB1►\I Y ' T W111•KUIa eV.11/lll Tl[l. twc.• TO WALIII[0 IwMtrTfmRT. IK.• roa na rvrrosa w /Llatmn r.na /Lpr AM DONI/,
L./ 11`j/ RACORDaD jv s ]1, 1141• Iw Ras7,1ftor 11v+a 701, wric1AL
- RECORDS w ALAOMM LOVIs T7• M worm d F"crL N• $1a 141 r1..A9 711 Am M Dow
Twa O.A "or aM aamyi To Twr oAl.fr7 w'AllraID►, t
�,It••" `1 N1I 71, lfil, a raaL 111, IwAgt all Aw0 Au4rw♦r 1),
ANIII or 11JUM M R]aL I . 7AAOt tU, AAJIO4 OotA.TT taaD.o..;.:.
T""DO T111 1IIRIw4 wONVwarT LIP&ar AKADO. FLAIR.OAD, ,, Wi LIT1Yr Tool VrILITT IOCAn Owi NOT=O TIT, D.r
t - - 9w100 woRw )1'33•)I• vu?. M 9woww CIA rMCLL.tor)111, Tw[ ativLT w A fiq.0 Iwt►SCTtow. ORT 7wOti R7V
3• SSCORD[D to 90D. 107 A Ivu1. ►ADi f), AWaPA OOIlw7'T RaODRDt LoUno.a TEAT wua v~ACS vl Dw7 A.a Mines YE
;- - - ADD AS 8110.111 w is on Vrt�[a o 7wl'�Arot hers"L O R w
1 T1r"•"c" IT It Tn R=,POMMI Ilium or T!•ama ai
. ETON OE rrE TTIjjjJ LlT j rryleMnT 1 can*►n'D.70 ralR Total LOCA ID., 1ta).o- N,
alRlwo Rhin",nula To"I D�iarCTia Oa>!
a - umPa nTU 1w9vLAwct Do.rvAno■oor.u7lmr7 roa nTU -
a
I
f i � � •
i
LM
3 47- L'
it
Q
C O
IL
z z ' Z
_ b
r. c t.Id
7�j
R C
O �
O .
C7 O F.
— Z
' ° 3
I �--
d -
�4YT i i— rte`: —+��• �=/'��.��_'..-%
1 �
li
I ' •` >COL-
• I
' �• I � •. • I {� � I �� it----- -'
�-� � ;-� �{ ��- ❑ �❑ ❑ � � ���, ate.
5'
t N •
O
W
t -�
'U'll-A
Elflal Ec �c1�1 -lcc
i
� MEM lllliLllNll1GIKI i �, .— I -— _�� - �--.e --'—�—• �-•--- --- .
I
,
i
'51&t45 EA5T
F5 Le�l�-14
ON 5(�lgJfC�"
I. – ,1 - ' ---•--•--- --- rte—r,,�.�:.��
s
�-fig- -•-- ---__-.. _..-- i.---._._. - ,- -_ /� � .
h �l b
® q� Wit.��� •
RESOLUTION NO. - 90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE
CONCERNING PA 89-050 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT REZONING APPLICATION
WHEREAS, the applicant, Rick Hess, representing the property owners,
First Western Development and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, filed an
application to rezone the 7+ acre site on the southeast corner of Amador Valley
Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road from C-1, Retail Business District to PD,
Planned Development District; and
WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , as amended
together with the State's Administrative Guidelines for Implementation of the
California Environmental Regulations and the City of Dublin Environmental
Guidelines, requires that certain projects be reviewed for environmental impact
and that environmental documents be prepared; and
WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration of'Environmental Significance has been
prepared for PA 89-050; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a Public Hearing to review and consider
the Negative Declaration on March 12, 1990, closed the public hearing, and
continued the item to March 26, 1990; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects
as required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review and
consider the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and recommended
the City Council find that the Negative Declaration is adequate and complete;
and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report and Planning Commission recommendation
recommended that the City Council rezone the property to a PD, Planned
Development District, allowing a general range of specialty retail shopping and
restaurant uses, along with site specific development criteria, that would be
consistent with the goals and objectives identified in the Dublin General Plan
and the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the project, PA 89-050, will
not have any significant environmental impacts.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
find that the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been
prepared and processed in accordance with State and Local Environmental Law and
Guideline Regulation, and that it is adequate and complete.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of March, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk rw.71 0 TAM�0✓`J
H w
V.
