The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About88-017 Howard Johnson Hotel-CUP/VAR CITY OF DUBLIN Development Services Planning;Zoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 3uilding & Safety 829-0822 Dublin, CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 EDECLARATION OF POSTING • I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Agenda for the Dublin Planning Commission meeting of )27dtala/ InP,/-198_, was posted at the Dublin Library, 7606 Amador Valley Boulevard,- Dublin, California, on the /t r/ t , of U , 198 by S'b0 p.m. Executed this /j0day of O/! , 198' , at Dublin, California. Laurence L. Tong Planning Commission Secretary by Planning Secretary AGENDA CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION Regular Meeting - Dublin Library Monday - 7:00 p.m. 7606 Amador Valley Blvd., Meeting Room March 21, 1988 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 4. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA 5. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING - March 7, 1988 6. ORAL COMMUNICATION - At this time, members of the audience are permitted to address the Planning Commission on any item which is not on the Planning Commission agenda. Comments should not exceed 5 minutes. If any person feels that this is insufficient time to address his or her concern, that person should arrange with the Planning Director to have his or her particular concern placed on the agenda for a future meeting. 7. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Sign Program Conditional Use Permit and Variance re uest for nine directional tract signs and to exceed allowable square footage and height restrictions west of Dou hers Road north and south of Amador Valle Boulevard continued from meetin of March 7 1988. 8.2 PA 87-176 Ramirez Side and Setback Variance - A eal of Zoning Administrator action denying Variance an attached accessor structure with a zero sideuard setbackallow where a six feet setback is typically required at 8686 Davona Drive. 8.3 PA 88-017 Howard Johnson Hotel Lord Dublin Restaurant Conditional Use Permit and Variance re uest to allow a second freestandin sinnd a to e n area xceed si hei ht and setback restrictions at 6680 Re ional Street. 9. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9.1 Resolution initiatino amendment to Zonin Ordinance to provide conforming status to properties rendered non conformin solel because of condemnation of ro ert . 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. PL---------------- ANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS 12. ADJOURNMENT (Over for Procedures Summary) CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: March 21, 1988 TO: Planning Commission ti-FROM: Planning Staff Fit SUBJECT: PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, Sign Program, Conditional Use Permit/Variance GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT: REVISED - Conditional Use Permit/Variance request for a Sign Program containing three directional tract signs (all of which exceed allowed copy square footage restrictions and two of which exceed height restrictions) and four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs (three of which exceed allowed copy square footage restrictions and all four of which are located in required yard areas). PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development Ron Nahas 2011 Patio Drive, Suite 215 Castro Valley, CA 94546 LOCATION: The Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 941-278-2782, -2783, -2784 (Portion of each) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: PD, Planned Development, Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Vacant, City of San Ramon South: Vacant, PD, Planned Development for residential uses East: Camp Park Military Training Reserve West: Open space, PD Planned Development ZONING HISTORY: The original 135+ acre holding was rezoned from an A, Agricultural District, to the R-1-B-5, Single Family Residential-Combining District, and the C-N, Neighborhood Business District, by Zoning Unit 638, approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on December 5, 1964. The Zoning designation R-1-B-5 was subsequently relettered to an R-1-B-E designation. On April 15, 1985, the Planning Commission granted approval for a four-parcel minor subdivision under Tentative Parcel Map 4575. The parcel split was requested to facilitate a purchase option agreement the Applicant (Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development) had with the original Property Owner. On March 24, 1986, the City Council granted approval for the PD, Planned Development District and Tentative Map applications for the 1,165-unit Villages at Willow Creek project (PA 85-041.1 and .2). There are seven residential Villages under separate applications and in various stages. ITEM NO. O, / COPIES TO: Applicant APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Section 8-87.10(f) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Sign Regulations) defines Directional Tract signs as a temporary signs containing only the name and location of a subdivision and/or a multiple family residential project and direction for reaching the same. They can be located on or off site but must be located on private property. Section 8-87.60 of the Sign Regulations states that Directional Tract Signs may be located in required yards if a Conditional Use Permit is granted. Section 8-87.60(a) of the Sign Regulations states that Directional Tract Signs in any district are limited to thirty-two square feet maximum copy area and a maximum of twelve feet in height. Section 8-87-50 of the Sign Regulation states that Subdivision Sale/Rent/Lease signs are permitted in any zoning district to advertise the orginal sale, rent or lease of buildings or lots in conjunction with a subdivision development. A maximum sign area of thirty-two square feet and a maximum height limit of 12 feet must be observed. In addition, the yard limits of the district the sign is located in must be complied with. Also, the sign must be located on private property within the subdivision. Section 8-94.0 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance states that conditional uses must be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the district in which it is located. Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditinal Use Permit may be valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited to the following matters: a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings; b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities; c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be void; d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the posting of bond; 3) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County Government. Section 8-93.0 (Variance) and Government Code Section 65906 (State law re: Variance findings) indicate that the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact upon each of these three requirements: 1) that there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification; 2) that the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone; and 3) that the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. -2- n n Section 8-93.1 - .4 establishes the procedures, required action and effective date for granting or denying a Variance, and indicates the granting of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitations and guarantees. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project has been found to be categorically exempt from CEQA under Section 15311, Class 11(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the March 7, 1988 hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to property owners and posted in public buildings. Because this item was continued to the March 21, 1988 hearing, no further public noticing was required. BACKGROUND This application was continued from the March 7, 1988 Planning Commission meeting. At that meeting the Planning Commission was unable to make a decision due to disagreements between Staff and the Applicant regarding what types of signs were proposed. The main point of contention revolved around whether the signs were directional tract signs as identified by Staff or subdivision/sale/lease/rent signs as identified by the Applicant. The Planning Commission asked Staff and the Applicant to meet in order to resolve this issue as well as attempt to create a sign program that was acceptable to both parties. On March 9, 1988 Staff and the Applicant met. It was clarified that some of the signs could be defined as subdivision sale/lease/rent signs while others could be defined as directional tract signs. Staff presented what could potentially be an acceptable sign program. This included six directional tract signs, all located on the Villages sites and all within the height and copy square footage restrictions as provided by the Zoning Ordinance. This was not acceptable to the Applicant. The Applicant presented his idea of what would be an acceptable sign program. This included a combination of seven signs, some of which would be subdivision sale/lease/rent signs and some of which would be directional tract signs. Of these, some would exceed maximum height and copy square footage restrictions, while others may not. This was not acceptable to Staff. The meeting ended with both parties understanding each others position, however no agreement was reached. On March 14, 1988 the Applicant submitted a revised sign program to Staff for consideration by the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS The Applicant is requesting approval of sign program containing seven signs to identify the Villages residential developments. Three of the seven signs are directional tract signs because they are temporary signs containing only the name, location, and direction of a subdivision and/or multiple family residential projects. These signs can be located on or off-site as long as they are located on private property. The sign regulations limit sign copy square footage to 32 square feet and maximum height at 12 feet. Directional tract signs must be approved through the Conditional Use Permit process. All three exceed the copy square footage restriction while two exceed the height restrictions. Because of this a Variance is being requested. The remaining four signs are subdivision sale/lease/rent signs. These are permitted signs per the sign regulations. Neither Site Development Review or a Conditional Use Permit is necessary. The sign regulations allow directional tract signs to have a maximum copy area of 32 square feet with a 12 foot height limitation. They must be located on private property within the subdivision they are identifying and they must conform with the yard limits of -3- the district they are located in. A Variance is necessary because three of the signs copy exceeds 32 square feet and all four appear to be located within the required yard areas. The following provides a description of the seven signs and indicates where each does not comply with the sign regulations. With respect to all of the proposed signs, the specifics regarding exact sign locations, exact sign copy, relationships of the signs to the wall, to property lines, and required yards has not been provided by the Applicant. This information should be provided and drawn accurately to scale. Staff requested that this information be included in the revised sign program. The Applicant has indicated that more detailed information will be provided at the March 21, 1988, meeting for review by the Planning Commission. Because of the lack of these details, a more complete review for compliance with zoning restrictions could not be completed. The descriptions below are based upon the information provided in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 and through conversations with the Applicant and sign company. Staff cannot support this request until the above mentioned details have been provided and the signs are in conformance with sign regulations. Therefore, the Conditional Use Permit and Variance request should be denied without prejudice or continued until such time that an accurate and complete sign program has been submitted. DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGNS A-1: Freesstanding double face sign, 65 square feet per face for a total of 130 square feet. It is 14.75 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Non- conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. A-2: Freestanding double face sign, 65 square feet per face for a total of 130 square feet. It is 14.75 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Willow Creek Road. Non- conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. A-3: Freestanding single face sign with 65 square feet of copy. It is 12 feet tall and would be located in the northeastern corner of Village 5. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. SUBDIVISION SALE/LEASE/RENT SIGNS B=1: Freestanding double face sign, 24 square feet per face for a total of 48 square feet. It is 10 feet tall and would be located on the north side of Amador Valley Boulevard between Dougherty Road and Wildwood Road. Non-Conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign is located within required 20 foot of yard setback of Village 2. B-2: Freestanding double face sign, 32 square feet per face for a total of 84 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on the north side of Willow Creek Road just west of Dougherty Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign appears to be located either within a designated open space area or within the 15 foot yard setback of Village 4. B-3: Freestanding double face sign, 32 square feet per face for a total of 64 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on the southwest corner of Dougherty Road and Wildwood Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign is located within either 15 foot or 20 foot yard setback (possibly both) of Village 3. B-4: Freestanding single face sign with 24 square feet of copy. It is 10 feet tall and would be located on Willow Creek Road. Non-conformity: Sign is located within 20 foot yard setback of Village 6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT With respect to the three directional tract signs, because each significantly exceeds the 32 square foot copy restriction and two exceed the 12 foot height restriction, Staff cannot recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit until all nonconformities are reasonably eliminated. Staff would -4- r'S recommend approval of this request if the height of the signs did not exceed 14 feet (where obstructed by the wall) and the signs copy did not exceed 32 square feet. VARIANCE Six of the seven signs exceed the 32 square foot copy restriction. Two exceed the 12 foot height restriction. In addition all four of the subdivision sale/lease/rent signs appear to be located in the required yard areas established by the Planned Development approving the Villages. In Staff's opinion these nonconformities can be eliminated while still providing adequate advertising for the Villages. Prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made, based on facts presented in the record. These include: 1. That there are special circumstances relating to physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape and topography) which would deprive the Property Owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the identical zoning district. What this means is: In order to grant a Variance there must be some characteristic pertaining to the property that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impractable. Staff's review of the sites finds that there are no special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics of the property. The Villages have frontages on Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, both of which together could easily accommodate strategically placed directional tract signs and subdivision sale/lease/rent signs in locations that are highly visible and in compliance with zoning provisions. 2. That the granting of the Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges. This means that in order to grant a Variance, the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other property owners have not been given the right to do. The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege because allowing directional tract signs and subdivision sale/lease/rent signs that exceed the height and copy square footage restrictions, and allowing subdivision sale/lease/rent signs in yard areas, would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to other property owners in similar situations. 3. That the Variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. This means approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood in any fashion. If approved the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing provisions of the Zoning Ordinace where compliance is attainable. Because of the above facts, Staff must recommend that the Variance be denied without prejudice. As mentioned previously, it may be reasonable to consider a minor adjustment to sign heights in cases where the signs can only be placed behind a wall. However excessive sign copy square footage and height in addition to locating subdivision signs in required yards cannot be supported. RECOMMENDATIONS FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public. 3) Queston Staff, Applicant and the public. 4) Close public hearing and deliberate. 5a) Adopt Resolution denying without prejudice Conditional Use Permit request. b) Adopt Resolution denying without prejudice Variance request, or: c) Give Staff and the Applicant direction and continue the matter. -5- ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution denying without prejudice the Conditional Use Permit and Variance requests for PA 88-003, Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Sign Program. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Draft Resolution regarding PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Sign Program, Conditional Use Permit recommending denial without prejudice. Exhibit B: Draft Resolution regarding PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Sign Program Variance, recommending denial without prejudice. BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised Site Plan 2. Revised Partial Site Plans 3. Revised Sign Elevations 4. Vicinity Map 5. Excerpts from Dublin Sign Regulations 6. Excerpts from City Council Resolution No. 31-86 approving and establishing findings and provision for The Villages (PD) rezoning, showing yard restrictions. 7. Planning Commission Minutes for the meeting of March 7, 1988. 8. Planning Commission Staff Report and attachments from the meeting of March 7, 1988. -6- RESOLUTION No. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PA 88-003 VILLAGES AT WILLOW CREEK ROAD, DOUGHERTY ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SIGN PROGRAM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS, Ron Nahas of Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development filed an a Conditional Use Permit for a Sign Program containing three directional tract signs (all of which exceed the allowed copy square footage restrictions and two of which exceed height restrictions) and four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs (three of which exceed allowed copy square footage restrictions and all four of which are located in required yard areas) for the Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 7, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by a vote of 5 - 0 decided to continue the item to the meeting of March 21, 1988 in an attempt to have issues in question clarified; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 21, 1988; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: A. The use is not required by the public need at the proposed location because the size, height and copy square footage of the signs exceeds what is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance for directional tract signs. B. The use is inappropriate in that the size, height and copy square footage of the signs is excessive in comparison with what is typically allowed for other subdivisions with directional tract signs. C. The use, if permitted under all circumstantes and conditions of this particular case, would materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the area, as all applicable regulations will not be met. D. The use will be contrary to the specific intent, clause or performance standard of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance in that: 1. Three of the proposed directional tract signs exceed the maximum copy square footage restrictions. 2. Two of the three proposed directional tract signs exceed the maximum height restrictions. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission denies without prejudice the Conditional Use Permit Request in PA 88-003. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of March, 1988. AYES: NOES: PRESENT: ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Director RESOLUTION No. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE PA 88-003 VILLAGES AT WILLOW CREEK ROAD, DOUGHERTY ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SIGN PROGRAM VARIANCE WHEREAS, Ron Nahas of Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development filed a Variance for a Sign Program containing three directional tract signs (all of which exceed allowed copy square footage restrictions and two of which exceed height restrictions), and four subdivision sale/lease/rent signs (three of which exceed allowed copy square footage restriction and all four of which are located in required yard areas) for the Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 7, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by a vote of 5-0 decided to continue the items to the meeting of March 21, 1988 in an attempt to have issues in question clarified; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 21, 1988; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: A. There are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification if strict compliance with the Zoning Regulations for directional tract signs and subdivision sale/lease/rent signs were observed. B. The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, in that no special circumstances exist which warrant granting the Variance. C. The granting of this Variance application would be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood because if approved it could set an unwanted precedence of granting Variance in situations where the standards of the Zoning Ordinance could be complied with. q p BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission denies without prejudice the Variance Request in PA 88-003. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of March, 1988. AYES: NOES: PRESENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director • . . ZE . . \a%�Ll. L. L7 G t. D 2�i 1 } �^`1:.7• �.ri �T • I r.---co.1 • C • } MAR 141T(3 3 DUBUN PLANNING lI{ • Air • PROJECT — fLI-88 Fri Z•I tn,liu.ow G .E1..: '` TH "°` 8 261O WO DIAMOND aoe 767 OM IRVINF SACROMINTO GROUP 710 *73 0770 916 777 MOt Concept by Hasulak&Associates,Inc. rs n . • I i • ; AY 10/ § ‘ �' 41 I' L . g , '. • E \ y / �y� / f „4. co al Q \....... ...,0_, • a• ; z r .r 1 IT zia,, Z C3 3 t ii,AI ,), m; a f1 ........00•00„........\ . "A 0.• . , ir N U \ \ 12- N. r 0 F x!......, , . ..„ . . •• . . . , 1 . . [ • 1 c . 1 . i '. ••• 0 . [1, [ • • [ • i Y ' . 0 o cis:i i C f ,....C1 1 . -I 8 i 0 ? 4 Xi) i Ti II I ,z 77 1 -a t--• lit . z ro gyt • 1 -----• ja A .:„.. .... ,..?„ . ...s ...,.7. ...z ...,.. . . i —_----.,-----=--x''"*-- — • I. * - ' ! I 1 9T 1114, Arf A.,in - r z I C _ ..4.• z \.....„....,..7) f• r 0 X 1 - i I' 4116- .L.. . . . • ) • ) 1.• I 1 •I I o 0 t lirmasi • = LAMA e- p ,,,c-No.-.., ? . . ,-...,"-r. ..kr4---,..\'''''t'i-,P),.. .. '1 Ps,-7--'.,••/•"/ • ' ": i7767,',. --•="t•te.-,.P:s: J ,_ _ _ _ __!, • - r ! MCC d . - -• , 'a' ; 1 - 11 .. , . - •" I • lc. • ,-- I -.. e•--r I-_ ••••.‘ -- - ' Pr--•.<1.-.<-," 7..., ) 1 • 1.-- ---1 e r'-------.'-'1----,-/ • WILLOW //, CREEK .id ... fill 7 . L 1 . . . , 42 -A . N 11.111.1. II I."•71 •- ---i . I / I , 1 1 , . o . • '4 I ' . /..