rAffihll I$. Nto � - -
RESOLUTION NO. - 90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOPTING A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS
FOR A PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REZONING
PA 89-050 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT
WHEREAS, the applicant Rick Hess representing the property owners, First
Western Development and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, filed an
application to rezone the 7+ acre site on the southeast corner of Amador Valley
Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road from C-1 to PD, Planned Development; and
WHEREAS, on February 20, 1990, the .Planning Commission held a public
hearing, considered all reports, recommendations and testimony and recommended
City Council adoption of an ordinance to rezone the First Western Development
site, PA 89-050 to PD District and adopt a resolution establishing General
Provisions for the PD District; and
WHEREAS, on March 12, 1990, the Dublin City Council held a Public
Hearing, closed the public hearing, and continued the item to March 26, 1990;
and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects
as required by law; and
WHEREAS, this application has been reviewed in accordance with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act and the City Council
adopted a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance Resolution
No. for this project, as the rezoning will have no significant effect on
the environment; and
WHEREAS, the Staff Report and Planning Commission recommendation
recommended the City Council rezone the property to a PD, Planned Development
District allowing a general range of specialty retail shopping and restaurant
uses which, along with site specific development criteria, would be consistent
with the goals and objectives identified in the City's General Plan and the
Dublin Downtown Specific Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports,
recommendations and testimony herein above set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby
find that:
1. Rezoning the property to a PD, Planned Development District, will
be appropriate for the subject property in terms of providing a range of
allowable and conditionally allowable uses which will be compatible to existing
and proposed land uses in the immediate vicinity and conforming to the
underlying land use designation; and
C-�eh�►1 �av�stoNS 7MR-p50
2. The rezoning will not have a substantial adverse affect on health
or safety or be substantially detrimental to the public welfare or be injurious
to property or public improvement; and
3. The rezoning will not overburden public services; and
4. The rezoning is consistent with the Dublin General Plan and
Downtown Specific Plan.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin City Council does hereby adopt the
following general provisions for the 7+ acre First Western Development project
site, PA 89-050:
1. PA 89-050 PD, Planned Development District is established to provide
areas for specialty retail shopping and restaurant uses with pedestrian
orientation encouraged. It is the intent of this PD District to create
an area in which commercial development on separate adjacent parcels
function as a single shopping complex. Uses and development of property
within this PD District shall be subject to the provisions of the C-1
District except as modified through the General Provisions for said PD
(PA 89-050) .
2. The following principal uses are permitted in PA 89-050 PD District:
a. Retail - including but not limited to: books, clothing, shoes,
jewelry, appliances or specialty stores.
b. Full Service Restaurants - Non Fast Food
(Fast Food Restaurant means a relatively high-volume restaurant
providing seating facilities and serving take-out food such as
hamburgers, tacos, chicken or sandwiches. Fast food restaurants
typically serve prepared or rapidly prepared meals. Food is
typically served in disposable containers.)
c. Office - located above ground floor. °
d. Service commercial - uses oriented toward serving the needs of
residents and employees in the area, including but not limited to:
Dry Cleaners
Barber & Beauty Shops
Tailor Shop
Camera, Watch or Shoe Repair
3. The following uses are conditional uses subject to approval of a
Conditional Use Permit:
a. Commercial recreation/entertainment - a public or private use or
development providing amusement, pleasure or sport operated
primarily for financial gain. Uses include but are not limited to:
arcade video games, dance floors, theaters.
-2-
�... ,...........