•'."S'''''••I‘''/--1 ' 1 I 1 i I . • ... •. • . . . . a. • • . .4.. ) \ • • . .. . • • . - ...S.7 ... , , ' I '..-€. 1.17'/%1;6;':. I .I •••"•.• . IY ..... I •I 1 I I I I I I I t‘)I • I I I 1 ,.../ 1 1 •• • • , , • • • . • / Z I• .• ' • . N.....c.....,_.„.....,...1:: 7 • I I • •• • • • I I . I I I . I 1 1 / . • • . • • • ..• • • I 1 , ,-,---,„, ..,..,. • ,e' ...--t--, --- `.1, I I o . C.' N" •' - , ) S. -67 nam-i) .: •• 0 WALL- i • -.. • ,. , . • .• .:-. . • .$) . .. . .. . . it) . -----:.-`-- - -r-'.'-• ri RE .CElVEM ' .ai I 6t4 7-‘*11: S 14\ . I 0 Fr-- M Di . !AAR 1 it 19E'S AANA, pgBUN MANNINO, . _. . ris 3 DATE t..z.7..gry SCSE k.till....4, DRAWN BY p.-Fad4c...........1.......11::::, REV _..1 q..1;6 F....10... 1-AAOKGP--4.-L)e- REV. AGE ‘L ' 0 THE MILPITAS DIAMOND 408,262 0299 WIMP' Ncrre : 514N TYPE A-3 will i • IRVINE SACRAMENTO 714 474 0270 915 722 2990 GROUP bgr sitlid. pAch. ^Ka (2 TAII 4 Concept by Hasulak &Associates,Inc. M �� 4 Y c. k'. F i. 3 t' Z. , I • ti c i\ t F II o� 4� v t i----ir—— , rnp - F iZ 1nL� �- le) x t\ —i 0 _,„,j'il E7Q ...\--___________________ ---___ 7_7_ A 3 N �° 1 1 A , r-- — s : �Y - E tv► gym' �; n y+o i I Z Nis — � . ,- •ta st.. Ki, • • t , )'v (T., 1CQ ---:'-s---""-----L--..s._.__,_____.__ n. k d4 kk 1. .m F iei 0 1 t MLC c 0 V k ., 00 io ""0N tri J eo 1.. dr" J `, n �'0 � c 0 :..... - ,...n 2. . .7. .;o ... .'r z _ . .'ti ..r... ..... 9.-...40,; ..a.0 n.,,,,,,,. .� "at. f a,,,, Mv:e;S"N.,,�N, ,,,n7,,...., c_.4..w,,,,,,,e,A,sc:->CE'CFit<Ye.A:" .-.a.r.,m ,.w.rp.....as�......s:,-v.u¢.:'fu...i ^v.o.c-..i.a.:r�....T.. :'._..;: t� '�se1�7'�°i37V(s'Ss•'"da:.y..L ..:.:.�,r.,saw:i.'.. �.r5*'Cu+... .YY.t.L.:....:r..�.,.:.4....s:.� t.• ..�,.r tTdal3 ..f 7... ,e r.:.. .19 E9'".?�.s...-.T.e� c1]:Ji96.'L.D .. .s. __ _ __ r 1 t `s ' • fk ( I Cc �•I' Tr; CC ME;) • is -A. ( A -..-5I-2..-c r 2171I t )I.c + , g. ;4, • •• . i_____I '- LA-r-(16E - V�,� FAGiP f I. _ 1+ - gr6.e,j2' Er►DS� t �p i---- I� r. 1 y E R• . -- — k. rR r'Ti itEtE 1/ ILI0). (;'('�` rr — n1� 1 1g„3 L:REER. • 141 11 !AAR 1`11 ` {I L auauN PN�Kc A 1. ( • • 1 0 ' MINIMUM 91 To CVO-,� �' ^-- DAME:I Z-7-g7 SCALE:�iAtll,I° DRAWN SY:F] -I :f`...1 • REV. ,—J .4-ea °xi'— t3 °ANi,t.03A,cir 4 '` THE 6� �/y 5UP�Dlt/iSi�.(�f REV: PAGE�� MIIPITAS DIAMOND `: I ma �� 16 - OORiT620299 llll��"'' (. r (2 -w, IRYINE SACRAMENTO �4, GROUP 3 714.970 0220 916r722 T990 a , Concept by Hasulak &Associates,Inc. tea. .��.. _ �,✓ •. • • •' 0 UNN , IA C0U SITE i0 ( \\ CAS p M E 9A`•,,r 7/1.k\ ‘C. CAM P \�� ;i PARKS ti los • MOM Ote 620 Alf N `P '06 y VICINITY MA P CHAPTER 2 OF TITLE 8 OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ORDINANCE CODE Article 7 - Sign Regulations Sec. 8-87.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 8-87.1 Declaration of Purpose and Statement of Objectives Sec. 8-87.2 Declaration of Policy • Sec. 8-87.10 DEFINITIONS Definitions - Context a) A-Frame Sign, Portable Sign and Sandwich Board Sign b) Banner Sign c) Business Sign d) Community Identification Sign e) C-2-B-40 Directory Sign f) Directional Tract Sign g) Directory Sign h) Freestanding Sign i) Identification Sign j ) Illuminated Sign k) Low Profile Sign 1) Non-Conforming Sign m) Office Building Master Identification Sign n) Off-site Advertising Sign o) Open House Sign p) Primary Building Frontage q) Projecting Sign r) Roof-Line s) Secondary Building Frontage t) Service Station Sign Display Structure u) Service Station Price Sign v) Shopping Center Master Identification Sign w) Special Easement Sign x) Temporary Sign y) Time/Temperature Sign z) Wall Sign Sec. 8-87.20 GENERAL LIMITATIONS BY LAND USE DISTRICTS Sec. 8-87.21 A - Agricultural District - Signs Permitted Sec. 8-87.22 R-1, R-2 and R-S - Residential Districts - Signs Permitted Sec. 8-87.23 P-D - Planned Development District - Signs Permitted Sec. 8-87.24 H-1, C-1, C-2 and M-1 - Retail Business, Commercial and Light Industrial Districts - Signs Permitted Sec. 8-87.25 C-0 - Administrative Office District - Signs Permitted Sec. 8-87.26 C-N - Neighborhood Business District - Signs Permitted ATTACHMENT e) Enhance the economic value of the community through proper signage and encourage signs which are well designed and pleasing in appearance and to provide incentive and latitude for variety, good design relationship and spacing; f) Provide for vehicular and pedestrian safety by prohibiting or restricting distracting signs. Sec. 8-87.2 DECLARATION OF POLICY. It is recognized that the attractiveness of the community is an important factor of the general welfare of the citizens of the City and that reasonable control of signs is in the public interest. Further recognized is the right and need of each business, firm, or corporation to identify its respective place of business or service and that a need exists to protect public and private investments in buildings and open space. Further, the City intends to exercise its sound judgment and discretion to assure that all approved signs provide effective and attractive identification for persons trying to locate a particular place of business, service or use. Sec. 8-87.10 DEFINITIONS. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, the following words and phrases are defined and shall be construed as follows: a) A-Frame Sign, Portable Sign, and Sandwich Board Sign. The terms A-Frame Sign, Portable Sign and Sandwich Board Sign shall mean portable signs capable of standing without support or attachment. b) Banner Sign. The term Banner Sign shall mean a temporary sign composed of light weight, flexible, non-rigid material either enclosed or not enclosed in a rigid frame. c) Business Sign. The term Business Sign shall mean any structure, housing, sign, device, figure, painting, display, message placard, or other contrivance, or any part thereof, which has been designed to advertise, or to provide data or information in the nature of advertising, for any of the following purposes: 1) To designate, identify, or indicate the name or business of the owner or occupant of the premises upon which the Business Sign is located. 2) To advertise the business conducted, services available or rendered, or the goods produced, sold, or available for sale upon the property where the Business Sign has been lawfully erected. d) Community Identification Sign. The term Community Identification Sign shall mean a Business Sign incorporating information referring exclusively to service clubs and/or community slogans. (Community Identification Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.60 b).) -2- • e) C-2-B-40 Directory Sign. The term C-2-B-40 Directory Sign shall mean a Business Sign located in a C-2-B-40 District which identifies the street address range of the businesses within the complex and serves to identify a business complex with no more than ten tenants. (C-2-B-40 Directory Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.35.) f) Directional Tract Sign. Directional Tract Sign means a Temporary Sign containing only the name and location of a subdivision and/or a multiple family residential project and directions for reaching same. A Directional Tract Sign is a Principal Use for the purpose of Section 8-93.0. (Directional Tract Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.60 a).) g) Directory Sign. The term Directory Sign shall mean a Business Sign located for the purpose of displaying the names of occupants engaged in professions or businesses on the premises. h) Freestanding Sign. The term Freestanding Sign shall mean a Business Sign supported by one or more uprights, braces, columns, poles, or other similar structural components placed on or into the ground, and not attached to a building, and having no exposed or connecting wires. (Freestanding Signs are regulated by Sections 8-87.34, 8-87.35, and 8-87.38.) i) Identification Sign. The term Identification Sign shall mean a sign, or device, for churches and auditoriums which serve exclusively to designate the name, or the name and use, of a public building, or multi-family residential use, or to inform the public as to the use of a lawful parking area, recreation area, or other open use permitted in the District. (Identification Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.61 a).) [Ord. No. 6-87, January 1987] j) Illuminated Sign. An Illuminated Sign shall mean a Business Sign which uses a source of light in order to make the message readable, and shall include internally and externally lighted signs. k) Low Profile Sign. The term Low Profile Sign shall mean a Business Sign that serves to identify a business complex including the range of the businesses within the complex, and may also serve as a directory sign identifying tenants located in said complex. (Low Profile Signs are regulated by Section 8-87.35.) [Ord. No. 6-87, January 1987] 1) Non-conforming Sign. The term Non-conforming Sign shall mean a sign lawful before the provisions of this Chapter, or of any relevant amendment hereto made effective, but which thereupon violates same. m) Office Building Master Identification Sign. The term Office Building Master Identification Sign shall mean a Business Sign that serves to identify an office building or any institutional use, and whose copy shall include only the name of the office building or institutional use and the street address range of the complex. -3- c) Pennants, banners, balloons, flags and other similar types of devices which consist of any material made in any shape, which fastened together or placed in a manner as to move by wind pressure, except as approved in conjunction with approved signage for grand opening or temporary promotional events pursuant to Section 8-87.60 c), Section 8-87.61 b) and Section 8-94.0; d) Portable on-site signs including Sandwich Board type and A-Frame signs; e) Any sign affixed to any vehicle or trailer located on a right-of- way or private property, unless the vehicle or trailer is intended to be used in its normal business capacity and not for the sole purpose of attracting people to a place of business; f) Paper, cloth, or other temporary-type signs, except as approved in conjunction with approved signage for grand opening or temporary promotional events pursuant to Section 8-87.60 c), Section 8-87.61 b) and c) and Section 8-94.0; g) Off-Site Advertising Signs. h) Signs using colors that contain reflective properties; i) Searchlights, cold-air balloons and similar advertising devices, except as approved in conjunction with approved signage for grand opening or temporary promotional events pursuant to Section 8-87.60 c), Section 8-87.61 b) and c) Section 8-94.0; j) Any sign designed for emitting sound, odor or visible matter; k) Any sign containing any obscene matter; 1) Any illuminated sign designed or located so as to be confused with or to resemble any warning traffic control device; m) Any signs illuminated in such a manner that the direct, or reflected light, from the primary light source(s) creates a traffic hazard to operators of motor vehicles; n) Statuary when used for advertising purposes; o) Any sign mounted on a sloping roof with visible support brackets or any sign which extends above the roof ridgeline or parapet. ....110Sec. 8-87.50 PERMITTED SIGNS. The following signs are permitted in any District and may be located in required yards, other sign or yard regulations notwithstanding, and need not be included in any computation of permitted aggregate sign area: a) Official public signs or notices or any temporary notice posted by a public agency or official, or by a person giving legal notice; -13- b) House numbers, name plate or identification of house members (provided sign is non-illuminated and does not exceed two square feet maximum area), mail box identification, street names, "no-trespass" signs, and other warning signs; c) Memorial tablets or signs identifying a benefactor, a location of historical interest, or a statue or monument; d) Pedestrian signs, such as shingle signs, which are oriented towards pedestrian traffic and serve to identify and indicate pertinent facts concerning a business or professional service lawfully conducted on the same premise; subject to the following provisions; 1) must be suspended from a canopy over a sidewalk which is directly in front of the door of the business thereby identified; 2) must be perpendicular to the business building wall; 3) must not be more than ten square feet in area if double- faced, five square feet in area if single-faced; 4) must provide a minimum of eight foot clearance when located above a sidewalk; and 5) are limited to one per business per building elevation; e) Signs displayed for the direction, warning or safety of the public, including pedestrian and vehicular traffic, with eight square feet maximum per sign, except pavement markings which are not so restricted as to maximum area; f) Temporary political signs, where such sign is placed on private property for the sole purpose of advocating the election of a declared candidate for public office, or relating to an election proposition on the ballot of sixteen square feet maximum area per individual sign and eighty square feet of maximum aggregate area per lot; g) Non-illuminated temporary sale or lease signs which are to be intended for use solely as a notice of an offering for sale, lease, or rental of a parcel, structure, or establishment on which the sign is located; provided that such signs shall not exceed a maximum area of twenty four square feet; and provided further that two signs per parcel be allowed and only one such sign may be placed for each one hundred feet of street frontage; ....00h) Subdivision sale, rent or lease signs to advertise the original sale, rent or lease of buildings or lots in conjunction with a subdivision development with a maximum area of thirty-two square feet plus one additional sign of like dimension for each thirty-five lots or buildings for sale, rent or lease. Signs shall not exceed a maximum height of twelve feet, shall not be illuminated and shall observe the yard limits of the District the sign is located within; -14- s) Open-house signs used in connection with the sale of real property subject to the following special provisions; 1) A maximum of four open-house signs are permitted for each property being advertisied for sale. Such signage shall be located outside the public right-of-way (which includes, but is not limited to, the sidewalk) located adjacent to property lines. Proper authorization by the affected private property owner, shall be secured prior to placement of signs. Such signage shall be located in such a manner that it does not disrupt the normal flow of vehicle or pedestrian traffic and does not block views of such traffic. Signing is prohibited in the center divider strip and/or traffic islands of public streets. Such signing is not to be adhered or attached to any public sign post, traffic signal or utility pole; 2) Only one of the signs utilized for each respective open- house properties shall be located along a major City arterial. The size of the sign shall not exceed four square feet per side, and the height shall not exceed four feet above grade; 3) Open-house signs shall be permitted only during the weekend period from 10:00 a.m. Friday through sunset on Sunday evening, and Tuesdays from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Such signing is not to be adhered or attached to any public sign post, traffic signal or utility pole; 4) The City shall be authorized to assess all necessary costs for the time spent by City personnel, or its authorized agents, to remove illegally located open-house signs. In cases of repeated violations of requirements dealing with open-house signs, rights to locate new open-house signs in the City shall be forfeited. Sec. 8-87.60 SIGNS REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. The following type of signs may be located in required yards, if a Conditional Use Permit is granted in accordance with Section 8-94.0: a) Directional Tract Sign, in any District, thirty-two square feet maximum area, twelve (12) feet maximum height, shall not be illuminated, and shall not be located within six hundred sixty (660) feet of an Interstate Freeway. The size of the sign used need not be included as part of the aggregate sign area permitted on the property. b) Community Identification Sign, one hundred twenty square feet maximum area, twenty (20) feet maximum height, shall be located within one thousand (1,000) feet of the City's corporation boundary. Sign illumination shall not be intermittent and sign copy shall be limited to: -16- RESOLUTION NO. 31-86 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING AND ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND GENERAL PROVISIONS FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD) REZONING CONCERNING PA 85-041.1 VILLAGES AT ALAMO CREEK — RAFANELLI AND NAHAS REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development is requesting the City rezone approximately 135 acres lying in the northeast corner of the City, to a Planned Development (PD) District for a planned residential/ commercial development of 1,165 dwelling units (including 1,019 multiple family residential units and 146 lots for future development of single family residential detached units), a five—plus acre neighborhood park site, a 9,000+ square foot commercial site for future development as a convenience store, and common open space parcels; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did review the project at a • series of public hearings beginning with a noticed public hearing on February 18, 1986, and concluding with a public hearing on March 17, 1986, at which time the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 86-014 recommending approval of the Planned Development (PD) Rezoning request, PA 85-041.1; and WHEREAS, proper notice of this request was given in all respects .as required by law for the Planning Commission hearings and the March 24, 1986, City Council public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Staff Report was submitted recommending that the application be approved subject to conditions prepared by Staff and reflected in Planning Commission Resolution No. 86-014; and • WHEREAS, the City Council did hear and consider all said reports, recommendations and testimony as herein set forth; and WHEREAS, the City Council reversed with the Planning Commission's recommendations regarding the proposed residential product type and density of Village VII, determining that retention of the proposed Multiple Family Residential, 12.75± dwelling units per Gross Residential Acre Development Standard for Village VII, when considered in conjunction with the proposed 146—lot Single Family Residential development proposed in Village VI, was not in conflict with the City's General Plan Policy Guidelines that call for the avoidance of economic segregation by City sector, and specifically call for some of the units approved in the subject property to be single family residential—detached units; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State and City environmental regulations, a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance has been previously adopted for the Rezoning and Tentative Map requests (City Council Resolution No. 30-86); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning, as modified, is consistent with the City General Plan and Policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed rezoning will not have a significant environmental impact; and WHEREAS, the rezoning, as modified, is appropriate for the subject property in terms of being compatible to existing land uses in the area, and will not overburden public services; and • WHEREAS, the rezoning will not have substantial adverse effects on health or safety, or be substantially detrimental to the public'welfare, or be injurious to property or public improvements; and WHEREAS, there is little or no probability that the rezoning, as modified, will be a detriment to, or interfere with, the City's General Plan; ATTACHMENT B. A road system of a design determined acceptable to the City Engineer and the Planning Department shall be installed. C. Each phase shall be landscaped and developed such that should construction of subsequent phases be delayed, the constructed- phase(s) will appear as a completed project. 81. Should the units be initially occupied as apartment units, the following reports shall be filed with, and approved by, the City Engineer at the time the units are put up for individual sale. A. A report by a licensed roofing contractor certifying that the roofs of all the structures are in good condition and not likely to be in need of replacement for at least 10 years. . A reserve deposit may be established to cover the estimated prorated costs of roof replacement where replacement will be required prior to 10 years. B. A report by a professional Engineer attesting, to the extent reasonably feasible, that the structure of all buildings, pavements, storm draininage facilities, and the interior and exterior plumbing, electrical systems, and utility and mechanical equipment to be owned in common, or as part of the individual condominiums, are in good and serviceable condition. C. A report by a licensed painting contractor that paint throughout the project is in good condition and that the building exteriors should not require repainting for .at least five years. A reserve deposit may be established to cover the estimated prorated costs for the repainting of the units where repainting will be required prior to a 5—year period. D. A report by a licensed termite and pest control specialist certifying that the structures are free of infestation and structural damage caused by pests. 82. Should the units be initially occupied as apartment units, all applicances shall either be replaced with new units or the initial buyers provided with a one—year's parts and warranty guarantee on all applicances. 83. The developer shall provide guarantees -that a minimum of 10% of the multi—family units in the project shall be maintained as rental units for a period of five years. The document providing said agreement shall be subject to review and approval by the City Attorney. Such 10% shall be calculated, utilizing the number of units in Villages I, II, III, IV, V and VII as a base (1019 proposed units for a commitment of 102 units to the rental pool) . Commencing with the date of issuance of an occupancy permit on the 102nd multi—family unit within Villages I through V, the developer shall guarantee that a minimum of 102 units shall be available for rent at all times within the above Villages until the Condition has been satisifed. This Condition may be met individually within any one Village, or collectively over all the affected Villages. Developer agrees that until the Condition has been satisfied, there shall be no conversion of codominium units for sale within Village V. 4. Minimal dimensional criteria for dwelling units established on the single family residential lots in Village VI shall include the following: A. Front yards — 20—foot minimum; subject to review and approval by the Planning Director, may be varied from 18 to 22 feet to provide variety while generally maintaining the 20—foot average. • • —19— 1 B. Side Yards - 1. One story units - 5-foot minimum flat and useable each side r 12-foot minimum street side sideyard 2. .•Two story units - -5-foot minimum flat and useable each side -15-foot minimum street side sideyard C. Rear Yards - 20-foot minimum, to be generally flat and useable. D. Pad Areas - 45' x 95' minimum, with the 45' width measured from front setback line through to the rear of the lot. In addition to the above, the design of single family residential units developed shall provide for the maximum unit privacy through use of building layouts which maximize useable side and rear yard areas with offsets of windows and similar inter-building design considerations. The majority of the two-story units shall observe an additional front yard setback requirement whereby the building face of the second story shall observe a setback of an additional five feet + from the building face of the garage. Two-story units shall generally avoid use of shed- type roof designs, but rather shall generally utilize roof designs which serve to mitigate possible visual impacts resulting from the height and proximity of two-story units. During the Site Development Review process, the developer may request and be granted modifications from the above minimum rear yard dimensional criteria in.individual situations where such modifications would add diversity to the project or privacy to individual units which, in the discretion of the Planning Director, improves the overall design. The builder shall maintain a minimum of 1,000 square feet of flat and useable area within 80% of the rear yards and a minimum of 900 square feet of flat and useable area within the remainder of the rear yards through the selection of appropriate houses to fit individual lots. Additionally, the developer shall investigate the feasibility of steepening cut and fill slopes to increase the useable pad area without impacting the stability of the slope design. The purpose of this Condition is to encourage the proper matching of housing types to individual lots and adjusting grades to increase useable area, but is not intended to require a reduction in the number of lots during the Site Development Review process. Except as specifically modified by the above listed design criteria, or as established elsewhere in the Conditions of Approval for this project, the single family residential lots developed within Villages VI and VII shall be subject to the guidelines of the R-1 Single Family Residential District as regards both land use restrictions and minimum/maximum development criteria. 85. To assure that adequate diversity of-building architecture across the project as a whole will be provided, individual Villages, or groupings of contiguous Villages (i.e., Villages II and III as a grouping, and Villages IV and V as a grouping) shall be designed in a manner to allow them to stand-alone with village-specific architectural features (such as alternate types of roofing or siding materials, alternate use of open or enclosed stairwells, etc.). Detailed design review of project architecture shall be made at the time of submittal of the respective Site Development Review applications for each proposed Village. 86. The minimum distances between buildings and building appurtenances in the multi-family Villages shall comply with the following criteria: The term "building wall" shall refer to the exterior side of building walls containing heated space (with the exception of the enclosed entry in the "E" type building). A. 20 feet between all building walls, with deviation from the • minimum separation subject to review and approval by the Planning Director through the Site Development Review process,•to consider case-by-case reductions to 15 feet when: -20- 1. The living room windows are separated by a minimum distance of 40 feet measured perpendicularly from the sliding glass 2. Living room to bedrooms are separated by 30 feet (measured perpendicularly from the sliding glass door). B. Building/roadway separations, 15 feet minimum, except building setbacks from Dougherty Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and the first 100 feet of each leg of the loop roads from the intersection with Dougherty Road or Amador Valley Boulevard where a 20-foot minimum setback (measured from the rear face of the sound architectural wall or perimeter fence along Dougherty Road or Amador Valley Boulevard ) shall be observed. The 20-foot minimum setback along the loop roads shall be from the face of curb or back of sidewalk, whichever is applicable. C. Patio/deck and deck/building wall separations - 15-foot minimum. D. Building walls and parking area separations - 10-foot minimum with a minimum of five feet of the width landscaped for screening or parking. E. Building appurtenances to building appurtenance separations (including patios) - 10-foot minimum separation. Stairway landings may be closer than 10 feet where privacy is not compromised as approved by the Planning Director through the Site Development Review process. 87. The two easterly cross streets in Village VI shall be terminated in -cul-de-sacs. The applicant's engineer shall investigate the feasibility of incorporating two additional cul-de-sacs, with emergency breakthrough vehicular access inter-connection between the two cul-de-sacs, along the most westerly proposed through street in Village VI (and subject to Staff review of the Site Development Review for Village VI). 88. The minimum width of the creek-side pedestrian walkway strip shall be 14 feet (measured from face-of-curb to the flood control maintenance fence) for a minimum of 50% of the strip's frontage along Villages II through V. Subject to review and approval by the Planning Director, this width may be reduced to a minimum width of 10 feet for the remainder of the referenced frontage. The pedestrian walkway strip shall include a 6- foot minimum width concrete walkway which, wherever feasible, shall meander within the creek-side walkway strip. The walkway shall also maintain a four-foot landscaped setback from the curb and the flood control fence where the width of the strip so allows. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 24th day of March, 1986. AYES: Councilmembers Hegarty, Jeffery, Moffatt, Vonheeder and Mayor Snyder NOES: None ABSENT: None X-Ct C-) v P1ayo'r �i� ST: City Cler • • -21- v'n d r= 3'.•t v..totia w zr !:,1:. j, :•-z,: ..?nr •,-; -- Regular Meeting - March 7, 1988 A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on March 7, 1988, in the Meeting Room, Dublin Library. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Cm. Barnes, Chairperson. * * * * ROLL CALL PRESENT: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, Mack, Tempel, and Zika, Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director, Rod Barger, Senior Planner. * * * * PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Barnes led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. * * * * ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA None. * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING The minutes of the meeting of February 16, 1988, were approved as presented. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Tong advised that the Commissioners had received 3 action letters and information regarding the Planning Institute. ATTACHMENT ? Regular Meeting PCM-8-32 March 7, 1988 * * * *_ PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 87-164 Scotsman Manufacturing Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review request to establish outdoor storage yard and construct office and warehouse at 6085 Scarlett Court. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger stated the subject request involves moving the existing Scotsman Manufacturing business from its present location on Scarlett Court to another site just north of where they are now located. The Applicant proposes to establish an outdoor storage yard for modular offices and to construct a 1152+ square foot administrative office building. In addition, the Applicant proposes to move an existing 1600+ square foot warehouse building from the existing Scotsmans location to the proposed new location. The 3+ acre parcel they propose to move to does not contain any permanent structures, however modular offices are now being illegally stored on the site. On September 16, 1983, the Planning Commission gave Scotsman Manufacturing a 3-year approval to operate their modular office storage business on 7+ acres of land (totaling 3 parcels) located at 6085 Scarlett Court. The application was not renewed. The Applicant would like to consolidate these activites on one 3+ acre site. The proposed site is the third parcel back from the Scarlett Court frontage. Mr. Barger stated that the M-1 District allows outdoor storage uses through the Conditional Use Permit procedure if they are found to be appropriately suited for the site as well as for the area in general. The subject site has been used for outdoor storage activities since 1970. The land uses on properties surrounding this site include storage, warehouse and manufacturing activities. The activities associated with the proposed application appear to be appropriate for the property, and in conformance with the General Plan and the M-1 Zoning District. The subject site is served by a 30 foot wide access easement which extends from Scarlett Court and terminates approximately 90 feet from the Southern Pacific right-of-way. According to the City Engineer this access easement will become a public street and will ultimately be connected to the Dublin Boulevard extension. The Applicant will be required to dedicate and improve that portion of the easement fronting on their property in order to insure the installation of the new street. In addition an additional 5 feet of land will be required to be dedicated to the City by the property owner in order to ensure a total of 35 feet of width for the right-of-way. The proposed layout of the site would place a 24' x 48', 1152 square foot modular office facility on the property. It would be located 25 feet back from the ultimate 35 foot wide right-of-way and 125 feet away from the southern property line. A 40' x 40', 1600 square foot metal warehouse building would be moved onto the property from its present location on the existing Scotsman site. It would be located 25 feet east of the proposed modular office building. The remainder of the site would be used for the storage of modular offices and landscaping. There is an existing 20,375 Regular Meeting PCM-8-33 March 7, 1988 square foot concrete pad on the site that will remain. Both buildings will be placed on the slab. The remainder of the the site will be paved with 6 inch aggregate base and chip seal. Two driveways, (one at the north end and another at the south end of the site) will be provided on the access easement for ingress egress with five parking spaces being proposed. An additional two parking spaces will be required to be located in the existing parking area. Mr. Barger further stated the design of the 1152 square foot office building can best be described as a typically bland, unattractive, no-frills modular structure. Staff has requested that the Applicant revise the architecture of this building so that it is at least compatible to the materials, textures and architectural character of the existing Scotsmans building. Staff requested that these revisions be made prior to bringing the proposal to the Planning Commission. The Applicants indicated that they prefer to revise the plans after they have received approval of their application from the Planning Commission. Staff made it clear to the Applicant that if this alternative were taken, no building permits would be issued until the design of the modular office building met Staff's satisfaction. Staff wants to make it clear that the Applicant will be responsible for meeting all Staff-raised architectural concerns for this modular office facilty prior to any building permits being issued. The preliminary landscape plan submitted for the project shows a landscape planter strip that runs along the entire length of the property just east of the 30 foot wide access easement. The width of the planter is essentially 10 feet except where it reaches 25 feet directly in front of the building. It is Staff's opinion that the landscape treatment is inadequate. Ten foot wide landscape planter strips should be provided along the entire lengths of the north, south and east property lines. A 25 foot continuous landscape strip should be provided just east of the access easement (particularly since this will ultimately be a street right-of-way). Staff feels these changes should be incorporated in the plans in order to intensify project landscaping. Staff is willing to concede that some of this landscaping can be completed in phases. A six foot tall cyclone fence with redwood slats will be required to be installed on the north, south and east property lines. The cyclone fence will also be required on the west side of the property. It will be located at the back of the west side landscape strip and run the entire length of the property. It will be set back in and around the driveway areas for customer ingress, egress and parking. Forty foot wide gates are proposed at the driveway locations. A concrete block wall will be required to replace the western chain-link fence (except where the gates are located) immediately after the City accepts the dedication of the right-of-way for the new street. This is required as a means to provide attractive and opaque screening from the activities occurring on the property. Mr. Barger stated that Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following Resolutions: Approving the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance and the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. Regular Meeting PCM-8-34 March 7, 1988 Cm. Zika asked if Scotsman had been operating for 18 months without a permit. Mr. Barger stated that yes, that the modular offices were stored there. Cm. Zika questioned the procedure regarding follow-up on use permit expirations so the don't exceed their time limit. Mr. Barger stated that activity had stopped on the the site and then storage increased. Mr. Barger further stated the Zoning Investigator notifies the Applicant prior to the use permit expiration date. Roger Coupe, 2154 6th Street, Livermore, stated he was in agreement with all conditions, with the exception of Condition #27 which he wished to modify so that landscaping would coincide with road dedication. He also verified in Condition #11 the finish floor elevation of the buildings shall be a minimum elevation of 330, not 320. Cm. Mack questioned if acceptance would risk satisfying Staff with regards to architecture. Mr. Coupe stated yes, but he will present new details to Staff's satisfaction. Bud Gennoy stated that someone had put some trailers in the back area, but that storage of modulars will not be on the parcel. Cm. Zika stated he was concerned with the time frame and as to how it would be worded with regards to completion. Mr. Barger stated that Staff would recommend 6 months after the dedication is accepted the wall should be complete. There being no further comments, Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Zika and by a vote of 5-0 a Resolution was adopted recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance for PA 87-164 Scotsman Manufacturing Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 008 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING PA 87-164 SCOTSMAN MANUFACTURING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUESTS On motion by Cm. Mack, with change to Condition #11 from 320 to 330 and Condition #27 to reflect completion date of no later than 6 months from acceptance of the road dedication, seconded by Cm. Tempel and by a vote of 5-0 a Resolution was adopted recommending that the Planning Commission approve the Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for PA 87-164 Scotsman Manufacturing. RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 009 APPROVING PA 87-164 SCOTSMAN MANUFACTURING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST 6085 SCARLETT COURT Regular Meeting PCM-8-35 March 7, 1988 * * * * SUBJECT: PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Sign Program Conditional Use Permit and Variance request for nine directional tract signs and to exceed allowable square footage and height restrictions west of Dougherty Road north and south of Amador Valley Boulevard. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger stated the Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of nine (9) directional tract signs to identify the Villages residential developments located at Dougherty Road, Willow Creek and Amador Valley Boulevard. The Applicant is also requesting approval of a Variance to allow seven of the directional tract signs to exceed the maximum permitted sign copy square footage (32 square feet) and to allow three of them to exceed the maximum height of 12 feet. Mr. Barger provided a description of the nine (9) directional tract signs and indicated where each does not comply with the sign regulations. At site A-1 the Freestanding single face sign has 32 square feet of copy. It is 11 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Wildwood Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Non-conformity: The sign is located in an open space area rather than on one of the Village sites. At site A-2 the Freestanding single face sign has 32 square feet of copy. It is 11 feet tall and would be located near the northeastern side of Village 5. Non-conformity: The sign is located off-site and not on any land controlled by the Applicant. At site B-1 the Freestanding double face sign has 24 square feet per face for a total of 48 square feet. It is 10 feet tall and located on the northeast corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Wildwood Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. At site B-2 the Freestanding double face sign has 32 square feet per face for a total of 62 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on the north side of Willow Creek Road, west of Dougherty Road. Non-Conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. At site B-3 the Freestanding double face sign has 32 square feet per face for a total of 62 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on Wildwood Road just west of Dougherty Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet, and it is located on the park site rather than on one of the Village sites. At site B-4 the Freestanding double face sign has 32 square feet per face for a total of 62 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on Willow Creek Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. At site D-1 the Freestanding double face sign has 80 square feet per face for a total of 160 square feet. It is 17.5 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Non- Regular Meeting PCM-8-36 March 7, 1988 � n conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. Sign copy contains more than the name and location of the subdivision (phone numbers; "Models At Amador Lakes Apartments on Stagecoach Road"). At site D-2 the Freestanding double face sign has 80 square feet per face for a total of 160 square feet. It is 17.5 feet tall and located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Willow Creek Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. At site D-3 the Freestanding double face sign has 80 square feet per face for a total of 160 square feet. It is 17.5 feet tall and located in the northeastern corner of Village 5. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. Mr. Barger further stated for new development projects it is typical for the City to allow (through the Conditional Use Permit procedure) two directional tract signs per subdivision. The signs should be located on private property out of the public right-of-way. In addition compliance with the total sign copy square footage limitation of 32 square feet is enforced. When an application is submitted and it is in conformance with the above regulations there is reasonable justification for Staff to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the request. In the case of this application, none of the signs fully conform with the regulations for directional tract signs. All nine have some form of non- conformity as listed in the descriptions on the previous page. Because of these non-conformaties Staff cannot recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Request until; 1) all non-conformities are reasonably eliminated; and 2) a sign program with a maximum of five (5) directional tract signs is proposed. These signs should consolidate as much information as possible on the various Village projects. The reason for suggesting a five sign limitation for all seven Villages is because their close proximity precludes the need to have more than five signs if they are placed in more strategic locations. Mr. Barger stated there are a number of non-conformities associated with the proposed sign program. Some must be complied with if approval is to be granted. Others (such as exceeding height limits and copy square footage restrictions) must be addressed through the Variance procedure. Seven of the signs (signs B-1 through B-4 and D-1 through D-3) exceed the 32 square foot copy restrictions established by the sign regulations (ranging from a low 42 square feet, and a high of 160 square feet). Three of the signs (signs D-1 through D-3) exceed the 12 foot height reulations established for directional tract signs (all at 17.5'). These non-conformities in Staff's opinion are excessive and there is no justifiable reason to grant Variance approval. Mr. Barger expressed that prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made, based on facts presented in the record. These include 1) in order to grant a Variance there must be some characteristic pertaining to the property that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impractable. (Staff's review of the sites finds that there are no special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics of the property. The Regular Meeting PCM-8-37 March 7, 1988 Villages have frontages on Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, both of which together could easily accommodate up to five strategically placed directional tract signs in locations that are on-site and highly visible). 2) that in order to grant a Variance, the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other Property Owners have not been given the right to do. (The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege because allowing directional tract signs that exceed the height and copy square footage restrictions would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to other Property Owners in similar situations). 3) that approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood in any fashion. (If approved the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where compliance is attainable). Mr. Barger stated that because of the above facts, Staff must recommend that the Variance be denied without prejudice. It may be reasonable to consider a minor adjustment to the sign height in cases where the sign can only be placed behind the wall. Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit and Variance requests for PA 88-003, Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Sign Program. Cm. Burnham asked why information regarding the project could not be placed on the sound wall instead of using signs. Mr. Barger stated that the signage should be considered through the sign regulations. Cm. Tempel asked if the applicant were aware of the provisions of the sign ordinance. Mr. Barger stated he believed so, but the applicant was present and could respond. Ron Nahas, Willow Creek Developer, stated he thought a revised plot plan had been submitted, that he had not been notified regarding the Staff report information and felt he had been very sorely treated. He stated he felt that his particular development was unique in nature and felt that the sign ordinance did not address a master plan type of community such as the Willow Creek project. Cm. Burnham asked if some of the signs could be mounted on the exterior sound wall. Mr. Nahas stated he did not want to use the wall for signage. Shirley Corallo, Valley Boat House, stated she would not object to the signs, as a business person, because they were temporary. Cm. Mack asked how temporary the signs were. Mr. Barger stated that until all the units or models were sold, approximately 1 to 2 years. Regular Meeting PCM-8-38 March 7, 1988 Mr. Tong stated that the materials presented were the lastest submitted. Cm. Zika was concerned with the off-site signs especially those located in the park. Mr. Nahas asked for guidance from the Planning Commission and Staff as to what type of signage they would like to see for the project. Mr. Tong stated that the ordinance relating to directional tract signs were more flexable for on-site signs and that a project of this size needs a nicely designed sign program. He stated that Staff recommendation would be toward consolidation of signs. Cm. Zika felt that the 17' signs were awsome. Mr. Nahas stated that the location of the wall made it necessary to put the signs behind the wall and therefore the 17' height was necessary. Mr. Tong stated that there were visibility problems for motorists when the signs were located on the exterior side of the wall. Mr. Tong also suggested that the Planning Commission continue this item to give Staff a chance to meet with the Developer regarding the signage. Cm. Barnes stated she would not like to see the signs mounted on the wall but would like to see the signs shorter and smaller. Cm. Mack agreed with Cm. Barnes with regard to the sizes of the signs and off-site vs. on-site. Cm. Tempel stated he would like to see the number of signs minimized, but had no direction with regard to height. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a vote of 5-0 Cm. Barnes continued the public hearing to the next meeting. A short recess was called. Cm. Barnes called the meeting back to order at 8:25 p.m. SUBJECT: Dublin Boulevard Extension Plan Line between Dougherty Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad Right-of-Way to consider establishment of plan lines for a portion of the Dublin Boulevard extension. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong gave a brief introduction with some background information which stated that the existing General Plan identifies the general location of the Dublin Boulevard extension with an implementing policy to develop a plan line for a six-lane divided extension from Dougherty Road to Parks RFTA boundary. Regular Meeting PCM-8-39 March 7, 1988 ^ ^ , This roadway extension is proposed as a six-lane facility to serve as an arterial to the extended planning area east of Dougherty Road. This road is the only connection to the extended planning area shown in the General Plan. Mr. Tong also stated that the Dublin Boulevard extension is ultimately planned to extend through the extended planning area and to tie into North Canyons Parkway in the City of Livermore. Dublin Boulevard will serve as a frontage road to I-580. Mr. Lee Thompson, City Engineer, continued with details regarding impacts. Mr. Thompson stated that several traffic and land use issues were identified with this project. The project has been designed to incorporate features which will mitigate adverse impacts. One issue is traffic: Dublin Boulevard extension will eliminate left turns into and out of Scarlett Court near the Dublin Boulevard/Dougherty Road intersection. The Scarlett Court/Dublin Boulevard intersection would be too close to Dougherty Road to allow stacking of vehicles between intersections. An additional connection between Dublin Boulevard and Scarlett Court will be built adjacent to the Alameda County Flood Control channel. Median breaks will be placed along Dublin Boulevard away from intersections to allow left turns and U-turns. Mr. Thompson stated that another issue was land use; Right-of-way needs will require purchase or dedication of portions or all of several properties. These land requirements will result in the need to acquire about 182,125 square feet of land and five structures. Property owners will receive fair market value for the property needed for the full right-of-way width. The City will purchase remnant of lots rendered unusable at a fair market rate. Building owners will also receive a fair market compensation for structures within the proposed right-of-way. Relocation assistance will be provided to businesses or residents who no longer would be able to use their buildings. Where feasible, a building will be constructed, or moved on-site to replace buildings within the proposed right-of-way. Mr. Thompson further stated the Miracle Auto Painting property will have six parking spaces eliminated. Instituting short-term parking (4 hours or less) along this section of Scarlett Court would provide parking for customers who would otherwise park on-site. Mr. Thompson stated that there were the following alternatives; 1) extension alignment at Dougherty Road is proposed to be a right angle to Dougherty Road. Alignments which ranged five degrees north and south from a right angle were also examined to see if impacts on existing structures would differ. The building at the Valley Boat House would need to be eliminated. Mr. Thompson stated that three main alignments were considered for the areas east of the Dougherty Road intersection; A) the entire right-of-way north of the east-west property lines; B) entire right-of-way south of the east-west property lines; C) right-of-way split between properties north and south of the property lines. All three scenarios would require about the same amount of land. Impacts to improvements and existing businesses increase as the line is moved south. Regular Meeting PCM-8-40 March 7, 1988 Mr. Thompson stated that option "A" would have the fewest impacts to existing business; option "B" would require the use of more developed and improved property for the right-of-way which could result in greater costs for compensation to property owners for the taking of property; option "C" is proposed for the plan line as it would minimize impacts to the usability of vacant property and would result in fewer costs to the City for improving the road, as Bridgepoint Properties would install frontage improvements for Dublin Boulevard instead of Sierra Lane. With regard to the alignment of a connecting street between Dublin Boulevard extension and Scarlett Court Mr. Thompson stated this would be necessary to improve circulation in the project area, as the close proximity of the Scarlet Court intersection to the Dougherty Road intersection will require that access to Scarlett Court become right-turn-in and right-turn-out, with a median barrier on the Dublin Boulevard Extension. Mr. Thompson stated that timing of the improvement of Dublin Boulevard extension may be dependent upon demand from development of the extended planning areas to the east. That development may be two to five years from now. If an assessment district is formed, the roadway could be designed and built within a one year time period. Mr. Thompson stated that preliminary estimated costs to acquire property, relocate businesses and residents, design improvements and construct the roadway would be about $8,200,000. These costs represent approximateley $6.8 million for the Dublin Boulevard extension and $1.4 million for the connecting road between Scarlett court and Dublin Boulevard. Cm. Burnham asked if the City would purchase all of the Valley Boat House business site. Mr. Thompson stated that State law required the City to give fair market value and help relocate at a new site. Cm. Burnham inquired about the Dodge dealership site. Mr. Thompson stated the City may help rebuild. Cm. Barnes inquired about the railroad right-of-way Mr. Tong reviewed the uncertain status of the Contra Costa County light rail study. Mr. Tong stated the further extension from Southern Pacific to Tassajara Road will be included in the East Dublin project. John Moore, 329 Cameron Circle, San Ramon, (Bridgepoint Properties) partner of Art Bridges, stated that he supported Staff's approach to the Dublin Boulevard extension. He also mentioned he was agreeable with working with Staff to plan around access of roadway. John Corallo, 6499 Scarlett Court, Valley Boat House, stated he has changed his approach to loosing his business site, recognizes the benefit to the community and expressed support of the project. He is willing to participate in an assessment district but would like to get on with the project. Regular Meeting PCM-8-41 March 7, 1988 � n t Shirley Corallo, 6499 Scarlett Court, Valley Boathouse, stated she would like to collectively work with the City and other property owners. She stated she has a 5 year plan with her bankers and would like to get on with the project. She suggested looking at the potential for making allowances for non- conforming uses such as Miracle Auto Painting. Cm. Burnham asked how long would it be before the project would be completed. Mr. Thompson said if an assessment district was formed approximately 1 year to 18 months, if not, 3-5 years approximately. There being no further comments, Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Burnham, and by a vote of 5-0 a Resolution was adopted recommending that the City Council adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance concerning Dublin Boulevard extension plan line. RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 010 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION PLAN LINE (DOUGHERTY ROAD TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Zika, and by a vote of 5-0 a Resolution was adopted recommending the City Council establish plan line for Dublin Boulevard extension from Dougherty Road to Southern Pacific Right-of-Way. RESOLUTION NO. 88-011 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH PLAN LINE FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION FROM DOUGHERTY ROAD TO SOUTHERN PACIFIC RIGHT-OF-WAY On motion by Cm. Mack, seconded by Cm. Tempel, and by a vote of 5-0 Staff was directed to prepare a Zoning Ordinance which would provide a conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming solely because of condemnation of property. SUBJECT: Dublin Boulevard extension Plan Line between Donlon Way and Amador Plaza Road to consider establishment of plan lines for a portion of the Dublin Boulevard extension. Cm. Barnes opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Tong stated a plan line was established for Dublin Boulevard between Donlon Way and Amador Plaza Road in 1984. Since the City Council adopted the plan line, other studies and projects have revealed that future traffic on Dublin Boulevard will result in unacceptable traffic volumns at peak hours. A revised plan line which would widen Dublin Boulevard and provide additional left and right turn lanes is proposed. Regular Meeting PCM-8-42 March 7, 1988 n Mr. Thompson stated the need for revising the plan line was first apparent when conducting the traffic study of the build-out of downtown Dublin and the traffic impact study for the Hansen Hill Ranch project. These studies revealed that the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road would experience future congestion during peak hours with existing plan line':' configuration. The traffic impact study of the Hansen Hill Ranch recommended revised lane configurations for the intersection of Dublin Boulevard and San Ramon Road that would also accommodate additional dwelling units in the western hill area of Dublin. The build-out figures include allowances for BART station traffic. Mr. Thompson stated the major differnce between the previous plan line and the revised plan line is the provision of double right-turn lanes on the eastbound approach of Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road and triple left-turn lanes on the westbound approach lanes of Dublin Boulevard to San Ramon Road. There would also be four westbound lanes on Dublin Boulevard at the westbound approach to Regional Street. The provision of double right-turn lanes on the eastbound approach at San Ramon Road would require the acquisition of right-of-way from the Shell service station on the southwest corner of the intersection. The provision of triple left-turn lanes plus a through lane and a right-turn lane on the westbound approach at San Ramon Road would require the acquisition of right-of-way west of San Ramon Road on the north side of Dublin Boulevard for approximately 400 feet. Also, acquisition of right-of-way above and beyond that which is depicted on the existing Dublin Plan Line would be required on the north side of Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Regional Street. Between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive, the revised plan line proposes the same right-of-way requirement on the north side of Dublin Boulevard as the existing Plan Line. On the south side of Dublin Boulevard, the revised plan line would require the acquisition of additional right-of-way between San Ramon Road and approximately 180 feet west of Regional Steet and again between Regional Street and Golden Gate Drive, whereas the existing Dublin Plan Line would retain the existing right-of-way. Although additional right-of-way is required for the revised plan line, no structures would have to be demolished. Mr. Thompson stated that although triple left-turn lanes are an unusual configuration, in order to assess the potential for triple left-turn lanes to operate satisfactorily the destination of vehicles currently executing the westbound to southbound left turn was observed. Destinations were fairly evenly split between westbound on I-580, eastbound on I-580, and southbound on Foothill Road into Pleasanton. It should therefore be feasible to erect overhead signs above each of the triple left-turn lanes indicating that vehicles desiring to arrive at one of these three destinations should be in a specific left-turn lane. It is Staff's opinion that signing would be necessary for the smooth operation of the triple left-turn lanes. Mr. Thompson continued by saying the revised plan line also includes two bus turnouts. One is located about 327 feet east of the centerline of Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive intersection on the south side of the street (in front of Crown Chevrolet). The other is located about 170 feet west of the centerline of the same intersection on the north side of the street (in front of Toys R Us). Regular Meeting PCM-8-43 March 7, 1988 Mr. Thompson stated landscaping and parking impacts from the revised plan line will be minimal and the preliminary estimated costs for right-of-way acquisition, design and construction of the road widening is $1.7 million. Cm. Zika asked if the islands at San Ramon Road and Dublin Boulevard would be removed. Mr. Thompson stated that they would be removed. Cm. Tempel expressed concern with lack of expansion for Dublin Boulevard widening. Cm. Burnham asked why the bus turnouts had to be located at the sites suggested. Mr. Thompson stated that the existing bus transfer sites were located at these locations and they encouraged people to cross at a signaled intersection. Pat Costello, Crown Chevrolet express concern with the location of the bus turnout and the widening of Dublin Boulevard. He proposes to loose approximately 50-60 display spaces for cars and the buses will block display of cars. He is concerned with people waiting for the bus sitting on cars. He suggested moving the bus turnout to the east to the Orchard Shopping Center parking lot. Cm. Barnes stated she would like to see the bus turnout moved near the Orchard Shopping Center parking lot. Cm. Barnes closed the public hearing. Cm. Zika questioned whether it would create a problem moving the bus turnout to the Orchard Shopping Center instead of Crown Chevrolet. Michelle DeRobertis, TJKM, saw no major problem with moving the bus turnout site. Mr. Thompson stated a recommendation could be made to the City Council to change the location of the bus turnout. On motion by Cm. Burnham, seconded by Cm. Zika and by a vote of 5-0, a Resolution was adopted recommending that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance concerning Dublin Boulevard revised plan line. RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 012 RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE CONCERNING DUBLIN BOULEVARD REVISED PLAN LINE (DONLON WAY TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD) On motion by Cm. Zika, seconded by Cm. Mack, and by a vote of 5-0 with an amendment to consider moving the bus turnout 1 block west, a Resolution was adopted recommending the City Council establish plan line for Dublin Boulevard extension from Donlon Way to Amador Plaza Road. Regular Meeting PCM-8-44 March 7, 1988 RESOLUTION NO.-88 - 013 RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ESTABLISH PLAN LINE FOR DUBLIN BOULEVARD EXTENSION FROM DONLON WAY TO AMADOR PLAZA ROAD * * * * NEW BUSINESS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Cm. Zika inquired about the slurry seal of Peppertree Road. Mr. Tong stated that Staff will try to include Peppertree Road in the annual slurry program. * * * * OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Tong advised the second reading of the Enea Planned Development Rezone and the Amador Auto Center sign appeal would be heard at the upcoming City Council meeting. * * * * PLANNING COMMISSIONERS' CONCERNS Cm. Burnham questioned if the median in front of Oshman's Sporting Goods on Amador Valley Boulevard would be landscaped. Mr. Thompson stated that section of Amador Valley Boulevard was scheduled to be done when the signal intersection was done. Cm. Tempel was extremely concerned with the traffic related problems throughout the City. Cm. Barnes was concerned with the transformer on Dougherty Road. Mr. Thompson stated that the Army was actually starting with regard to the removal of the transformer. Cm. Zika was concerned with the number of requests for variance to the Sign Ordinance. Mr. Tong stated that the Applicant has a right to apply for a variance and that if the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission decisions are upheld, that would indicate that the Sign Ordinance is working. Cm. Barnes reminded those Commissioners that were attending the Planning Institute to meet at the designated time of 5:15 a.m. Regular Meeting PCM-8-45 March 7, 1988 * * * * ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. . { * * * * Respectfully submitted, { Planning Commission Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director * * * * { 3 Da 4p Regular Meeting PCM-8-46 March 7, 1988 CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: March 7, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff ' `1 SUBJECT: PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, Sign Program, Conditinal Use Permit/Variance GENERAL INFORMATION PROJECT: Conditional Use Permit/Variance request for a Sign Program for nine directional tract signs, seven of which exceed the allowed copy square footage restriction and three of which exceed height restrictions. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development Ron Nahas 2011 Patio Drive, Suite 215 Castro Valley, CA 94546 LOCATION: The Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS: 941-278-2782, -2783, -2784 (Portion of each) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: PD, Planned Development, Residential SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Vacant, City of San Ramon South: Vacant, PD, Planned Development for residential uses East: Camp Park Military Training Reserve West: Open space, PD Planned Development ZONING HISTORY: The original 135+ acre holding was rezoned from an A, Agricultural District, to the R-1-B-5, Single Family Residential-Combining District, and the C-N, Neighborhood Business District, by Zoning Unit 638, approved by the Alameda County Board of Supervisors on December 5, 1964. The Zoning designation R-1-B-5 was subsequently relettered to an R-1-B-E designation. On April 15, 1985, the Planning Commission granted approval for a four-parcel minor subdivision under Tentative Parcel Map 4575. The parcel split was requested to facilitate a purchase option agreement the Applicant (Rafanelli & Nahas Real Estate Development) had with the original Property Owner. On March 24, 1986, the City Council granted approval for the PD, Planned Development District and Tentative Map applications for the 1,165-unit Villages at Willow Creek project (PA 85-041.1 and .2) . There are seven residential Villages under separate applications and in various stages. ATTACHMENT ITEM NO. �o . APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-87.10(f) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance (Sign Regulations) defines Directional Tract signs as a temporary signs containing only the name and location of a subdivision and/or a multiple family residential project and direction for reaching the same. Section 8-87.60 of the Sign Regulations states that Directional Tract Signs may be located in required yards if a Conditional Use Permit is granted. Section 8-87.60(a) of the Sign Regulations states that Directional Tract Signs in any district are limited to thirty-two square feet maximum copy area and a maximum of twelve feet in height. Section 8-94.0 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance states that conditional uses must be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or performance standards established for the district in which it is located. Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditinal Use Permit may be valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited to the following matters: a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings; b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities; c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be void; d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the posting of bond; 3) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County Government. Section 8-93.0 (Variance) and Government Code Section 65906 (State law re: Variance findings) indicate that the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact upon each of these three requirements: 1) that there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification; 2) that the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone; and 3) that the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. Section 8-93.1 - .4 establishes the procedures, required action and effective date for granting or denying a Variance, and indicates the granting of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitations and guarantees. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project has been found to be categorically exempt from CEPA under Section 15311, Class II(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the March 7, 1988 hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to property owners and posted in public buildings. -2 ANALYSIS The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit to allow the use of nine (9) directional tract signs to identify the Villages residential developments located at Dougherty Road, Willow Creek and Amador Valley Boulevard. The Applicant is also requesting approval of,a Variance to allow seven of the directional tract signs to exceed the maximum permitted sign copy square footage (32 square feet) and to allow three of them to exceed the maximum height of 12 feet. Background Attachment 1 shows the location of the 7 Village sites and the location of the proposed signs identified as (A-1-D-2). Background Attachment 2 shows partial site plans indicating the location of the signs. Background Attachment 3 shows the elevations of the signs. The following provides a description of the nine (9) directional tract signs and indicates where each does not comply with the sign regulations: DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED DIRECTIONAL TRACT SIGNS A-1: Freesstanding single face sign with 32 square feet of copy. It is 11 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Wildwood Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Non-conformity: The sign is located in an open space area rather than on one of the Village sites. A-2: Freestanding single face sign with 32 square feet of copy. It is 11 feet tall and would be located near the northeastern side of Village 5. Non-conformity: The sign is located off-site and not on any land controlled by the Applicant. B-1: Freestanding double face sign, 24 square per face for a total of 48 square feet. It is 10 feet tall and located on the northeast corner of Amador Valley Boulevard and Wildwood Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. B-2: Freestanding double face sign, 32 square feet per face for a total of 62 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on the north side of Willow Creek Road, west of Dougherty Road. Non-Conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. B-3: Freestanding double face sign, 32 square feet per face for a total of 62 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on Wildwood Road just west of Dougherty Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet, and it is located on the park site rather than on one of the Village sites. B-4: Freestanding double face sign, 32 square feet per face for a total of 62 square feet. It is 12 feet tall and located on Willow Creek Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. D-1: Freestanding double face sign, 80 square feet per face for a total of 160 square feet. It is 17.5 feet tall and would be located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard. Non- conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. Sign copy contains more than the name and location of the subdivision (phone numbers; "Models At Amador Lakes Apartments on Stagecoach Road"). D-2: Freestanding double face sign, 80 square feet per face for a total of 160 square feet. It is 17.5 feet tall and located on the northwest corner of Dougherty Road and Willow Creek Road. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. D_3: Freestanding double face sign, 80 square feet per face for a total of 160 square feet. It is 17.5 feet tall and located in the northeastern corner of Village 5. Non-conformity: Total sign copy exceeds 32 square ' feet. Sign height exceeds 12 feet. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: For new development projects it is typical for the City to allow (through the Conditional Use Permit procedure) two (2) directional tract signs per subdivision. The signs should be located on private property out of the public right-of-way. In addition compliance with the total sign copy square 3 footage limitation of 32 square feet is enforced. When an application is submitted and it is in conformance with the above regulations (in addition to being attractively designed and appropriately located) there is reasonable justification for Staff to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the request. In the case of this application, none of the signs fully conform with the regulations for directional tract signs. All nine have some form of non- conformity as listed in the descriptions on the previous page. Because of these non-conformaties Staff cannot recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit Request until: 1) All non-conformities (as listed in the Directional Tract Sign descriptions on page 3 of this report) are reasonably eliminated; and 2) A sign program with a maximum of five (5) directional tract signs is proposed. These signs should consolidate as much information as possible on the various Village projects (limiting the copy to name location and direction to the subdivisions). A plan showing potential sign locations is provided in Attachment 5. The reason for suggesting a five sign limitation for all seven Villages is because their close proximity precludes the need to have more than five signs if they are placed in more strategic locations. VARIANCE: As mentioned earlier in this report there are a number of non- conformities associated with the proposed sign program. Some (such as having more than the name, address and direction on the sign copy) must be complied with if approval is to be granted. Others (such as exceeding height limits and copy square footage restrictions) must be addressed through the Variance procedure. Seven of the signs (signs B-1 through B-4 and D-1 through D-3) exceed the 32 square foot copy restrictions established by the sign regulations (ranging from a low 42 square feet, and a high of 160 square feet). Three of the signs (signs D-1 through D-3) exceed the 12 foot height reulations established for directional tract signs (all at 17.5'). These non- conformities in Staff's opinion are excessive and there is no justifiable reason to grant Variance approval. Prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made, based on facts presented in the record. These include: 1. That there are special circumstances relating to physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape and topography) which would deprive the Property Owner of privileges enjoyed by others in the identical zoning district. What this means is: in order to grant a Variance there must be some characteristic pertaining to the property that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impractable. Staff's review of the sites finds that there are no special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics of the property. The Villages have frontages on Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard, both of which together could easily accommodate up to five strategically placed directional tract signs in locations that are on-site and highly visible. 2. That the granting of the Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges. This means that in order to grant a Variance, the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other Property Owners have not been given the right to do. The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege because allowing directional tract signs that exceed the height and copy square footage restrictions would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to other Property Owners in similar situations. -4- 3. That the Variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. This means approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood in any fashion. If approved the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where compliance is attainable. Because of the above facts, Staff must recommend that the Variance be denied without prejudice. It may be reasonable to consider a minor adjustment to the sign height in cases where the sign can only be placed behind the wall. RECOMMENDATIONS FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from Applicant and the public. 3) Queston Staff, Applicant and the public. 4) Close public hearing and deliberate. 5a) Adopt Resolution denying Conditional Use Permit request. b) Adopt Resolution denying Variance request, or: c) Give Staff and the Applicant direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution denying the Conditional Use Permit and Variance requests for PA 88-003, Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Sign Program. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Draft Resolution regarding PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Sign Program, Conditional Use Permit recommending denial without prejudice. Exhibit B: Draft Resolution regarding PA 88-003 Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard Sign Program Variance, recommending denial without prejudice. BACKGROUND ATTACHMENTS: 1. Site Plan 2. Partial Site Plans 3. Sign Elevations 4. Vicinity Map 5. Site plan showing potential sign locations. -5- RESOLUTION No. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING PA 88-003 VILLAGES AT WILLOW CREEK ROAD, DOUGHERTY ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SIGN PROGRAM CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEREAS, Ron Nahas of Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development filed an a Conditional Use Permit for a Sign Program containing nine directional tract signs (seven of which exceed the allowed copy square footage restrictions and three of which exceed height restrictions) for the Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 7, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: A. The use is not required by the public need at the proposed location because the size, height and copy of the signs exceeds what is permitted by the Zoning Ordinance for directional tract signs. B. The use is inappropriate in that the size, height and copy of signs is excessive in comparison with what is typically allowed for other subdivision with directional tract signs. C. The use, if permitted under all circumstantes and conditions of this particular case, would materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the area, as all applicable regulations will not be met. D. The use will be contrary to the specific intent, clause or performance standard of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance in that: 1. Seven of the nine proposed directional tract signs exceed the maximum copy square footage restrictions. 2. Three of the nine proposed directional tract signs exceed the maximum height restrictions. 3. One of the directional tract signs is located off site while another is located in a designated open space area. 4. One of the directional tract signs has verbage in excess of what is allowed to be on the signs. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission denies without prejudice the Conditional Use Permit Request in PA 88-003. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 1988. AYES: NOES: PRESENT: ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Planning Director nw8tT -A RESOLUTION No. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING PA 88-003 VILLAGES AT WILLOW CREEK ROAD, DOUGHERTY ROAD AND AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SIGN PROGRAM VARIANCE WHEREAS, Ron Nahas of Rafanelli and Nahas Real Estate Development filed a Variance for a Sign Program containing nine directional tract signs (seven of which exceed the allowed copy square footage restrictions and three of which exceed height restrictions) for the Villages at Willow Creek Road, Dougherty Road and Amador Valley Boulevard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 7, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the provisions of the Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied without prejudice; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: A. There are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification if strict compliance with the Zoning Regulations for directional tract signs were observed. B. The granting of teh Variance application would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, in that no special circumstances exist which warrant granting the Variance. C. The granting of this Variance application would be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood because if approved it could set an unwanted precedence of granting Variance in situations where the standards of the Zoning Ordinance could be complied with. • BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission denies without prejudice the Variance Request in PA 88-003. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 7th day of March, 1988. Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director EXHIBIT 13 s;i ; Q • • 1.......:.r....• MA� / iW r • �/ . M Il )b, _ • • . it:: . • .1,4.111 v ` • (1 y . y ,..„,„, ,,,:„ , • • va ;;;11:''JC:: .d.,k 0 -. __/•••• I ,.4- �� . A- (4 ` • • G • • . • Ai , .... " / . . . ,,_ . , .f., . . ... ; . , .... . . . 11 ....• ., . . • ol -� e . >. i• . _.... • __________ . . . . ." . , .. s . ... . I t • .. '•• , .,.",„.. . ••• . , • ,, , '' • • .. , '.:" /. • 1,." . . • ,'''..:.• .•• •••••-•''' •. , • . , ':. • .: ., .4. . . . . , • . . , . • .‘,, ' , . •4 • • .. • i • ••, • ..•:.....•.•:.,.0., a,.. . • • • i• •/ • . •• . • • •. •••. •• :: '' ••.. • . ••• • . •.• ••.. . •,•, .. . . ..... . . , • • •• :: ..... • .. ••• •• • • o • .• a...... . • . • .•., . . • •• . .. ••,... .. . . .••••. ••• . . . . • • •• . .•.... . . . • 1•:• , i : , • • . ••• • . ••• ..• . . . •..: r . ..... . . .... . . .. .,. . . .. . :.. . .. .. . .. . ....-• - ..': . •••. . . -. .. . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . • . . . . . • . , . - • - A . . - .., ,..- . .\ . . > -A -., ...04 . . •:‘ ..• ,>. ...A '..k.) .,. "k •.• • I.. .....\ ......... . ....S." 477 A\ 'V • ••\/ ' 'CA• .....:. 1. .1.4f,re ..S. ", .. .e.‘..." \NI's _...i. / . . ISV .......c ....04.2> 1..,...N. <;A:)......1..".. . • . . . . . . . ...\.\ . ..... . \ .'. ATTACHMENT 2 • • • • • • • • • A IN) 1 1 • • Hi Z ru\'-/? P ZINSI. y..)?----\ .• . ...i. 3 m . 0 !YY N .: .I D - m . • . ; . , • • • , . ,,,,„.,.., -.. ,,., • • :f, % •., ,-•, , ,,,•,:t,.44,:,- tA. ,.. % , 41,1,gi ,,t- , , •.., , , ,. ., • „ r.:' . , ' 1 .'' '- " :.''•''. le...4 1'1,-'1.C-Ii:',.‘",' -I:-•-,c '';('*•••0'1,,4 il.1.41..tf7.4.1%4 `1..'''''.'rli• ','1'.'::na';,--,:. ..-., ./ ,;,/ ,'.• . •)1, " - ,, - ' • '''' ,,,I'''..;';4.1.1 ,'••"./ ' ,,, ,,- ...,?,-.4.'•..;.'4,,,& •-4 .,-..4.1,'Y').;;'jt.f`V ; ; I).'.,T"." , .4-‘..2t:* . ••' • . 4 ,, .... . . .... .. .. . i,.,i ... : ....,•,.. ,... I.'-' ,•A',=':., ',..'' %r).4 ;97.4.44"', A f. '-,'..4 ‘..,.".,",,'• f' ' . • • . •• • ' '', '' +.,, A,.. sr''A. ,'.".'"'",' ''',".•Fie- 90 ,,t,! ^ 4-. • '- • • , •,', , • -,,-;.'" '••• i- • ,-• • •i- .4, -r,,:l,4.,,ii.",%•• . .. t . , • • - -',•• ''', '', ",; - ' ' - /f-;-ti V ort&p,•- ,•,'",..Y,.5.:",'/.• .: - -: -, , , , , , , _. , - '•• . f=';•,•; •,''' •"`' -7-,:',;•1•'4 -•• .••' ,i• - - , ,-':- ;'4 - - '.,,"'- ',,,,'./•'•:.,'• f . • •-I.': 1•)::• . ‘? ...,) .1 4:...,••;7 • .•05% . -. 4•4;',:.. ' I tti,,,i:;,. . . • i". 1., svce••.,%?, , '.;;::•. '74.•, 'IP:••1' 1 \ • % ',;-'•• .' > . •r%,• '. .-:;. ./:.,•. ::::' .•••.•-14',. .# • ..-.., :,•,,,..••. . ii--- 2.;"'... ..-'.. , •• <• / ;•••••••• 'r•; 4c) • "2 / .,-4-'1, % .• 1- •• i'•:/*.:-.1 t'l Drre 13-1- • c't -.•- :-.".;-.1--"‘........."•-•.-.0.."....,".„.... ,.../...-• .... N.... 7.....:•; . .. .:4';-':'-.. •,-‘ ,...._., -'1 ..J.:.: .,..• .....-- c'I -,.• r Tel\ A\-1 s5.;• .....N i''''')..%. • ,'S- \:•-. .4 •. A'.' ;•..-il ..... - L. ‘ • - ..- A.-. k"i...'";.::.,- !..,.-_.. • .•••II-."'", ."-• ....;:..' ... ,"--:•e:_ •,.'. ••••.., \• ••••••;-:•11 0.•:,.. .% • ...7.,(,- r V.•;•1•-•I :14'•••.1 . •.-.S1 --: ....... . . 7 -.-::...z .!'..c-• ..‘. ....::•,•;'1, •-/...' . -....." --,-. 1 ..e:•*. % •-• • .,<•.'..". ......".....1 ,•-... . . i.1‘C:2 i.:....,-.4 ••rf•-r% ...:41,-••••! c-'....-'.• .• •.•.1.7.::: ..•-•'• \ :...‘.•••:• .,e• -. r..''.-:,•''', .."• • 1-P`v‘i ;•...,:,....3 ....:-.-. .:.;.....4 Z•zni'izI ,,...!tk, • •-.1t1S:1; e'.. ,-,_ c-- -: -• •-•'''''''. is-,' . • ..„. 0-.----.4 ..----- • 0-t:-.:., -,.;;:.-• . t•,.•-c,- -1•!::•! t-..... t••••••••1 . ....c.-:4 ., •j :.-...- -,-:. sr.•.- 4.••• ,:..1 . -.• . ..'• • ••• ' r. •.: •• . •'... •.' I • • • I • • / SC-Al 1 • DR AWN IT. F , ..... I 4-5.9 t,f/iA • PROJ AO.... ...., MR OJE CT • . THE -'-V. „.. .. ei....:„../ ,,,,, ,, li i ,..,14 cpc.t. .:—... Y•i 4••-%."•-" NO1 . 41117nAL * DIAMOND 408 242 '4,tZ'''ittitW•':4* -'1.4'.1211141 '''..,satlAmpott r • ' ' .i .1 . ...- ,;fv.• :.,:" , ..0--1.' ,.....•e.'•-• . . .. . II .• •, - . ••- . . • • r ' • - . • , ' • • ' • . - . . . . . . . , , . - . • . . . , . . , , . • - . •, . • . • . •. ,,, ,.. .. •••, '',.•• ... . , • . • : . ,..,, •• . ''4. .: • . . .. '...• ••. • ' • ,... . • . .... ,.. . . . . . . . ... . . .. • , . .. ./.:••; , .., • . . . •,......• .. ... '• •.• . :••.. • • • .: . .. . r . . •. . . . . ...• - • .-• • ... .. ' . . .. . ..,. . ., • . . .'. . . ..., ... • . . . .., . ..... -. •.. „..... -... .. ... ,. . • . ...... , . . . ' .• ... .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . ... . . '. •. . . ..... . .. .... 1.. . ... ' r . .. • ... :....... . ::.:.. .• . ... . • ....• . . .. .- . . .." ... . . . . ,...•. .. . _ . . . ..:• .. . .. , .. . . . .. .. . . • - •• . . /. . . . ' . ' . ../.':../ . . . . . . •\ . • . . . . . . . • 1., ..„, . • , ...„0" . • X .e../ . .........„..•• .„....-' .00.5, , %. . : . • . . , . \ • . . • t\ . ... . r . 0 . . 3 . . . . i • . 1 . . .......„. . ..).% 1 . . N.. I . . '(-- • ' . . • ‘ , ...."*"....."::45../ ' 0 ,i• .." tisi et\1 I .........„....•1,...." .....4...„. ,..• ...- er...2.; >"" . . . . . • .5:It.. . • A • -t\0 . • . kv.. . i•••• . ''"'• • • M (Ir�wli. I�•,t,.,.y. -1' I �% ,1I,4; on/••.: r l •�w4/a �• At, l�•,• > t ! . • ..j,P./� '' , i t' • ' i i�•r,y•f /Il y/J.j. 11 ri�L I f, ! ,. y re . 11, • ,i' ! • P r., '•/-y.µ• • iM t J' i 1/+/ 1 M !t a�/ //,P.4/4•", ri •JK• / • • i.l• • • A `'p �'.,x! "�,�, ,l ,.it/Jy� '.r ! / ,• •,1/ , ' �! I Jlr..A• 11114''7,I l"F i 7'•."��,1,e p, _ . _ .l J • • A' /I • t: r, /. • q •f• _ .... ..0 /, ''. • • • � • r , •� it,p3 ,1 ry i%1' •.t /, • , ,- ,{ l/ti t t Y. to- •''�71 �I/t.w..0 G a4- ✓ :4,•At , C: :y •/„ i,„ : .' : • • • - •:f • t'' /9 • . .✓•4"''rr, 4141',''" ,�vii,„,.a. •' .• t"'.^'.::ru:. ii ...!.•.ICi u.4.rl.ir sd✓l...—dr ...../”4.4 .J...4►i.a..ita.:aL.... i...- • C`' flE�/Y r�C• 'ip "'le.1-1 -rfFiD • arc:IL-I e►7 sect. /A a..ttn/rY: ��-Ip PROJECT � ' REY MQ! AG ' --z13 v LWv4 Cfz��:1t - '\ _THE : RtY. PAGE Z. , �Y O��l Y�O�D•,. ..: ��y rrats ,GROU � , i."��.Cp�� ,?.$-.„.'�1� ''.i'.�y.,�.�V�y,.YwME`�1' m�}��:•aV• P \S.¢-.! }0.C �•�4��F+4;yi �(;dlSi�`ti`•1` �!01516 ,i *tip ♦ \ 1�. Concept by Hasulak & Associates, Inc. • • r ,,, t , E • rn s14 TypE: • . ' •• ':'. , .../.. .. , "''', • /..,,. 2e,,,,, • • -',..: • . : .... „, , , . . • ::'• .: . ' •:, , • , ... . . • • ' ':,• ,.-••••••' .. .,. .. . .',. •— • :, "("7-\ .,. , ! ' •••'" • .•,. ,. . ... , .• . .'. . , • , .•. . .... . . •. • ..• • .., . „ . .. ::.....', -.• . . '••.' • ... , .. .. . ,•t . . . . .•'•, . . .'. . . •.... ... . ' • „' „.. . •. ... •'., •.. : .. f . ,. . • . . ..••.. . '• .: . .• . . . .. . ....„ ... . . - : ., . . .- •.. r . . . . .... . -. . •.- .. .• -: • , . : .• ... .. .. - ........ . .... .... . . . .,.. . . . . . . . - . . . . . .: . . ; . . 1 i f-1 i P i I . i 1 . • .. • i •. . il . liLI 1.-,} ri, T ; ). I : - : • I ; . . . • . - i 1 1 . -li ..--411V,•/.. - ...•; ..,,, •••" .1 a \ ....,......„,t_ 1....=. ..__. ....,...„.••••--- , ,..........,--------r— •----,----------1--r----T-T-----,---...... .. ----\---"\--"<". .... , . , t ,...... ...„--- ,/,4 1--1-- -I e 71 1.•. A1.416,3:70 \ 9' t ,(... ,...,,1 . . tt is:.1 • _ .. , • ' , '-, ,• : '..7,-1,-s,c., •:, -' '' -1, 1-,':,',..),:: ,•••-",:- '• • , •- •. ,.: -•i•• '''-' - ' ..'-' • ,t •,r.;••',,•• " . , . , , , • , . . - , • ..,, . ,. , , .. . ' , • . , ..• . .. • . , .. . • ,. \ \ \ •, \ \ ‘ . . \% \\ \‘. ....'1., t \ . 1 ": .., c•• I • : .... ••• • ., ••••"' . 1... . (.7., N' •-: -7% . s • , , ..... . i . .••\ '''' S. \ •:....:1.‘ , •\ . 'lc/ • .-A % . X .N. ,..\.1 • \I, . " . 1 * • .\? < P. _.... IN. .• X . . -\ 14 ''"*•-.....•......1,.-1. ....-7..... /..7 .,• CI• \ . 0 \\ • ''. \ \ f ''' . -->-' .%_. . - • , . \..\•1 \ \ - \\\:\ • i • . •. . . . • . . II, \/•\\''‘`. . . • -- . • • . . • • • • . - • . . . . • , • . ,. -,•-•••.:-;•=s . - • -,-,•-•:','• ..:i---------,z-:;:.%•• c,Are• 1 2.....iq..67 SCALI:ALJAA DRAWN IFY..F.•, .11., ........t.,...4.1.-- ,, At'Il•MCI. • P*0.1 140 PROJCT: , €77'1-I 3 V.111.4-014C''. POCK „ ., :--.,--' :1*-1- . •!, • •k::: -- •-•-::•-:.- ,,•••s-'•.=-z ,•'•'• ‘....-THE-...:- -.•,,,, ' ' ••••:,•--,N-, ,-t-- •-:.--'111111nr"-'1-;•.!:;- •::`,Ft:j:'• s DIAMOND'' ....., •• • ...,..•••••• ,.,.„.„....„.„...... s.,•?k";:-.A.,%•%.•••,_44‘,.:-•-•,'%4•IRVINE..:,;••.mama.,71;v:,..,,, ..m3i.,,,,,%., . . \-',<:\A*4111k,,,:,,-.,73--n.t us anovislzzassa*N-A•Nk-Aa. 4- --,..„.•=z,-., -.,,,'OROUPe_,-, ....,...,......-,,. :,-,......,,3.r•:.-' - - - ..„..t. i%.,.:"...:. .- =... .•:7!Ve: --z,.';-„ •..--71- •t.7_"s,:,,,, t ...,•:.%%-•'4...,,tj.^. ,.,..,14eASZ$M•4.—••:AVi.i,,t*.t.:;.?.*1`.‘i.',t'.i.trv,$•...1. 4-.‘*....-.,....,..r—I.=',•'?.-t••<,,r-Is—a--=..s,:•1".;•-. .--:,.- ......--,:::,::.:::\••••,;'•:. ..`,.•,-,..%--t, Concept by Hasulok & Associates, Inc. . . . . . ‘ • . r 1 • . • J ` . '. , • _ . . . • • •• • . • • ' • .1. . , . I • , . s • , . . . — . . .. , . • • t. -:r• • b: f F r L .ri 1i �{_��X/ W.,.. ti t i ,ter•y � 1i, f 4 a r f l r r f i ,it r f+;4+ ' ; �><�' r,� r.6I, '/3 '1",k, , r/t ft ( ,.` 1. i x. r o f r idd �.. "':-,[ /r�'L s � i+✓. l ,.e' x r A ,1 .j Nr fr 'r 'f / f .,rr �h ;OR- - 1. `, �i., j�'., ,, ,- yr - x'r_r1� Y. jar f.+ y i ,. !r• ..a J :_tl I Y i ;'/ c; byr ,.r r f!f Aisr : r A,4 Sr f�)rsjr . s; • ? • f,4 • • - . �,,o • . l r _ -rYp� rJ" • • • • • • QEr[')�'I 1+&1 SUI' 1/A CM AWN•r: r'...1�i ` TY e ,- 2 .AOJECT: �� :� THE AfY _�I../ `� L Ci l Vim+ u-� ��cL I .. '. • A(Y: ` . i' 1 - DIAMOND:: _.F � ��-;:ns as onos mesa �—: • • • Concept by Hasulak & Associates, Inc. , a 7 o , ' I • L i • ` - 1 • • ti • i r 1-- • a a o , n •n 1. ylOu — 10% AIl0n Z �T — --- -- �- -_ goo . .... k•s:•, ..ii ,t,I.,\ .,. ~i„ ' '1 ►_ s— 9 7 0 '','... �u elicit qyz, . , .. .' ,,, ,,.,•,,„ , •, 7- . jab, ',. • , • "Mk. , .• ::•,„: • • . . , , . ,• „.• • . . . , , ..-•• • „ . . • • . . , . '..•.• • ' . .., • " , .. .... . — • . '..•...• ... . .,•••, . „ . . ::•• ' :' . . ...:...•. . • . „ ..„. .... . . ..„ .• . . . . . .. . . . :•• •„ „ . .. . • • , . - . . . , .. ., ':•' : ' . . . . • •.• . .. . .'•-. •. . . . . ; . .. ,. . . . .'• I.:. • 1 . .. . . . . .... , • •: •.. • " '•''. • .... :• ,..- .•• •. . •• ' :• . . . • • • .-. . . " ... . . . . . .. .. . •:.•• . . .. - •. . . . . . . . • . • -1:..._.).) .. t7----------.. ! r- 1 I, 0 r- ' r\1 .r-rn. , 1. ,f ".1 '- ,' % % ..44 $.4 •.,.** ..N -6-.8 , . 0. .. ... .. .. ... ,... % n K s„ s • • ** • •• : rrl r'l ' • • % % • 4 to • r r 1 • • -• 1:::::- ' -.,,,4 ir ... #4,, # ... .• -------=•' •"Z. .1.• • -•- • .• •. . • • • • % • .•< • r-,5 - :7-:i;,..-, ••••••.,...›..., . - . . - 7-Z•->.. I • . . . . • /, to ft • 11111111111111111111.1 1111.111.111111111. IIIIIIIIIII I • - -i . C . Z . 3 -----. (• ....... (---....... , Q. 3. c`A 61 . r•-•), _.. I '''.1\ l'/ • . .... t . .4 '' .17' ......-- . ,N ,_.,./.—.. rl.... al__\ 0 ' mi ' , % . .*: `. . , •• ,•' • . , V 1 % 4., •.,.....:\ o - 7. 2-• .....z._ ____.., q>x• .N. =— r 5 . m i ' .• '•-.: ::_t: '. .7 Nr-N, 0 ----ji" --7\-\ - —.. (--- r-r , c's•Ivo . . __ _ : C11 1 X . . . . i ,.... ..... //M.! - 1•.) I . . - ---, • ..ey,i0 • _ 1 IN t • ; 72 CD . •. . . — = b ..., ... ). . ..c A. .. . • • LI. I . . . -•1 i - . . , .. . i ticq ,..r, Clc: \ „ z, " - rn • -t I-\.• . .... \. -.).. \ -...../ a ' 0 '• 7g \ --N 7.• 4114. 11 1 014 Z tt . -ft.Ac c.\ r.11-'... . . 1 1‘ ' ' • . ' \ :. . .•. _. . _ 1. _ .. -,. .. At. ' .:.,.. g• . .x. rn• fil? s*.4:in..-:,•-•• f•t::::' . 8'..,:e. s.!! '•..!;.'. . .1'.'.C.-=•-;“•• . . .‘•,•..•. • ••• .., • . rillii ., A. ;.'.c:'•.'' .:; • IIP '1>° M . " ' • ' RP . i . - r. 7......... .. , 7.) _.. : • --...7. . ..., c.. (.....,_...,,, ,.._..... 1 8 to 1 , . . ,'..- t i\t' \',I Ir,• • ., - . , •.. . _....•.• . "•. ...X.': , ;'I` - 1 R / n•••,.. 22 \iflm7: n\ 7C _.;....1 •,_ -........__ 7 •-.:. .1 . . ' 'C)s& •<-1 • _NA CS) (, ;V:_-_.' , -.....- %.,..., ‘,.. r"..\\ . . . ———1 1 1 rj D J.__/ _ _ _ . _ .. . . .. • 22 2. 0 ••1 ni l• ... • % .....) M . ....4 1 . . l."........"-'........'. ..'.. ..'..-•-•''''''."..'..."......'.....'.......''..":.......'.....' 1 I I i 1 1 I g-,) -II _. _ • 1 i -t- . I • „,....,,.... . --- .. ' * • —71..c. -s . .... . ...—, __ ........- .....---...--** -----J , • • 1 -211 • 12 ' r- • - . 71 , - • .__ . • (--.!---.), .... ..) . . .• , ._. — ,.• — . •:•:„, T • .. ....) :.• ts.• ± - . • , • . ,., • . I ?,- \\ ,‘,,.\ ..i.„ i .':..). (‘4(TI: .\) 1 . Z: -1 • Vc .: 1 W\ s .... ..• s • I .- . 1 . . . . , .. , . ,.. , • v ', • ri . .::• • .. 1 s- , . '•?..M.-.• , 4 s:i Z,17,2* :7... • : a.,..,.,,., ... . . . ,. 0,43 --- - . . •• 4', : ..-. • . . . Adl . . . P J i . 0 '-'4• . :. 1•••••• 1 , . . , . . . . . .„c_. . r _ . \ '\ ...% v" c C\\ --i \\.....„. c% s" c Pf.0 .-itt'0 n ... I., I 0 0 .1\ \ a......15-' . k•• • • . .... . _-•.•.- . ,s•- 5'r r.-) 8 R--> I . yr. , 6 \ , '. ?,'.. 0 ^ ....t' I ' • X 3. g — • . /1!._ A n.,'=. ,., g .6 , , 7., _, =. __2___, _._,_, . t .. .\,. . . i . c-N,—, _,.j -7_ _. .... ..._.. ._ • r ,- _ ' Sj'/C-- ___ • \l ,* , -\__. \ , Q—___NI )... V...- \_ .. j -_---1 1 r 11 D _... _.•_ - • - . -. • - , o 2 0 'S F ..'". • I: . I. I I I I I I i 1 " I I ,•1 , 1: = • __1., I . t 1 • 77---1...:_____ _______I________ _____=._______ ___/ z. ; 1 • 1, r_. I . ' " •• I :I 1 i 0" : ' I I I I -11 H . t k • 11 ,1 1, :, 0 • i) .....- T. 1 _____TH • . i . .--.. i\) 7 i 1 — ( 7 -0 •. . P — - 1 IL • .0 It. —I t. • .. 1 I.1 II 1 . I 1 • I ..-.......I I . 1 F' IR ,i (1'1. '• / . - -.r IIII,.. . .7 ' r ';• f-relk::,, :• NV=c,:.1 . • kisra fl; • . .. . , . -=gh,.....f..57.j. . • 4.,,,,,.:.,!::•-. . -1 ,;• r • A.,• ;•. i . . . . . • .• • .1/4.1.1"•- .;• . • )...CV.: ,• , ' .;•:•1Z1'. - • . ., n �.. c O C Ub't % JQli 8b4 • N 2 S .. fi m� o _ (fir I ___i �_ _ O — J Zs V I: II i. I. U n 1 u 1. u N �v - \ 1i1 —ar __ 1 .. . .. _ PI �.. _� I _-_ _ EP, s • I . � �, r ,, � £ c I _j a .T� z, • . �v �, NJ T. ,_:____________:_i_____D 0 • mod`` • • 7q • • y k U ug i ), \ • .11 •- 1 S 'O11 /711ron • • . A A N : i2, 1 • -101 x n . n li• \t ..7.._ —r N11 , N >T . _. ,-_,_.—..‘,"...\.>.,.)..?,)....,.„. 4, , ____. . , . t ., 1 ti . ott.1.)iri: 2: r\\ „...: . - •.. '.. ; •2 ... .,jiit.L; . ....'" 7. 7 ci ,l: Si 7 t `r \\! tTi -1) f, 17 t;•5 ,?;. cr, • IJI • 4 t i5. «'` S� 1 `� G►' Ion Ewa' }\ • •a 7•1, • Li • • ' f1 A see; ,3' :i c -.1 ...;,,,,...1117,1S ',,, tt. ►ti. ia dIf, 1 • 1 ........ ---,I—. A 4.. F.... _.• _--- — — _1 1--' —11 . --rA) 2A7 i'• • . .; .e_.. --ii , .! WILLOW. . —:- - -- ---. CREEK — .;.,, ..,e•--1=--vv.A.,.p.,• .c) 1 t) KED 01-47b , re % . • i 1 \/ 0) ............„L_____.„ . • . c&ific 614..) ---/__ 48"?2$.9nt.-..6333 1 __= 1---1 • -1......