.... ..
b. Residential
4. Development within this PD District (PA 89-050) shall comply with the
following development standards:
a. Maximum permitted building height: 35 feet
b. Maximum permitted floor area ratio: .30*
* Maximum floor area ratio shall be on a district wide basis, not a
per parcel basis.
C. Setbacks - subject to Site Development Review approval. Parcel A
shall maintain a clear zone free of buildings extending from the
west property line of Parcel B westward to Amador Plaza Road (See
Exhibit A, area labeled Clear Zone) .
Setbacks may be modified subject to review and approval of a PD
Rezoning.
5. Development within the PD District shall be subject to approval of Site
Development Review.
6. Development of any new buildings may occur within the northwestern
portion of Parcel A (see Exhibit A, area labeled Future Development Area)
subject to Site Development Review approval.
a. Maximum allowable building square footage of said building shall be
determined during Site Development Review subject to compliance
with City of Dublin parking, building height and floor area ratio
(site coverage) Zoning Regulations and General Provisions for PA
89-050.
7. Development in any other portion of the PD District inconsistent with the
general provisions for PA 89-050 shall be subject to Conditional Use
Permit approval upon the Planning Director's determination that the
proposed development will constitute a minor modification to the PD
District. Upon the Planning Director's determination that the proposed
development will constitute a major modification, said modification shall
be subject to Planned Development Rezoning approval.
8. Parking requirements within the PD District shall comply with the parking
requirements established in the Dublin Downtown Specific Plan.
9. All signs within PD District PA 89-050 shall comply with the regulations
established in the City's Sign Ordinance except as specifically modified
through these general provisions. The PD general provisions related to
signage may be modified subject to Site Development Review approval.
All signs shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning
Director prior to installation.
-3-
Parcel A
a. Wall Signs - existing wall signs shall continue to comply with
previous sign approvals for existing on-site uses, T.J. Maxx,
Circuit City and Oshman's. Any new signs or modifications
(modification does not include repair) to existing signs shall
comply with the regulations established in the City's Sign
Ordinance including but not limited to sign area, height and
length.
b. Freestanding Signs -. The existing freestanding sign shall continue
to comply with the previous freestanding sign approval for the
site.
1) Only one freestanding sign shall be permitted on Parcel A.
2) Any modification to sign height, area or location of the
freestanding sign shall be subject to review and approval of
the Planning Director. :
3) Sign heights in excess of 20 feet shall be subject to review
and approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
Parcel B
C. Wall Signs - Wall signs on the approved 10,000 square foot building
on Parcel B shall comply with the following provisions:
1) Primary Frontage (West Elevation) :*
Maximum Sign Area: 10% of tenant frontage surface area
available for signage not to exceed 335 square feet total
signage for the entire west elevation.
Maximum Letter Height (individual illuminated letters) : 30
inches
Maximum Sign Length: 60% of width of tenant business space
2) Secondary Frontage (North and South Elevations) :*
Maximum Sign Area: 7.5% of tenant's frontage surface area
available for signage.
Maximum Letter Height (individual illuminated letters) : 24
inches (2 feet)
Maximum Sign Length: 10 feet
3) * Exception: Tenant wall signs for "KuppenheimeR" shall
generally comply with the plans dated received July 7, 1989,
prepared by United Sign Corporation on file in the Dublin
Planning Department and labeled Exhibit A.
-4-
Primary/Secondary Frontages (West and South Elevations)
Maximum Sign Area: 56 square feet
Maximum Letter Height: 28 inches - the K and R in
"KuppenheimeR" (individual
illuminated letters)
18.5 inches - letters in between K
and R (individual illuminated
letters)
16 inches - sign cabinet "Men's
Clothiers"
Maximum Total Height: 38 inches
Maximum Sign Length: 17 feet, 7 inches
4) The east building elevation may be considered a
Secondary Building Frontage for City Sign Ordinance
purposes if a Conditional Use Permit is granted. In
order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for signage on
the east building elevation, the decision making body
must find, based upon facts in the record, that:
a) The color, size, shape, lighting intensity,
and other physical design characteristics of the
signage will not have any adverse effect on traffic
safety conditions and safe traffic operations on I-680.
b) The signage will be proportionate with human
scale as visible to traveler on I-680.
c) The signage meets all other applicable
provisions of the City Sign Ordinance with the
exception that the projection of the east building
elevation need not be in a roadway or public open space
area such as a private street, an open plaza or square,
or an auto parking area, per Section 8-87.10(s) .
d. Freestanding Signs - No freestanding signs shall be permitted on
Parcel B.