> xr T7 •• . ,/ ' i 1 ,e-,,/,,,. - ;,;;A• 1 • ,. .,... .,,i. __. - • . .. L ,-I • 1 • 1 • • - . . • . . - . • . . • • • -.. LATT1Ge' . .. . . • I I '• ' • • .. . ' . . • -: , . • . ' . • . ." • 'r . I • rpc- 6 . so • 1 -1- - • • ... . .. I l I - • •• • ' '' \ 1 . • , . . . • . • . . • • . - . . • . . I . 1 1 - I • • 1 - • , 1 . . . . • - • • . • . . I • I . . • 1 i • • . • • . . . , - • , , . . • . . • . • . • - 1 I 1- 1 i • • • , • 1 1 , • • • . , • _ i •,. ••-,.. • , . . , . / . ....„ „..... ,. --\1-'-o 1 ,9 • 1 . . . ... •. . . x.• . . 5 ('.:{•'' • srl :le •.. `-13 . • .. . .. s- ki7 ... " . . 10 • .. . . . ....;L.---..•:•••• --AL -r----------r— /.-.. 1 . . .. .•••••''' e I '''' 1 • . _.. .. . DATE:tz.v..7..cerip SCALE: y ,.....„1„ DRAWN MY: Lasegook11111. ' 1, \ .4 —1. 1— —. — — ——I r , _ --1 . ,--,- , . ... . ' WILLOW, „...,-.....----\,.._. z _------- CREEK . :-.. . .]::>--..A..ta- 7-•.c.-t _0 • -ITAI-11>NP2 i . CD W I PAGirie-- 1 ' VI . (-1-'•-----t--- __-,..,-'-' _...... .__ _I . q•P' . • . ri rPf5fr-iiti In Iir4 . . . • . . . ...vv--.. I, \ . 7.-.-:•••:„1 --K--- _•,...„. Alb,. \,,- . ,. .. N.. - < J. .4_,.....:___. ..,, . • Ili,.. ..,... . _ • i . • . • . • . . . . . , . . I- J . • •" • • • • - i•• r - I. • . • . • .. . . . ... . . , • ... , . . . / ,..- . - • i 1 • .t.- - ' • -6-1 . - • ,. \) . .• . , . . . .• . . . . . • . . • 0- . • . • 'i) • 0 • ' . s. • .• • . i . • • • • • • . • •• • • • . 1 I -- • . • . • . . . . . -i 1 . • ? • . . .. . . I . . . • • . . . . , • - • . . . . . . • - . . . . - '. 1 • . . . . • . • i. •I • . . - . I • ‘ 6 . . . . • • . 1 . 1 1 . . •• N • 7. . k • i i , . • . 4, "k .‘ •:11. 4-- . • ._ • _ • :-.0 ' • • '.. : _ o : .'- Mlf-l.. '0-C.--1 -1-70 CV \ • . • •- .. ._ ti . .. •. -• ___N.,„. ...1..........r....-.- --.4.-.....—... --\.•c-- ...r... .....4Z...... ' • /7) I , i 0 I • :, `s...... . . . , i • DATE:..2....„...... ...7 SCALE:fr.,...ill......:11 DRAWN OY: F .;,......, .-E..-..: ), . . . . — - P fijif. -1?'-' PROjall-l. I<-1 C-•-=-- '; - .,---;-:•::::- -_'..-: REV. PAOCT)....02 :4,:::'. MILPITAS-••!.i.,,:.__. 1..411‘ • ) -(HE V I LLIIGES ter Lt)I LLY. LJ cizE'•8K. gi !A'"P'AA' ' TRACT 5511 LC-) ",. ,.SITE /1.;" .;. CITY OF DUBLIN • „:;: « :»•I!•i4•t ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 0'WWI0;,." MAO { BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL MAP NO, mt� 4575 AS SHOWN IN MAP BOOK 155 AT PAGE 97, ria� I01J1 _ ALAMEDA COUNTY RECORDS, CALIFORNIA LaNA AI•»•«•I • Y/f/N/TY ArAP 41.0 {-i{ '-`-'-=1 "�--•'r' I -�T� • SCALE 1IN " 200FT DATE : JUNE IEEE TETRAD ENGINEERING, INC «««. «•« 1414 IF n. .pr�� MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA CAMP PARKS • �t7'E1 .r rorA/AYrr ,.rr...rr 0W,rtnrr no �=,,,4a ,=p7t.7' r^. o:r no ew'P.M « -Y_nI;&�_ ; or'P•i, I ill., ~--._ x rum_ rr- lxx+irr xo•�-- \ �`, na'Jgr '� { "-4%i'Av,u.nn_-l '_'m, �r�. `��.45Fr ur :wa�)�pG6� ; I ,Ti" VILLpcC 11G �V'13efx. A �" VIu 4L Feleanise 6 A VIU.A4 1 t I 3 for,•B 1 �CAf0$}•GFK! WS::: te, 1•.1 n11 er•B• \ A$ VILI.!✓E T[ qy , '••ior so "'^>•7! � _' ' AL \ �� IAC01'f6dVIOCD" . xI> r . . A f 6Bzo � •. ^ N. .1I.r 'i a/``• for 140 \\,'.x•eArn.xul' tIAHAS - E I _ •l `s �'Ia,aT or'7a.'YSII� ;b-,. ` J • co' < <..` ............`�ti... C/) t1 IZAFAUEu.1 4 NR.tks �\.G.s f f j Or/A�4 ... 1• A` LROGTLON 4FOMLS) ...;'� •C1T Z Lor 'i' C'PEfA"CIflCLE ,�•''�'�.•.ry.:, Nrt(r r •Jt\ % i VIt l_AGE„$7IL � a.d II, • u ....•..•..• aYJ ;rJ(AJx�DARD tt ``• __._ - • •...40 ~1\� 5` Y \ �511PU spray g for J+7 / t AnLLAGE v=`eA•CI" % ,r u)OpDt w578o ), cpr 14.1 Z \l/ 4RE6otY G2ouP —MAW- 5 I for •c• o O �h C• ••RI DPCira K' ,......\ SWEET B t.t«»1 r• V ' S,411., .,(PAa'>:— -rfz.55N) no 1 ,uKy DlE SPF�P.o.« III .-• GI rf III M111719 R. ___-,.... ^^ _ Al AMEOA COVMTY f101/0 CBCr I�I' „ _ / WArER C r.:sro Ar/OV p/Srmtcr •��•""'•LAIf•• ""� ^�^^_-ram A -- PARCFt•C•ffN/ES N0.B1.076951 C I LEGEI,D >�S•bf- r-J... 4 • fa la n O.K.f CO Act i»ff �� 1C• a fa»I.»A¢rx0.00.t yiL • nua ul.P.IO..a.r rf„� A�h ter le.]TRACI'+7117--1+i M+l \ ,,,I • w"I.f rx VW rvtt 1xf a.»1 A I-•._ «•Meti77.7or \\l+1 • 1f1x 1mx nntmmt u.0 /.IC R Came- af, OASIS OF OEAl11NG9 . •.1 xM,aP ▪ rwa , �_ =S P I,1Nllf,n ff1111 Ai.LIN,.»..x IN Iw"IIN1,Nw.0 LIN PAX.P•x.,» / A 1.4...TA-UTK\11%i IQ1 0.«I IN.au.xA LAN Or taF.A»MAX ••--- 00•011 1.1.P PKtt! ji l,, v A.xGI At NI'» P.P .f'«'L P. 4 IPA9 1.1 IN Inw Fin,,».Lf NI! POCK Iv 1.04.POI.I• • - Io."1.9 Ix D »n l 10 MI KAN DETAIL 'A'.. CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: March 21, 1988 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Appeal of the Zoning Administrators decision to deny a Variance request to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on one side of the home (where a minimum of 6 feet is required by the Zoning Ordinance). APPELLANT/OWNER: Raul P. Ramirez 8686 Davona Drive Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: 8686 Davona Drive ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-183-43 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residental EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: R-1-B-E Single Family Residential District SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential South: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential East: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential West: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-26.6 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum sideyard of not less than 5 feet plus one foot for each full 10 feet by which the median lot width exceeds 50 feet, up to a maximum of 10 feet for the main structure on the site, except in cases where a Combining District specifies minimum yard requirements, (in this Application, a Combining District applies to the subject property). Section 8-40.2 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance specifies that minimum yard dimensions for the B-E District are specified in the Amendment creating the District. A minimum 6 foot sideyard setback is required by the Zoning District where the subject property is located. Section 8-60.26 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance indicates that every accessory building attached to a main building shall be subject to all setback/yard requirements applicable to the main building. COPIES TO: Applicant/Owner File PA 87-176 ITEM NO. 8 p2 PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance Section 8-60.33 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance indicates "In order to ensure minimum basic provisions for light, air, privacy and safety from fire hazards, it is required that every building hereafter constructed shall be upon a building site of dimension such as to provide for yards specified in which the lot is located". Section 8-93.0 (Variance) and Government Code Section 65906 (State law re: Variance findings) indicate that the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact upon each of these three requirements: 1) that there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification; 2) that the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone; and 3) that the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. Section 8-93.1 - .4 establishes the procedures, required action and effective date for granting or denying a Variance, and indicates the granting of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitations and guarantees. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 Class 1 (L)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the March 21, 1988, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. BACKGROUND: On December 7, 1987 the Planning Department received an application from Mr. Raul P. Ramirez for a Variance request to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard setback resulting in no sideyard setback on one side of the home, (where a minimum of 6 feet is required). On December 11, 1987 Staff mailed an Application Submittal Status letter to Mr. Ramirez, indicating that his application was complete. On February 11, 1988 the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing to consider the Variance. After receiving testimony from Staff and Mr. Ramirez, the Zoning Administrator adopted Resolution No. 002-88 denying PA 87-176, Raul P. Ramirez Variance request. The Appealable Action letter was promptly mailed to Mr. Ramirez on February 12, 1988. On February 20, 1988 Mr. Ramirez appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the Planning Commission. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on the south side of the house (where a minimum 6 foot sideyard is required by the Zoning Ordinance). -2- en\ (—• PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance The structure is approximately 8 feet tall. It spans from the sidewall of the residence to the adjacent property line fence, resulting in no remaining sideyard setback. It is open on all sides except on the top where there is a transluscent corrugated plastic cover that acts as a sun shade and weather protectant. According to Mr. Ramirez, the structure was constructed prior to his purchasing the home in 1973. City records indicate that no building permits had been issued for the structure. Prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made based on facts presented in the record. These include: 1. That there are special circumstances relating to physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape and topography) which would deprive the Property Owner of priviledges enjoyed by others in the identical zoning district. What this means is in order to grant a Variance there must be some characteristic pertaining to the lot that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impracticable. Staff's review of the site finds that there are no special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics of the property. This is a relatively flat, rectangular, single family lot that contains a two- story home. All setback requirements can be met without impositioning the Property Owner. 2. That the granting of the Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges. This means that in order to grant a Variance, the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other Property Owners have not been given the right to do. The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege because allowing the accessory structure to be located in the sideyard setback would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to other Property Owners in similar situations. 3. That the Variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. This means approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood in any fashion. If approved the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where compliance is attainable. This structure does not meet Building Code requirements in that it is located on a property line where it must have at least a one-hour fire wall. In order to meet this requirement, substantial modification would be necessary. However, meeting the Building Code does not bring this structure into conformance with the setback requirements established by the Zoning Ordinance. Because of the above facts, Staff must recommend that the Planning Commission uphold the Zoning Commission's action denying the varience request. RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 1) Open public hearing and hear Staff presentation. 2) Take testimony from Appellant and the public. 3) Question Staff, Appellant and the public. 4) Close public hearing and deliberate. 5) Adopt Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's action denying the sideyard setback Variance request, or give Staff and Appellant direction and continue the matter. -3- /*\ PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance ACTION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Draft Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's action denying PA 87-176, Ramirez sideyard setback Variance. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Draft Resolution upholding the Zoning Administrator's action denying PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Variance. Background Attachments: 1. Application Appeal Letter. 2. Appealable Action Letter dated February 12, 1988 including Resolution No. 002-88, a Resolution of the Dublin Zoning Administrator denying PA 87-176. 3. Minutes from the Zoning Administrator's public hearing dated February 11, 1988. 4. Zoning Administrator Agenda Statement/Staff Report dated February 11, 1988 excluding attachments. 5. Site Plan and Elevation. 6. Photographs. 7. Location Map. 8. Application Form. 9. Letter from Applicant/Appellant to the Planning Department. -4- RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN UPHOLDING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATORS ACTION DENYING PA 87-176 RAUL P. RAMIREZ VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE TO PROJECT INTO THE REQUIRED SIDEYARD SETBACK, RESULTING IN NO SIDEYARD SETBACK ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOME (WHERE A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET IS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE). WHEREAS, Raul P. Ramirez filed an application for a sideyard setback Variance from Sections 8-26.6, 8-40-2 and 8.60.26 of the City's Zoning Ordinace to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on one side of the home (where a minimum of 6 feet is required; and WHEREAS, the 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, the Zoning Administrator held a Public Hearing on said application on February 11, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff report was submitted recommending denial of the sideyard setback Variance; and WHEREAS, on February 11, 1988, after hearing and considering all said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth, the Zoning Administrator denied PA 87-176 Ramirez sideyard setback Variance request at 8686 Davona Drive; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 1988, Raul P. Ramirez appealed the Zoning Administrators February 11, 1988 action; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 1988, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider said appeal; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said Public Hearing was given as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: A) There are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification if strict observance of the yard and setback standards of the district were observed. B) The granting of the sideyard setback Variance would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, in that no special circumstances exist which warrant granting the Variance. C) The granting of this sideyard setback Variance would be detrimental to person or property in the neighborhood because if approved it could set an unwanted precedence of granting Variance in situations where the standards of the Zoning Ordinance could be complied with. c I VI1R A BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby uphold the Zoning Administrator's action denying PA 87-176 Raul P. Ramirez sideyard setback Variance application as generally depicted by materials from March 21, 1988 Planning Commission Staff Report, on file with the Dublin Planning Department PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of March, 1987. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director -2- RECtIY. ED DUBUN PLANNING • • . zOot 3 57Sal_ ATTACHMENT ,/Develo ment Services �;1''` CITY OF DUBLIN p �PlanninoJZoning 829-4916 P.O. Box 2340 `"�11 Building&Safety 829-0822 Dublin,CA 94568 Engineering/Public Works 829-4927 APPEALABLE ACTION LETTER Date: February 12, 1988 't. JJ ERTIFIED MAIL Re. Planning Application #: PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance Project Description: Variance Request to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure, to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on one side of the home (where a minimum of 6 feet is required by the Zoning Ordinance). Finance Control #: N/A Project/Site Address: 8686 Davona Drive Assessor Parcel Number(s): 941-183-43 Applicant/Owner: Raul P. Ramirez 8686 Davona Drive Dublin, CA 94568 Dear Applicant: The above referenced project was acted upon on February 11, 1988, by the: XX Zoning Administrator Planning Director Planning Commission City Council and was: Approved Approved subject to conditions XX Denied Findings and Conditions are attached. This action becomes final and effective at 5:00 p.m. on February 21, 1988, unless appealed before that time in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance and other applicable regulations. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact Rod Barger, the Project Planner, or me. Sincerely, Laurence L. Tong Planning Director LLT/df ATTACHMEtT A RESOLUTION NO. 002 - 88 A RESOLUTION OF THE DUBLIN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR DENYING PA 87-176 RAUL P. RAMARIZ VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ATTACHED TO THE MAIN STRUCTURE TO PROJECT INTO THE REQUIRED SIDYARD SETBACK, RESULTING IN NO SIDEYARD SETBACK ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOME (WHERE A MINIMUM OF 6 FEET IS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE). WHEREAS, Raul P. Ramirez filed an application for a sideyard setback Variance from Sections 8-26.6, 8-40.2 and 8-60.26 of the City's Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on one side of the home (where a minimum of 6 feet is required); and WHEREAS, the 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, the Zoning Administrator held a public hearing on said application on February 11, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff report was submitted recommending denial of the sideyard setback Variance; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Administrator heard and considered all said reports, recommendations and testimony as hereinabove set forth; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Zoning Administrator does hereby find that; A) There are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification if strict observance of the yard and setback standards of the district were observed. B) The granting of the sideyard setback Variance application would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone, in that no special circumstaces exist which warrent granting the Variance. C) The granting of this sideyard setback Variance application would be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood because if approved it could set an unwanted precedence of granting Variance in situations where the standards of the Zoning Ordinance could be complied with. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT the Zoning Administrator does hereby deny PA 87-176. Raul P. Ramirez, sideyard setback Variance application as generally depicted by materials from the February 11, 1988 Zoning Administrator Report, on file with the Dublin Planning Department. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this llth day of February, 1988. Zoning Adminis[ra or ATTEST: Senior)Planner Zoning Administrator Meeting - February 11, 1988 A meeting of the City of Dublin Zoning Administrator was held on February 11, 1988, in the Conference Room, Suite 210, City of Dublin,Office, 6500 Dublin Boulevard. The meeting was called to order at 8:35 a.m. by Laurence Tong, Zoning Administrator. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Laurence Tong, Planning Director/Zoning Administrator, and Rod Barger, Senior Planner. * * * * PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance 8686 Davona Drive, Dublin Mr. Tong, Zoning Administrator, explained the Variance hearing procedures, opened the public hearing and called for the Staff Report. Mr. Barger indicated that the Applicant was requesting approval to vary from the Zoning Ordinance to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no sideyard setback or one side of the home, where a minimum of 6 feet is required. Mr. Barger indicated that the attached accessory structure is 8 feet tall. It spans from the sidewall of the house to the adjoining property line resulting in no sideyard setback. It is open on all sides except on top where it is covered by translucent corrugated plastic. According to Mr. Ramirez, the attached accessory structure had been constructed prior to his purchasing the home in 1973. City records, via Alameda County, indicate that no building permit was obtained for the construction of the accessory structure. Mr. Barger indicated that prior to granting approval of a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made based on facts presented in the record. These include: 1. That there are special circumstances relating to physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape and topography) which would deprive the Property Owner of priviledges enjoyed by others in the identical zoning district. This means that in order to grant a Variance there must be some characteristic(s) pertaining to the lot that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impractable. Mr. Barger indicated that Staff's review of the site finds that there are no special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics of the property. This is a relatively flat, rectangular, single family lot that contains a two-story home. All setback requirements can be met without impositioning the Property Owner. 2. That the granting of the Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges. This means that in order to grant a Variance, the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other Property Owners have not been given the right to do. Mr. Barger indicated that the granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege Regular Meeting ATTACHMENT February 11, 1988 because allowing the accessory structure to be located in the sideyard setback would give the property owner a privilege not given to other Property Owners in similar situations. 