-5-
10. Development of any structure in this PD, Planned Development District,
requiring Site Development Review shall be subject to traffic mitigation
fees as set forth in the City's traffic mitigation fee ordinance or
resolution in effect at the time of development.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of March, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
-6-
RESOLUTION NO. - 90
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
------------------------------------------------------------------
A RESOLUTION IMPOSING A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
ON PA 89-050 - FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT
Recitals
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. - 89, the City Council has
approved a rezoning of the 7+ acre site on the southeast corner
of Amador Valley Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road from C-1 to PD,
Pined Development and by Resolution No. - 90 the Council
has adopted general provisions for such Planned Development (PA
89-050) , (hereafter '.$the proposed Development") ; and
WHEREAS, one condition of approval of the Planned
Development (Condition No. 10) is that the developer pay a
traffic impact or mitigation fee to be used for traffic facility
improvements; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized a report setting
forth the impacts of proposed development on traffic through the
year 2005 , Which report is being prepared by TJKM, along with an
analysis of the need of the public facilities and improvements
required by future development; and
limpact2 . fee
March 7, 1990
WHEREAS, said report will set forth the relationship
between the proposed development, the needed facilities and the
estimated costs of the facilities; and
WHEREAS, a noticed public hearing was held for purposes of
considering adoption of this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council resolves that:
1. The purpose of the said traffic impact fee is to
mitigate the traffic impacts caused by development of any
structure in the PD, Planning Development District by
construction of certain public facilities.
2 . The public facilities to be constructed with the
traffic impact fee (referred to herein as "the public
facilities") are identified in Attachment D-1, attached hereto
and incorporated herein by reference.
3 . The traffic impact fee is needed in order to finance
the public facilities and to pay for the proposed development' s
fair share of the construction of the improvements and will be
used for these purposes.
4 . The Council finds the fee to be consistent with the
General Plan and, pursuant to Government Code § 65913 .2, has
considered the effects of the fee with respect to the city' s
ljuusiily needs as established in the housing Dlemant of the
General Plan.
limpact2 . fee
March 7 , 1990
2
50 The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall
be used to finance the public facilities identified in Attachment
6. After considering the staff report and the testimony
received at this public hearing, the Council approves and adopts
said report, and incorporates such herein, and further finds that
the proposed development will generate additional demands on
municipal services.
7 . The report and the testimony establish:
(a) That there is a reasonable relationship between
the need for the public facilities designated in Attachment D-1
and the impacts of the proposed development for which the
corresponding fee is charged;
(b) That there is a reasonable relationship between
the fee ' s use and the proposed development for which the fee is
charged;
(c) That there is a reasonable relationship between
the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or
portion of the public facility attributable to the proposed
development on which the fee is imposed; and
(d) That the cost estimates set forth in Attachment
D-1 are reasonable cost estimates for constructing these
facilities, and the fees expected to be generated by future
limpact2 . fee
March 7 , 1990
3
developments will not exceed the total costs of constructing the
public facilities identified in Attachment D-1,
8 . The TJKM report will be. a detailed analysis of how
public services will be affected by the proposed development, the
existing deficiencies, and the public facilities required to
accommodate that development and those deficiencies. The
calculations and assumptions in the report can reasonably be
applied to the proposed development.
9 . The method of allocation of the traffic impact fee to
the proposed development will bear a fair and reasonable
relationship to the proposed development's burden on, and benefit
from, the facilities to be funded by the gee.
10 . A traffic impact fee in the amounts to be determined
by the method established in the TJKM is hereby imposed, to be
paid prior to issuance of a building permit for development of
any structure in the Planned Development District. The Council
finds that Attachment D-1 is the "plan" required by Government
Code § 53077 .5.
11. (a) The traffic impact fee shall be placed in the
capital Improvement Fund and shall be segregated in separate and
special accounts as provided herein and such revenues,along with
any interest earnings on each account, shall be used for the
following purposes:
limpact2 . fee
March 7 , 1990
4
(1) To pay for design and construction of the
public facilities described in Attachment D-1 and reasonable
costs of outside consultant studies related thereto;
(2) To reimburse the City for the public
facilities described in Attachment D-11 constructed by the City
with funds from other sources, unless the City funds were
expended to remedy existing deficiencies as identified in
Attachment D-1 or were obtained from grants or gifts; and
(3) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of
program development and ongoing administration of the traffic
impact fee program.
12 . The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall
be deposited into deposit accounts for the improvement projects
identified in Attachment D-1 and identified by developer or
development being charged.
13 . (a) Fees in the Capital Improvement Fund, and
interest thereon, shall be expended only for those facilities
listed in Attachment D-1 and only for the purpose for which the
fee was collected; and
(b) The standards upon which the needs for
facilities are based are the standards of the City. The City has
undertaken an extensive capital improvement program to implement
limpact2 . fee
March 7 , 1990
5
these standards and the City will- remedy existing deficiencies
without using proceeds of the traffic impact fee.
14 . The City Manager may develop rules and regulations
for the effective implementation and administration of the
traffic impact fee.
15. (a) No later than June 30, 1990 and June 30 of each
year thereafter, the city Manager shall prepare a report for the
City Council identifying the balance of fees in the improvement
projects ' deposit account, the facilities constructed and the
capital facilities to be constructed. In preparing the report,
the City Manager shall adjust the estimated cost of the public
improvements in accordance with the Engineering Construction Cost
Index as published by Engineering News Record for the elapsed
time period from the previous Suly 1 or the date that the cost
estimate was developed. The annual report shall also include a
review of the administrative charge; and
(b) The City Council shall review the report at a
noticed public hearing and shall make findings identifying the
purpose to which the existing fee balances are to be put and
demonstrating a reasonable relationship between- the fee and the
purpose for which it is charged.
16 . The fees imposed herein shall be effective 60 days
following adoption of this resolution, but in no event prior to
limpact2 . fee
March 7 , 1990
6
adoption by the City Council of a traffic impact or mitigation
fee ordinance or resolution setting forth a method of determining
the proposed development's proportionate share of the cost of the
facilities identified in Attachment D-1.
PASSED, APPROVED AND. ADOPTED this 26th day of March, 1990.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
limpact2 . fee
March 71 1990
7
ATTACHMENT D-1
Public Facilities to be Constructed
with Traffic Impact Fees
from PA 89-050 Project Site
Cost
Project Estimate
1. Dublin Boulevard widening between Donlan $1,345,000
and Village Parkway
2. I-580 Off Ramp $ 660,000
3. Dublin Boulevard Parallel Road $3,360,000
4. Signals at Village Parkway & Brighton Drive $ 285,000
and Village Parkway & Tamarack Drive
5. Dougherty Road Improvements $ 967,000
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PERMIT THE
REZONING OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF AMADOR VALLEY
BOULEVARD AND AMADOR PLAZA ROAD, 7450 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
Section 1
Chapter 2 of Title 8 of the Dublin Ordinance Code is hereby amended in
the following manner:
Approximately 7+ acres consisting of lands fronting along the southeast
corner of Amador Plaza Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, more specifically
described as Assessor's Parcel Number 941-305-8 is rezoned from C-1, Retail
Business District, to a PD, Planned Development District, PA 89-050 - First
Western Development, as shown on Exhibit B (Negative Declaration of
Environmental Significance) , and Exhibit C (Approval, Findings and General
Provisions of the PD, Planned Development Rezoning) , Exhibit D (Traffic Impact
Fee) on file with the City of Dublin Planning Department, are hereby adopted
as regulations for the future use, improvement and maintenance of the property
within this District.
A map depicting the rezoning area is outlined below:
list
PAAK
H I B I
'� ` Flo m \.0- j,/. 1/, � . •-
\r \` ,a• Vim. \ i .
/
\• ``\
Section 2
This Ordinance shall take effect and be enforced thirty (30) days from
and after its passage. Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after its
passage, it shall be published once, with the names of the Councilmembers
voting for and against the same in the •local newspaper published in Alameda
County and available in the City of Dublin.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY the City Council of the City of Dublin, on this
day of 1990, by the following votes:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
ATTEST:
City Clerk
2 -
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: PA 89-050 First Western Development PD Rezoning
(Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.)
LOCATION: APN 941-305-8
7450 Amador Valley Boulevard
Southeast Corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and
Amador Plaza Road
PROPONENT: Rick Hess
First Western Development
3470 Mt. Diablo Boulevard #A150
Lafayette, CA 94541
DESCRIPTION: Planned Development Rezoning from C-1 District to PD
District. The PD District establishes development standards
and conditional and permitted uses.
FINDINGS: The project will not have a significant effect on the
environment in that the PD Rezoning is a legislative action
approving the zoning and general provisions for the zoning
district. Subsequent development on the site will require
an environmental determination in compliance with CEQA.
INITIAL STUDY A copy of the Initial Study may be examined at the Dublin
Planning Department.
PREPARATION: This Negative Declaration was prepared by the City of Dublin
Planning Staff (415) 833-6610.
SIGNATURE: DATE: February 14, 1990
Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director
jaw
cy
i KOIB PARK
cr
5.
i f / t'
V AIION XN
OLSLIN SCHOOL \ \ \\ •�....�..v �. ��
� �, O ` `>- f,\°o'•.- .� / '\ `, \\\\ `� /\ `rte•. `i1. � � \
.ems` •',/ / ' ': \ \\\ \\\ 1 •♦ �\• C, •.'-- / !/
\v` yc`. \\\!!! �'r e• /]`\ as\`\\\ '•/ / / `— I �
of
\ , �_ \ • Nil I \ , \ \ \ /\�`'�—.;
c ..,,� '� �♦\ ` \ � ice\ \`� ` ��_-i
�I � / .`rte \ \ � R•�Z�l /V
\\\
1 I a
APE PARK "PP►Bq-0SO
La CPrAf O A.�
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 12, 1990
SUBJECT: PA 89-050 First Western Development PD, Planned
Development Rezoning
REPORT PREPARED BY: Maureen O'Halloran, Senior Planner
EXHIBITS ATTACHED: Exhibit A: Plans
Exhibit B: Resolution regarding Negative Declaration
Exhibit C: Resolution regarding General Provisions
Exhibit D: Resolution regarding Traffic Impact Fee
Exhibit E: Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance to
Rezone C-1 District to PD District
Attachment 1: Negative Declaration
Attachment 2: Location Map
Attachment 3: PC Resolution Negative Declaration
2/20/90
Attachment 4: PC Resolution General Provisions
2/20/90
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation.
2) Take Testimony from Applicant and the public.
3) Question Staff, Applicant and the public.
4) Close public hearing and deliberate.
5) Adopt Resolutions relating to PA 89-050 First
Western Development PD Rezoning, and introduce
Ordinance rezoning site from C-1 District to PD
District or give Staff and Applicant direction;
and
6) Continue the item to the March 26, 1990 City
Council meeting.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None
BACKGROUND:
In November 1988, the City Council approved a Tentative Parcel Map and
Variance application for the First Western Development site. Approval of the
application divided an existing 7+ acre site into two parcels, one of which
had substandard effective lot frontage (creating a "flag lot" type parcel) for
which the Variance was granted. A condition of approval for both the Variance
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COPIES TO: Project Planner
Applicant
Owner
PA 89-050
ITEM NO.
Pflug-o5o Flist toes-Im%t
-1 S-
I. ITACHgfik, 5
and Tentative Parcel Map required the Applicant to submit an application for a
Planned Development Rezoning. This application is in compliance with that
condition of approval.
Site Development Review for the site to allow a 10,000 square foot
retail building was approved in June, 1988 and is currently under
construction.
On February 20, 1990, the Planning Commission considered the Planned
Development Rezoning request and adopted Resolutions (see Attachments 3 and 4)
recommending the City Council rezone the site from C-1, Retail Business
District to PD, Planned Development District, and directed Staff to prepare
the appropriate findings for the City Council resolutions relating to the
imposition of traffic impact fees. The City Attorney has prepared a Draft
Resolution for imposing traffic impact fees on future development on this site
which includes findings required by State law (see Exhibit D) .
ANALYSIS:
The purpose in rezoning the site to a Planned Development is to
establish provisions/development regulations specific to the project site,
which would not be addressed under an existing zoning district. The proposed
Planned Development Rezoning addresses circumstances unique to the site
including the flag lot, substandard lot frontage and infill development.
The intent of this PD District (PA 89-050) is to (1) create an area in
which commercial development on separate adjacent parcels function as a single
shopping complex and (2) to provide an area for specialty shopping and
restaurant uses with pedestrian orientation encouraged.
The proposed Planned Development uses are consistent with the City's
General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan. The proposed PD District establishes
permitted and conditionally permitted uses providing a distinction between
full service restaurants and fast food restaurants.
Development standards for the proposed PD District are consistent with
the Downtown Specific Plan establishing maximum building height, floor area
ratio and parking. In addition to the typical types of development standards
found in conventional zoning districts, the proposed PD District establishes a
clear zone (see Exhibit A) , in which no building may be constructed. This
prevents future development from occurring directly in front of the new
building currently under construction on parcel B. The proposed PD District
also establishes an area in which development may occur in the future (see
Exhibit A) .
The proposed PD Rezoning establishes sign regulations generally
consistent with the City's Sign Ordinance. However, the rezoning permits only
one freestanding sign on parcel A and prohibits freestanding signs on
parcel B.
There are two provisions addressed in the draft PD District which the
Staff/Planning Commission recommendation and the Applicant's proposal
disagree:
2 -
. r
1. Existing Freestanding Sign: The Applicant proposes to permit the
existing freestanding sign to be relocated or replaced with a similar sign
(size, shape, configuration) at a new location on Parcel A in the event future
development in the northwest portion of the site (corner of Amador Valley
Boulevard and Amador Plaza Road) causes the sign to be relocated. The
Applicant proposes that the relocation be subject to property owner and City
agreement.
The Planning Commission and Staff position is that any relocation of the
freestanding sign must comply with the City's Sign Ordinance and General
Provisions of the Planned Development. This ensures that the sign height and
area will be compatible with the relocation and will be consistent with other
freestanding signs in the City. The Planning Commission and Staff position is
represented in the Rezoning General Provisions Draft Resolution.
2. East Elevation (Parcel B) Wall Signage: The Applicant proposes
to allow wall signage on the east elevation (facing I-680) of the new building
currently under construction, subject to conditional use permit approval.
The Planning Commission and Staff recommend that the Planned Development
District prohibit signage on the east elevation, in that the east elevation
does not constitute a frontage under the City's Sign Ordinance definition of
primary or secondary frontage. In order to qualify as a frontage for wall
signs, the building area must either face a public road or a parking lot. The
east elevation does not face either a road or parking lot, but rather faces a
drive aisle which prohibits parking or stopping at any time.
Staff and the Planning Commission recommend the City Council (1) adopt
the draft resolutions relating to the Negative Declaration, PD General
Provisions and Traffic Impact Fees (Exhibit B, C, and D) , and (2) introduce
the Draft Ordinance (Exhibit E) rezoning the site from C-1 to PD, Planned
Development.
- 3 -