3. That the variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. This means approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood in any fashion. Mr. Barger indicated that if approved, the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where compliance is attainable. Because of the above facts, Mr. Barger recommended that the Variance be denied. The Zoning Administrator asked Staff if there were any comments from the Building Inspection Department concerning this application. Mr. Barger indicated that if this application was approved, the structure would have to be brought into compliance with the Uniform Building Code. Because the structure is located on the property line, a one-hour firewall would have to be constructed. The Zoning Administrator asked for testimony from the applicant. The Applicant, Mr. Raul P. Ramirez, 8686 Davona Drive, Dublin, CA made the following statement: He indicated that when he purchased the house in 1973, the accessory structure was already there. He indicated that there is a 4 foot separation between the property line where the accessory structure is located by his next door neighbors house. Therefore it appears that there is no special privilege that is being granted in this case. He indicated that it is unlikely that granting this Variance would set an unwanted precidence. In the 15 years he has lived there he has never received any complaints on this item. Therefore, this structure would not harm the community. He concluded by stating he strongly believes that the accessory structure does not impede the specific intent of the Zoning Ordinance, it is not unsafe, it is not a fire hazard and it is not detrimental to the neighborhood. He requested that equity be considered in making the decision. The Zoning Administrator asked Mr. Ramirez what the accessory structure was used for. Mr. Ramirez indicated that it is a place that offers shade and protection from the weather. It is not used to store materials and it is not unsightly. He said that if his next door neighbor ever had any concerns about the structure, he would take it down. The Zoning Administrator asked for additional comments from Staff or the Applicant. Mr. Ramirez once again spoke in favor of the structure. The Zoning Administrator closed the Public Hearing. He indicated that based on the information contained in the Staff Report as well as the testimony today he will make the findings as indicated on Exhibit A of the Staff Report for PA 87- 176 as follows to deny the Variance for the following reasons: Regular Meeting ZAM-2 February 11, 1988 A) There are no special circumstances relating to physical characteristics including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property which would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification if strict observance of the yard and setback standards of the district were observed. B) The granting of the sideyard setback Variance application would constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistant with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and;zone, in that no special circumstances exist which warrant granting the Variance. C) The granting of this sideyard setback Variance application would be detrimental to person or property in the neighborhood because if approved it could set an unwanted precedence of granting Variance in situations where the standards of the Zoning Ordinance could be complied with. Mr. Ramirez indicated that it was unfair that he is to being required to comply with the Zoning Ordinance when there are any other non-complying situations in his neighborhood. The Zoning Administrator indicated that the City is unaware of these non- complying situations, however, if they do exist, the City will pursue them primarily on a complaint basis. Mr. Ramirez indicated that there was no complaint involved with his non- conforming structure. He indicated that a City Staff person initiated this issue when she came to his residence to indicate how a shed structure could be brought into conformance with re-zoning ordinance, and in doing this work, she noticed the non-conforming structure. He indicated that it is unfair that he is being singled out. He indicated that Staff should be cautioned about singling out some violations while not pursuing others. The Zoning Administrator concluded the meeting by emphasizing that there are various State and local laws that warrant and support the action that has been taken. Findings must be made in order to support a Variance request, and in the case of this application, those findings could not be made. The other option available is to attempt to amend the Zoning Ordinance, but at this time Staff must comply with the Ordinance as it is written as well as the State laws regarding Variances. RESOLUTION NO. 002 - 88 ,f DENYING PA 87-176 RAMIREZ SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCE AT 8686 DAVONA DRIVE ADJOURNMENT There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:05 a.m. * * * * Respect,ully submitted, " P Zoning AdmInistrat r ATTEST: Rod Barger, Senior Plann r Regular Meeting ZAM-3 February 11, 1988 CITY OF DUBLIN ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: February 11, 1988 TO: Zoning Administrator • FROM: Planning Staff }�3 SUBJECT: PA 87-176 Ramirez Sideyard Setback Variance GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: Variance request to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on one side of the home (where a minimum of 6 feet is required by the Zoning Ordinance) . APPLICANT/OWNER: Raul P. Ramirez 8686 Davona Drive Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: 8686 Davona Drive ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-183-43 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Single Family Residental EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: R-1-B-E Single Family Residential District SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential South: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential East: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential West: R-1-B-E, Single Family Residential APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-26.6 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum sideyard of not less than 5 feet plus one foot for each full 10 feet by which the median lot width exceeds 50 feet, up to a maximum of 10 feet for the main structure on the site, except in cases where a Combining District specifies minimum yard requirements, (in this Application, a Combining District applies to the subject property) . Section 8-40.2 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance specifies that minimum yard dimension for the B-E District are specified in the Amendment creating the District. A minimum 6 foot sideyard setback is required by the Zoning District where the subject property is located. Section 8-60.26 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance indicates that every accessory building attached to a main building shall be subject to all setback/yard requirements applicable to the main building. Section 8-60.33 of the Du" '.n Zoning Ordinance indicates "7J'order to ensure minimum basic provisions tor light, air, privacy and safety prom fire hazards, it is required that every building hereafter constructed shall be upon a building site of dimension such as to provide for yards specified in which the lot is located" . Section 8-93.0 (Variance) and Government Code Section 65906 (State law re: Variance findings) indicate that the strict terms of the Zoning Ordinance may be varied in specific cases upon affirmative findings of fact upon each of these three requirements: 1) that there are special circumstances including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, applicable to the property in the vicinity under the identical zoning classification; 2) that the granting of the application will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone; and 3) that the granting of the application will not be detrimental to persons or property in the neighborhood or to the public welfare. Section 8-93.1 - .4 establishes the procedures, required action and effective date for granting or denying a Variance, and indicates the granting of a Variance shall be subject to conditions, limitations and guarantees. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: This project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA under Section 15301 Class 1 (L)(4) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. • NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the February 11, 1988, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a Variance to allow an existing accessory structure attached to the main structure to project into the required sideyard setback, resulting in no sideyard setback on the south side of the house (where a minimum 6 foot sideyard is required by the Zoning Ordinance) . The structure is approximately 8 feet tall. It spans from the sidewall of the residence to the adjacent property line fence, resulting in no remaining sideyard setback. It is open on all sides except on the top where there is a transluscent corrugated plastic cover that acts as a sun shade and weather protestant. According to the Applicant, the structure was constructed prior to his purchasing the home in 1973. City records indicate that no building permits had been issued for the structure. Prior to granting a Variance, three mandatory findings must be made based on facts presented in the record. These include: 1. That there are special circumstances relating to physical characteristics (such as lot size, shape and topography) which would deprive the Property Owner of priviledges enjoyed by others in the identical zoning district. What this means is in order to grant a Variance there must be some characteristic pertaining to the lot that makes compliance with zoning provisions either impossible or impractable. Staff' s review of the site finds that there are no special circumstances relating to the physical characteristics of the property. This is a relatevely flat, rectangular, single family lot that contains a two-story home. All setback requirements can be met without impositioning the Property Owner. -2- /�/�/n 2. That the granting of the Variance does not constitute a grant of special privileges. This means that in order to grant a Variance, the approval cannot give the Property Owner the permission or right to build something that other Property Owners have not been given the right to do. The granting of the Variance would constitute a grant of special privilege because allowing the accessory structure to be located in the sideyard setback would give the Property Owner a privilege not given to other Property Owners in similar situations. 3. That the Variance will not be detrimental to the neighborhood. This means approval of the Variance cannot cause damage or harm to the neighborhood in any fashion. If approved the Variance would be detrimental to the neighborhood because it would set an unwanted precedence of relaxing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance where compliance is attainable. Because of the above facts, Staff must recommend that the Variance be denied. RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 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 Resolution denying sideyard setback Variance request, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. • ACTION: Staff recommends the Zoning Administrator adopt the Draft • Resolution denying PA 87-176, Ramirez sideyard setback Variance. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Draft Resolution regarding PA 87-176 Ramirez sideyard setback Variance, recommending denial Background Attachments: 1. Site Plan and Elevation 2. Photographs 3. Location Map 4. Application Form 5. Letter from Applicant to the Planning Department -3- .•.:••-'•' •• •: -•••' '•:....•-:,!..•.••• 1,-•;kn,Cm.."-•3-•,:"..... ,&,: ,,.--11..•.. :.-:;:•,,,,.....0.,,,I...•••_•••..]:•„•4•••1••,...•...a.• ;:.,...7.,';'•9•.,.:•,.•?_,,yerneta.r.;:.•:,.mrstartgr:m: . l••—• . C--- .• . k__, • ' . ' : . •,,,,,,/ .:•,-. 1:4,7; '.•.'./4.!:-.f?..12--'4.--,- • . ...,,%.7-.',•;- . IIT-. ,----. , /67.5-2;u3. ! , 1 1 : i 11 ! i I "-.---..23'yi•T .1. I •• : . 1_1_4 I . i--r- Li1-7- . •-r- - ------"-.1 i !_r_i,tiv!_typivo ..,44c •i., , i i_l_i_i_..i_1_,1_ •___,_I L._. ' --- .1.. -,-I-, -,"---i --ID7.-1 ' ! 1 1 ;.'•----1—' ;c -• , i I ! . I ._._._ -1---: ••-- ; - --,,- : i . 7._ I • : . ; 1 • . 1 1 1 . _ '........,__ _ .. I-i • . r, I..r•-). _ • l_ ______ 1 I 1 : , • . . .,,_•..,_r_r__ . . . • • 77,7 i • . • I i 1 I , i I 1 • 1 • • . • I I i i : 1 . . i Hlt77- : ' 1 • J • - . . • I I I ,. •. . I I 1 I I : i I • : . 'ffile___ _ t..___._ __ _r_r___ . . - L • ! 1 : . ! ! I I I ; IIi • i 1 ! -I . . -1' 1 . I • i : • i -3-i F • . . . . ; • ' • ' ristiti_Shkb—._ 1- ' • . I ; . . .. . it - . ! / . : 4...31.:. . . . ; . • , . . . • • , ' .• ..• I : I : ; • . . . . : . • . • . • .' .<---- ' .. * -30.0• ......... ..... ..). : . • • • i • • . • . I • • •: • : ,• • i• '/gym bution.' Rept. 40Vir. A . . • . IA2- : . 10 ' : . 1 • . .; : ...LI; • . t_-•=i0_4-7_."-Lli. ,. ._._ _. . . . f , /. --- — — • . --- , c-- -11'=1" 46.7‘ .._._. , -':I.:;ij-'' - i I _ _ad,iizIsa . _ . 7--- _S-risfrivit_ I . . ._.. de_41.N__i_ .________ _ .----- - :.- ...--- - - -,4tr-r-- - ------ • I . . . .. ... _;.,.;!,- : : - .--_ I : : • 1 1 • i i , ; 1 ---_--.."--.r--_•,-,,-._--_---7--_.-_---7--..•-I1_.-7_-_•'§.'l477q-i_._11.."_---_-__-_i[I.11___-i:•I11_._-__J!L.;!_.-.-_.,_--::,..•.;_--..-Ti..1i.i_--_.-ij-1 a_-_-.-.jI!.:1:-_.,1.. _'1l1 L„..: ...I.. 1- .--,--,!•.-. ...'..: -1. i1 •"1 •''1.4•..A.o-.i:1- 1 - Fai 1 1 I ..l-7-I1.1 _ L _ _ii _. - - - . .• - 121-. _-L1 •-. , _-1 . - IT . .. - - - 65 4i . - : - - ' . _ 1. ik. ; _ _ _ - .: AT1ACHMENTi. -. -..! ‘94/-Z9, 0 Pim . N _ _ 'g; .N«, .fir ;t'$ 1 ': , r - t -- r e r s k q WT, I v �` I. • /\A 3 r I� 4h C7 �, I ,,- OE . i: Ilk. a e....d ''t:----'', . -4- , . y � .11,..,Y,,. wwN • w . . , _ C ' ' ' ' SEE SHEET r 3A »' i1rr • r } .O 1 3 .........4„, C 1 Es rri.\c‘I ..,:.- 1 • */.7...,> -. *Ia. *4.4 , . „... , ,-,,c'i' 4111P•k°°, 0.1 . c �1 O. • WO ‘v, CT 1kit% ,,,,,11,, III1 .�--;',"%t iq•4 _,. , „ , . ' �' 'ins/'/ 111111111...—.TC wU,v v.. 11 i '/ 7 • �t� . : , tIIIIV ' III III 17%,...dig i 0 th, / , / �` ' - a-i r li , • ' 01111107w,,--:,-,---":--7_,h,t-,-/ 0 l � 1 c \ -a-,,..---:..,-P--'.-...:-_._;-7`.;-i:1i--. . v FM i1: 7 �/ 4</"`c 1 i 'R • 1\ ' ** .* ill :010 \ .;_- s �!0 e,11 : ow4t4t4,.„..,,,w vw -:: ** it**, • 111.11.„,01110.„411 11 C \ -____ ,::' 0lit4r �, xx , zp 0. C o 1 ,.i"a 1 11.*k 1.i, t0i P ` 5rn.• m •rm H HA, z S14sDON.4 i.' 00 \ >s ,..)0 nJS E1 I l UI � �11 Li 11 _ v 1, u ,s ; ems ' CP''! , _ . ATTACHMENT 7 ;, ,-t, 6„.„ _„ J4 i. ' isim i N - io^ PREPARED FOR PREPARED "T ING04I>tpf. _ u , A PART OF THE m m '' %i', Er. T , ; ZONING MAP r,, t, ?. CITY OF SANTiNA DUBLIN I THOMPSON INC. THE CITY OF co PRINTEDDUBLIN ED o 2 n^ IMO O..G....R•..l Ce.441 C•IlbrwV 4!1" N 2; MARLIN Or ? 1C1f1MAEIFOHNIA ......,: s.. ��....�F,.-„�.�. .,.wuw,..�i...... ..�l..l>....,.,.'iG:[i;._;'.:�S:J'..:': ~..'S�r.�..'"..:x.✓", , 0, • CITY OF DUBLIN (7) P.O.Box 2340 2-, Dublin,CA 94568 (415)829-4600 Planning Department (415) 829-4916 6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D Eff.: 1/84 Dublin CA 94568 ' PLANNING APPLICATION FORM Notes to Applicant: * Please discuss your proposal with Staff prior to canpleting the Planning Application form. * All items related to your specific type of application must be campleted. * Since this is a comprehensive application form, sane of the items might not apply to your specific application. * Please print or type legibly. _OD . * Attach additional sheets if necessary. -3.. G. ,ga5 I. AUTHORIZATION OF PROPERTY OWNER PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as prrf'arty owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,authorize the filing of this application. I understand . that conditions of approval are binding. I agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal period. ' Name: RAUL P RAMIREL Capacity: Property Owner Address: 8686 VONA AR:- Daytime Phone: )828-1992�f,-/U'P?/T ( )846-6828 Signature. Date: iij 18/87 B. APPLI THAN PROPERTY n signing this application, I, as applicant, represent t ave obtaine uthorization of the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file this application and agreement to conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal period. Name: Capacity: Address Daytime Phone: ( ) ( ) Signature: Date: II. CERTIFICATION I certify that I have the authorization of the property owner to file this application. I further certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Capacity: Address: Daytime Phone: ( ) ( ) Signature: Date: (OVER) ATTACHMENT 8 • „/•,;i'r.:-,4 Zr 1 5,F`�'' . ,.444 614z,;.fr.�f,6�,,� frroy • :: :r lu Z�y .•jv ''''4 iii�.w .lit.,,'r I .q, f, 714- 'y= c e s'f zr •3 4 �,v;1. ,•,y At... C. ,k n14 �La ., r t trl1- }.�y,:t, ' ,r � 0 `J R4i7'. t` ' tj • � 1 f .►:G'6 :. (!- c l, b/ ri.'.. f ,�� lr ,t (,4ipi�..: f x�yrJ'I�n s ` ri ,f. .f -r♦ r . .., A ,�' 1 r' f.1•�,r f� ��1� }r hM"rir� r r� s.r��' !Z�� t ��' '"+• �S ' �� sr2._y , ./ys. r r: ::;t tr. ✓F r :„ r,, ,ti,I.,� y t,F b �� , r ,trA y�e +Tit-1.7sr /,.; �.', yS c .ry 4' r rhT ,id yA' t,• ', I S : `,� z .�,• jl�t •"':,.1"2' 1� xi �' *' i v ' r .'(s e t et F r �tj r, _ f ,-i.s r*-,�} 'f• $ +t�•.y,✓,d.. ., r Ib'7t • �'y + .A.,-� » ! i s y,,�pri}q %✓ ��I.l �, It t } t M1l�f 4} 7 ; r 7 I F�`r •}`�. 1r�'��`'i�t{'; dt..� y'�.'� ..Fi+-.'•A y�+,;.>G= i ,". k p,„ke `fP9• tt f r,,,i 4,); •r ,A'4 • 1,.,/ fr I t • L'Y. ,y,l' •. r •. rr J$:r9� '�I"Y,L/ASS+ �,F(}J r7'.• C.'> 4 Q Il". .3Y ..`' at,} �a`�1 �''� t•.. 7 f .,.4 S;;',:,,�,,/f •is i-..,- ';:., .L .:•. .`x:'v f 1 1 y.e Y rater..!,- , r. .vl "`"' .v var+,i441 �i4�.. r4if,nfifi,..r.!N 3d/'ii,ay404,..M,n/f v.�, •/ ...*.'....yam •rw .,.ypTMwr.4.*. ^': ! i y 7,--tY��.t �� ir'Sr,1t •'7,:i .�,..'4,., r s. y y/:. 1,,,, ,! ✓;S . a r(r>••,i/ r.. ,7r•�'!t . r14-...,, ••`•• •C•I '. L.?..s '•. y Milt, 4• +.'.‘i'i. .�•....r..,. �..L...—..,,..;f. a„i..,. L.........e.,t li.,diri......ir,....a..�i�..,.4",...:....y..,.:...J. ter.....'.......n.ti. ..s ..: .L'.ill d'. '�.Ja.4a:a.....t...„'.•� r '1 III. GENERAL DATA REQUIRED 4 , 11 A. Address or Location of Property: D �('D y� ai,) if_ B. Assessor Parcel Number(s) : 9 y/- / p 3 - V3 C. Site area: D. Present Zoning: A'. /-Q— E. Existing Use of Property: Shade and weather protection F. Zoning and Existing Use Of Surrounding Property: Zone Existing Uses - North: Private homes - South: - East: • - West: - G. Detailed Description of Proposed Use of Property: 16'x ! 6" x 8' COVER, CORRUGATED.TRANSLITCENT; PLASTIC (8 pieces, 2'x7'6") .1-i r � . (Continue on separate sheet if necessary) • Iv. TYPE OF APPLICATION Check type of planning permit(s) being requested: ❑ Administrative Conditional Use Permit ❑ Rezoning ❑ Boundary Adjustment ❑ Sign ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Site Development Review ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Sub vision Map ❑ Planned Development ariance ❑ Other: v. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS A. Planned Development: (See Planned Development Rezoning Submittal Requirements) B. Subdivision Map: (See Subdivision Map Submittal Requirements) C. Any Other Planning Permit: (See General Submittal Requirements) VI. PROCESSING (SeePlanning Application Cover Letter) vII. REFERENCE PHONE NUMBERS Most questions related to the Planning Application should be directed to the Dublin Planning Department, however, some concerns might be addressed directly by another appropriate department or agency: 1. City of Dublin: 2. Dublin San Ramon Services District: Building Inspection: (415) 829-0822 Fire: (415) 829-2333 Engineering: (415) 829-4916 Water, Sewer, Garbage: (415) 828-0515 Planning: (415) 829-4916 Police: (415) 829-0566 3. Zone 7 - Alameda County Flood Control: (415) 443-9300 • i I \• • Variance submittal requirements. statement: Item # & Applicant: R.P. Ramirez The structure .is a translucent. corrugated plastic cover. securely attached to the south wall of the house, extending to the property line. It is 16' long 7' • " wide, S' h" hich at the wall. and B' 0" at the fence. It had been constructed prior to 1973, when the property was purchased. Upon my request for advice, City Councilman Mr. Peter Hegarty viewed the structure and suggested that I apply for a variance. He found the structure to be safe. aesthetically consistent. secure, functional and that it enhanced the enjoyment and value of the property. In addition. Mr. Hegarty Contacted the etructure'e side neighbor, Mrs. Butke, wh❑ shared her approval and enthusiastic support. In _onc_us'_•_n. there have n•__ __er. cc,-.____nos t. a..., _. our neighbors about the structure. It is aesthetic, safe. increases • the enjoyment of our property and was constructed before the 1973, purchase date. � n CITY OF DUBLIN PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT/STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: March 21, 1988 TO: Planning Commissi on ��y FROM: Planning Staff /& 11 iT- SUBJECT: PA 88-017 Howard Johnson Hotel - Sign, Conditional Use Permit and Variance, 6680 Regional Street GENERAL INFORMATION: PROJECT: A Conditional Use Permit request to construct a 26-foot tall Freestanding Sign set back from the rear property line, and a Variance request to exceed the height, size, and setback restrictions for Freestanding Signs. APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVE: Johnson Clark 6 Blackthorn Road Lafayette, CA 94549 PROPERTY OWNER: Motor Lodge Associates 6680 Regional Street Dublin, CA 94568 LOCATION: 6680 Regional Street ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: 941-1500-47-3 PARCEL SIZE: 5.61 acres GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Office/Retail EXISTING ZONING AND LAND USE: C-1 Retail Business District Hotel/Restaurant/Parking SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: C-1 - Bowling Alley South: Flood Control & Highway I-580 East: C-1 - Restaurant - and M-1 West: Flood Control & Highway 1-580 ZONING HISTORY: S-421 and C-2418 - The Alameda County Planning Director approved a Site Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit for a 93-unit motel and restaurant (Howard Johnson Motor Lodge) and five signs - March 15, 1972. S-595X and C-3206 - In April, 1977, approval was granted to add 48 units to the Motor Lodge. COPIES TO: Applicant Owner ITEM NO. 8.3 File PA 88-017 S-777X and C-3787 - In May, 1980, an additional 22 units were approved for the Motor Lodge. S-600 - A Site Development Plan for the Willow Tree Restaurant was approved by the Alameda County Planning Director on June 23, 1977. PA 83-002 - On March 28, 1983, the Dublin City Council approved a request to rezone the subject property from Light Industrial (M-1) and Highway Frontage (H-1) to Retail Business (C-1). PA 83-011 - A Site Development Review approval was granted on May 16, 1983, to allow a 550 square foot addition and remodeling to take place at the main lobby area of the motel. PA 84-026 - On June 18, 1984, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review for a 77-unit addition to the existing motel. PA 86-081 - On September 15, 1986, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit for a 28-foot tall Freestanding Sign on the rear portion of the site. On October 14, 1986, the Zoning Administrator denied without prejudice a Variance request to consider the existing Freestanding Sign as a Directional Sign. On November 3, 1986, the Planning Commission upheld the Zoning Administrator's decision denying the Variance request. On November 24, 1986, the City Council continued the Applicant's appeal. On January 22, 1987, the Applicant withdrew the appeal. PA 87-014 - On March 2, 1987, the Planning Commission approved a Variance request (1) to allow a Freestanding Sign which is not located within the middle one-third of the lot, (2) to allow the sign to exceed the maximum permitted sign area based on setback, and (3) to allow the sign to exceed maximum permitted height based upon setback and a Conditional Use Permit for a second Freestanding Sign located at the entrance of the Howard Johnson Hotel site. PA 87-093 - On July 6, 1987 and July 20, 1987, the Planning Commission considered a Conditional Use Permit application to construct a 26-foot-tall Freestanding Sign setback 20 feet from the rear property line (instead of constructing the sign approved under PA 86-081). On July 10, 1987, the Applicant withdrew the application. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: Section 8-48.7 (Side and Rearyards C-1 District) of the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a 10-foot minimum side and rearyard setback for building sites used for Motel, Hotel, or Boarding House uses. Section 8-87.34(b)(1)(A) (Freestanding Signs - Location) states "No Freestanding Sign shall be permitted within the required front, side, or rearyard setback area." Section 8-87.34(b)(1)(D) states Freestanding Signs shall not be located closer than 50 feet from an Interstate freeway right-of-way. Section 8-87.34(b)(2) and (3) regulate maximum sign height and sign area permitted based on setback from a street frontage. Section 8-87.60(d) provides an exception to the 20-foot maximum sign height requirement whereby parcels four acres or greater may utilize a sign up to 35 feet subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Section 8-87.60(g) establishes provisions to permit two Freestanding Signs on a parcel of four acres or greater in size, adjacent to I-580 or I-680, subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This section of the ordinance also establishes the property line adjacent to I-580 and I-680 as a street frontage for the purpose of Freestanding Signs. Section 8-87.67 establishes the findings and procedures for granting a Sign Variance. -2- /1 i1 Section 8-94.0 states that conditional uses must be analyzed to determine: 1) whether or not the use is required by the public need; 2) whether or not the use will be properly related to other land uses, transportation and service facilities in the vicinity; 3) whether or not the use will materially affect the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity; and 4) whether or not the use will be contrary to the specific intent clauses or peformance standards established for the district in which it is located. Section 8-94.4 states the approval of a Conditional Use Permit may be valid only for a specified term, and may be made contingent upon the acceptance and observance of specified conditions, including but not limited to the following matters: a) substantial conformity to approved plans and drawings; b) limitations on time of day for the conduct of specified activities; c) time period within which the approval shall be exercised and the proposed use brought into existence, failing which, the approval shall lapse and be void; d) guarantees as to compliance with the terms of the approval, including the posting of bond; e) compliance with requirements of other departments of the City/County Government. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorically Exempt, Class 11 (a) NOTIFICATION: Public Notice of the March 21, 1988, hearing was published in The Herald, mailed to adjacent property owners, and posted in public buildings. ANALYSIS: The Applicant is requesting approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Variance to permit a 26-foot tall second Freestanding Sign setback 9 feet from the rear property line (the Applicant proposes to locate the sign within the required 10-foot rearyard setback). The Applicant proposes a double-faced sign totaling 156 square feet in sign area (78 square feet per face). In September, 1986, the Planning Commission approved a similar sign for the site (PA 86-081) which was never completely constructed (see Attachment 3). On April 29, 1987, a building permit was issued for the 20-foot sign pole; however, the sign face was never erected. The applicant submitted a revised sign face plan which was approved on May 19, 1987. Again, the sign was not erected and the Applicant subsequently revised the proposed sign and a new building permit was issued on September 1, 1987. The original Conditional Use Permit approval was for a 28-foot tall double-faced free-standing sign totaling 144 square feet of sign area. A new Conditional Use permit is required as the Applicant's current proposal exceeds the sign area previously approved by a total of 12 square feet. A Variance is required in that the current sign proposal does not comply with the City's Ordinance relating to maximum sign height and sign area and setback requirements. The Applicant's proposed sign area is 95% larger than that which is permitted by the Sign Ordinance based on the proposed location. The proposed sign height is 73% taller than the height permitted by the Ordinance at the proposed location. When the Planning Commission approved the sign height, sign area, and sign location for PA 86-081, the property had one street frontage (Regional Street) for the purposes of determining the location of the Freestanding Sign. In January, 1987, as a result of the Applicant's appeal of the Zoning Administrator's and Planning Commission's actions denying a Variance request to allow two Freestanding Signs on the parcel, the City Council amended the City's Sign Ordinance. The Amendment changed the Ordinance to permit two Freestanding Signs on parcels four acres or greater situated adjacent to I-580 or I-680 subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. This amendment also changed the Ordinance by identifying the property line adjacent to the Interstate as a street frontage for purposes of determining the location, height, area, and proportion of a sign. -3- i /'\ n Due to this amendment, which established the rear property line adjacent to I-580 as a street frontage, the sign as approved by the Planning Commission in September, 1986, would be considered a nonconforming sign, subject to the amortization process outlined for nonconforming signs in Section 8-87.71 of the City's Zoning Ordinance. Based upon the City's current Ordinance, the Applicant would be permitted a 15-foot-tall Freestanding Sign with a total of 80 square feet of sign area for a double-faced sign (40 square feet per face) setback 10 feet from the property line. A 26-foot setback is required for the Applicant to erect the proposed 156 square foot double-faced Freestanding Sign. The sign height would be restricted to a 23-foot height. A 32-foot setback is required for the 26-foot-tall Freestanding Sign proposed by the Applicant. This would allow a 190-square foot double-faced Freestanding Sign. In order for the Applicant to construct the sign with the proposed 26-foot height, 156 square foot sign area, and 9-foot setback, a Variance is required. The following four findings of fact must be made by the Commission prior to granting a sign Variance: 1) The Variance authorized does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity; 2) Special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property and do not apply to other properties in the vicinity, so that the strict application of this Chapter deprives the property of rights enjoyed by other properties; 3) The Variance authorized meets the intent and purpose sought to be achieved by the regulations in this Chapter; and 4) The Variance authorized does not adversely affect the orderly development of property and the preservation of property values in the vicinity. Staff's response to these findings is as follows: 1) Authorization of this Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity in that all properties must comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance regulating the size, height, and location of signs within the City unless all four mandatory findings of fact are made affirmative. Granting a Variance for the Applicant's proposed sign, which is 95% larger in sign area and 73% taller than that permitted at the proposed location, constitutes a grant of special privilege as all the findings cannot be made. 2) No special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity, so that the strict application of this Chapter does not deprive the property of rights enjoyed by other properties, as the property is similar in location and topography to other properties in the vicinity. The property is a relatively large, flat parcel situated adjacent to I-580, a situation which allows the Applicant to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for two Freestanding Signs on one parcel, a privilege which applies to a limited number of parcels in the City. 3) Authorizing the Variance does not meet the intent and purpose sought to be achieved by the City's sign regulations, as the Applicant's sign does not conform to the Ordinance's purpose to promote uniformity among signs. The City's Sign Ordinance recognizes that the community's attractiveness is an important aspect of the public's general welfare, and establishes reasonable control of signs to protect the public welfare, safety, and health. In recognition of the need for controls on signs as a means of promoting uniformity and attractiveness within the City, and the need for businesses to identify themselves and the services offered, -4- n the Ordinance allows (subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit) large parcels to have signs taller than 20 feet and allows large parcels situated adjacent to the Interstate freeway to have two Freestanding Signs provided in each case, that the signs conform to the height, setback, and sign area restrictions established in the City's Zoning Ordinance. 4) Authorizing the Variance will adversely affect the orderly development and the preservation of property values in the vicinity, in that one of the purposes of the Ordinance is to promote reasonable uniformity among signs. Approving this Variance request with a large deviation from the Ordinance would not promote orderly development or uniformity among signs, particularly when there is no basis of fact for granting the Variance. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the Variance request, as the findings of fact cannot be made to warrant granting the Variance request. Several options are available with regard to locating a Freestanding Sign within the rear portion of the site: 1) The Applicant can withdraw the application and construct a Freestanding Sign with a maximum height of 15 feet, a maximum total sign area of 80 square feet, with a minimum setback of 10 feet from the rear property line, located in the general location approved under PA 86-081. A Variance or Conditional Use Permit approval would not be required. 2) The Applicant can revise the proposal for Conditional Use Permit to request a 23-foot tall double-faced Freestanding Sign with a 160 square foot maximum sign setback 26 feet from the rear property line frontage. A Variance would not be required. 3) The Applicant can withdraw the application and construct the sign previously approved under PA 86-081, maintaining a minimum 10-foot rearyard setback. Once the sign is constructed, it will become non-conforming and would be subject to the provisions of Section 8.87-71 of the Zoning Ordinance outlining the amortization process of Non-Conforming Signs. 4) If the Commission wishes to allow the Applicant to erect a 26-foot tall, 156 square foot double-faced Freestanding Sign setback 10 feet from the rear property line, a Zoning Ordinance amendment to the section regulating second Freestanding Signs should be adopted. The Planning Commission may initiate an amendment by Resolution, or the Planning Commission may request that the City Council initiate an amendment. RECOMMENDATION: FORMAT: 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 88-017, or give Staff and Applicant direction and continue the matter. ACTION: Adopt Resolutions denying PA 88-017 Howard Johnson Freestanding Sign Conditional Use Permit and Variance. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Resolution of Denial for Variance Exhibit B: Resolution of Denial for Conditional Use Permit Background Attachments 1. Applicant's Submittal, Plans 2. Location Map 3. PA 86-081 Plan Approval -5- I _ RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING PA 88-017 HOWARD JOHNSON VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A 26-FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN WHICH EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM SIGN AREA, HEIGHT, AND SETBACK RESTRICTIONS ESTABLISHED FOR FREESTANDING SIGNS, 6680 REGIONAL STREET WHEREAS, Johnson Clark has filed an Application on behalf of Howard Johnson Hotel for a Variance from Section 8-87.34(b)(2) and (3) of the City's Zoning Ordinance to permit a 26-foot-tall double-faced sign with a total 156 square foot of sign area and setback 9 feet from the rear property line at the Howard Johnson Hotel site at 6680 Regional Street; and WHEREAS, the 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, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 21, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending denial of the Variance request to exceed the maximum permitted sign area, height, and setback for Freestanding Signs on the site at 6680 Regional Street; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony as hereinabove set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find that: 1) Authorization of this Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the vicinity in that all properties must comply with the City's Zoning Ordinance regulating the size, height, and location of signs within the City unless all four mandatory findings of fact are made affirmative. Granting a Variance for the Applicant's proposed sign, which is 95% larger in sign area and 73% taller in height than that permitted at the proposed location, constitutes a grant of special privilege as all the findings cannot be made. 2) No special conditions and extraordinary circumstances apply to the property that do not apply to other properties in the vicinity, so that the strict application of this Chapter does not deprive the property of rights enjoyed by other properties, as the property is similar in location and topography to other properties in the vicinity. The property is a relatively large, flat parcel situated adjacent to I-580, a situation which allows the Applicant to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for two Freestanding Signs on one parcel, a privilege which applies to a limited number of parcels in the City. 3) Authorizing the Variance does not meet the intent and purpose sought to be achieved by the City's sign regulations, as the Applicant's sign does not conform to the Ordinance's purpose to promote uniformity among signs. The City's Sign Ordinance recognizes that the community's attractiveness is an important aspect of the public's general welfare, and establishes reasonable control of signs to protect the public welfare, safety, and health. In recognition of the need for controls on signs as a means of promoting uniformity and attractiveness within the City, and the need for businesses to identify themselves and the services offered, the Ordinance allows (subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit) large parcels to have signs taller than 20 feet and allows large parcels situated adjacent to the Interstate freeway n n to have two Freestanding Signs provided in each case that the signs conform to the height, setback, and sign area restrictions established in the City's Zoning Ordinance. 4) Authorizing the Variance will adversely affect the orderly development and the preservation of property values in the vicinity, in that one of the purposes of the Ordinance is to promote reasonable uniformity among signs. Approving this Variance request with a large deviation from the Ordinance would not promote orderly development or uniformity among signs, particularly when there is no basis of fact for granting the Variance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby deny PA 88-017 Howard Johnson Hotel Freestanding Sign Variance request to exceed the maximum permitted sign area, sign height, and setback requirement for Freestanding Signs. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of March, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director -2- RESOLUTION NO. 88 - A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DENYING PA 88-017 HOWARD JOHNSON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A 26-FOOT TALL FREESTANDING SIGN LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 9 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT 6680 REGIONAL STREET WHEREAS, Johnson Clark, representing Howard Johnson Motor Lodge, filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit to locate a 26-foot tall freestanding business identification sign, located approximately 9 feet from the rear property line and a Variance request to exceed the maximum sign area, height, and setback restrictions; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on March 21, 1988; and WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and WHEREAS, the request is categorically exempt in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending the application be denied; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission heard and considered all said reports, recommendations, and testimony hereinabove set forth; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 1988, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 88-_ denying PA 88-017 Variance request as the findings could not be made to warranty granting the Variance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission does hereby find: a. The use as proposed is not required by the public need in that the proposed sign does not comply with the City's Sign Ordinance related to sign area, height, and setback. b. The proposed use would not be properly related to other land uses and transportation and service facilities in the vicinity, as the sign far exceeds the permitted sign height and sign area for its proposed location. c. The use, if permitted under all circumstances and conditions of this particular case, may materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the vicinity, or be materially detrimental to the public welfare, or injurious to property or improvements in the area, as the sign does not comply with or meet the intent of the Sign Ordinance to promote uniformity through restrictions in location, height, and size. 12/P88-017 C.Ctitkiawna..j d. The use will be contrary to the specific intent clause or performance standards established for the district in which it is to be located, in that the sign does not comply with the sign regulations and does not promote uniformity and orderly development, which is a primary intent of the City's Sign Ordinance. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby deny PA 88-017 Howard Johnson Conditional Use Permit for a freestanding sign 26 feet tall, setback 9 feet from the rear property line, containing 156 square feet of sign area. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of March, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director -2- • • orb 1.161111 • Howard Johnson Hotel, 6680 Regional Street, Dublin, CA 94568 415-828-7750; CA 1-800-422-4656; USA 1-800-223-4656 February 17, 1988 RECEIVED • Planning Department 6500 Dublin Blvd. Suite D FEB 13 13c; Dublin, CA 94568 DUBUN PLANNING To Whom It May Concern: PR i�- n The only issue is a difference of 6 inches in the height of our previously approved highway sign. We have a "Catch 22" situation. Our hotel, while owned locally, is franchised by the national Howard Johnson. While we modeled our sign after the national Howard Johnson sign, which we intended to make locally, we were told by the Howard Johnson Corporation that we had to use their official sign which is make in a mold in Chicago (see letter from Howard Johnson - Franchise System). After waiting 6 months for delivery the sign was delivered io Oakland and is awaiting installation. When we went for the final clearance with the Dublin Building Department the 6 inch _ difference was discovered. This is the way the official Howard Johnson sign is made. To make it differently would be like asking •_ Coke to make bottles 1 inch shorter. The 6 inches adds 8% to the size of the sign. In our opinion this is insignificant. It will not be noticed on a highway sign that is 6x12 feet and�$Off the ground. -- We admit that most of the lost time is our responsibility but we • would appreciate a speedy resolution of our problem. Therefore, we request approval of our slight variation from the approved sign. Yours truly, Johnson Clark Managing Partner NT t �:�sl► t . PA 88�o 17 Apph? fs 5061‘.f • Howard Johnson Franchise Systems,Inc. 9319 LBJ Freeway Suite 116 Dallas,TX 75243 214-699-9725 HOWARD JOHNSON dimr- September 11, 1987 Mr. Johnson Clark Howard Johnson Hotel 6630 Regional Street Dublin, California 94568 Dear Mr. Clark: Duringmyrecent visit to Dublin, your manager, Bob Taylor, presented me with non-standard drawings of proposed signage (dissimilar to that recently received) for your Howard Johnson Hotel. He was to provide me with the name of the broker you utilized; as well as, the manufacturer's name. As we discussed during my February trip visit, logoed signage is a trademark of Howard Johnson Franchise Systems, Inc. and must meet specifications. While I have been awaiting this information I learned of Bob's departure which accounted for the delay of my receipt of requested information and documentation. I understand that the drawings you sent to Patricia Hambacher do not conform to our standards. We have four approved sign vendors; and, while most of the West Coast is _ handled by Acme Wiley, I have listed all here for your information: 1) Signgraphics, Telephone - 214/349-3131 �- --2) Acme Wiley, Telephone - 312/364-2250 3) Philadelphia Signs, Telephone - 609/329-1460 4) Tencon, Telephone - 615/729-5103 I am compelled to note that under_no.rirrumstances will Howard Manson Fran- _ - chiseSvstems- Inc. nermjty napproved sianage to be erected at any franchised facility and will take any necessary steps to prevent such an action from taking place. Should you feel that such a harsh stance is unwarranted, I must refer to your recent and arbitrary change out of logos on certain expendables and brochures (after we had arrived at a mutually acceptable design) in violation of Standard_of_.0perations_#.7.00.00 (Advertising, Signage, - Trademarks and Logo) and-your Franchise Agreement. Again, I fully support your decision to erect new signage at your hotel and encourage you to follow proper procedures in upgrading the image of your property in order to avoid any unnecessary entanglements. Should you wish to pursue a financing of your signage, please feel free to contact Mr. Mike Clark at 201/882-1880. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Si erel , Rand 11 W. Brown Regional Director, Franchised Operations RWBdln cc: Charles R. Clack Patricia Hambacher ee-OCT Applkax4s Ivie +444.1 i I ' O �w 1 L-- a • � 3 — t. . § 0 - - It, 51 4_'_z_-_- _*-----,--—---\*- \-- V- 1\,i; -- ,I_. - ., T—\--- I 1 I I • n - w • Ls t v / / / x O / 1 - /x / . . yj ,'I i1'i' N - `- 1 but ,P .,' :----,,.. y,r. ,jc. • / 4A•.'tr . 1. / / h �1•,/1. '`T-- 'A -�., P /' v /7 41 \ \ \ \ \ • �i �P• ;IV! •?, : ' �, 1 \ ' \ ► 'tl_� 11 1 ]n,?.t r �� , •. • - Ile ' t vex snc , STREET ) • , - A rni,�i.'.T a tcu — ` .. �u.tt,<�t, *. C —) ( ) ( 1 ( )11 r z` rV1 -... morwvu- .ro.c. — JOHNSON -► ,T ,...„,, .. . -, .—, • .. ,....f.i,,i....„: • -.. .... .., . • • „n .,... � y� A `• ar •z`ht , ' Zia' l 4 .,, l r;f 4...J♦.r�,•.r.r w.+.tti..t ' rim..lr1�J�i... , 7e77t »' 7s' » 7c'i Big Of «ateria fir. 'V ��-('''� Na. all. Nalo Ulf �V i• ak La.! O 1 .N I • ,_ •.L 1 YL,►�.1:•-�.i-•/3 yin��i:�•� t• I R nest• 1:.•. o 0.,,'. - •S -rx-r�L3kw'il�Mi f'!�1 ^�iL Y �I ---� rr►�` f- •..� ••-�. ..._3 (,I s t .it IV mu' • r .„ ' I ! tax+-^r�r+:st!ye.+Kaac, lEgw �w7r ' • .. AIIIIIIII ,„ • - — _ - - ) .. �tt�r ' _i .{.alc67� A •!' l 1�� I -� �^ -0 ,-Ts) ,- ',le 1-• •' , /{ '{• -� hi. U'1� .'1-i. 1 I . I ^ (71 1rur.--e.L..3- . -' i or /Linea of — �.• v _ ' D ` 1 • (31�_•'•�;.i� _ tq a,-,-.• 1 .' t,, t Cooy ` B .L. I ! - (9) is ..-,Yrl,.;^1 ....,tar F. x - ! r r: l f �OTL a I a��p�l a'I ( u' I. �t� (u) r,.,„ r.t••uu• � Top & Front Structural of Cabinet ("' �""""°��'""'— '{ (�. A______ :� l• 1, i_—.. t i /�'a)-iti �.s�166041 t �., O w '�I• ) ' • I .. \17) — ttivµ Mc.rwtne.l. rO V �, r 1 j t . i (� — srt--a.•v na. nc.[t.ay.e.t. 1 - ,' J -__«-__.. _ (71) ]a sort.•Sy.. .• 177 4.1say. • Pylon Elevation Top, Front, & Side Structural of Base Section B 117`" '" ""'' !Lau*..ol....,..1..1.-7. • �_ �._.� .^..I - Sisncrge Prorct I r; rrri V A Q • 10...1G a6n,.t. .. �_ r, Dra,.in Title , . .,..�.a.. Electrical g HOWARD Lit f e ..f r..a . PRIMARY SIGN. JOHNSON - • �-• I j , tt,4i•'� toms ne1 n 1,17•.o.c.11. /r� �J �, • BALLAST in acne. 111 scl.,.. D, r. Anus- ,) , - 6'6'z12=O'O.FPylon -.Ih . r'i'ta'n VA r14.1 , • • CIRtuas l•r I1..., i , t ; SECONDARY SIGN proj.Or, oat• •� �AAivS H1 T 11 r.eC.r R.L.O.• 1-•! • _ - ._ • • l • ,BAIIASt n1 .clr1... - (awing No. .Shfel No. • . Section A.'j ' • ` t Vertical Face Attachment betail is ,� ,]>..t HJ- 110 ;� Of • RECEIVED MAR l i 1a ' . Y Sc ` . , ' x.,:^ `�, Y DUBUN , • raa, .,,t,,ria 4, .,.• PtANNtNG .1 t .r • • Q '� y�sd:t .j `4� y4e',taro- •7`x (' )4:11:„,•; • •. ,; ••••,-, *"iW..1 '•"A- t.--'•kl;" 101CliflAwc <I' - �,j 4'r Y si t, v� ,•-r "�5 y ' 4;134ab/fir. �'1- £; ' • r ,�, ,,fir. JO N. fz4;4.?-1:1`:. *. .'- loii , s ,ti fiN f i ,,i-.. i() If Vi\'' Visualldentificat r: '„,„ Rt) , , ,r.. N : ..... .. . 413 ,., . 1 ir,-.)tei . ...., • . . ,:, _, ._ ..... _ ... _ •__, •• • ,. . ,, . . ___ .,. , . ., . . . , _A 11 .tt tyT fir{►• T{• t _ j' ' 4,ilevo,„• 0.).-, . 1,1 f, { mealy�- ' '��...... - ..• -. ,i, -:f•fv..t *.t.c,lf,Ler,r-i,44-gk 0. ! .,i - ,,,. - . -*4.,f.`•'',1-'.':.k,-t• v•'-tt:t,';:.`-7/risk }' , ''I;;� �cf rk4x , F 1 .ST'C C O // 0 A f/I.TC% zz t r- ty9}3 h; i, 1 5''4477.. ,.: 4, ..,........,..,....":1:,..,,,.... .. • . ,. , ..-i ..i7:_.,1- .:, 4 • ,*.t"t'-'1".t * .,• '41:;4. a. . itt?�` lix. .4%. • '4.Axle,,'c/f:.�v. ,. , ti 11 i 8rwk5, - -- ii frp_'--:•,-.-.-,y, R 1.4. . r, 1 7 2,,... rti?"‘X.-84,... 101.• Rq B . I)=IF ,i /4\:4'W. .- ..A.W......, 0 i to s \ r C.C.Ord.No. -21-85 Il Mgr. lit x a 10111"O." % FitS-DJI L.- PA85-035 "rt. 4 8 viapill*.At , ,ialiv, 4 c—c• i 41, 0 ( p:00114ii I Alidttill gos0 - 0,411110 S ' s,.i. R.R..) ARO „.., , I- A 1,, w : i . ..110110 ." 7': .••,. ----- iliac:tote . nut .1.• I air ."-X.S.W.' V Zab R-1 -E , , •r in 1 it..I 7;ri:;.iiiiiitliti: •%- 10:1111. 7,00041/45A "S:R.R.S.P 0 \\L‘ ....„ ________ p 1111111•84, \ ap .-------\___.^ PD ---- i VII MIN' 014 8-8 PD -CI % k_ , c.., RINA" ,t,A41• Ps-11-R-S P will -.......-.., '-.. . 11 ..ettill • • • • • Cr.ACI.10r321.2 No.'14- 4 _ C.C.Ool.No.4-85 'II , r PA84-076 roi0 ..digillp ann. ‘3,..ioggiirlik C-2 i er 0 11111 ***'*"11W°1 ' W .4r471.1•S.Ctl?..' .'vt S.R.R.S.E? C-1 ‘ .... * C 1 o ..— .,,,‘•-•- • .• .#4.. ..--,--\ -91E1 Ns , '-'• W WA % . \;-..., I tiV‘° °V‘ ‘, R-S-D-20 1 ---- F. • - t I IC' g1144 j .*,,i' , iy ot 1p i, ‘07*•$*-3.**,p •A ' ' .09, ot ?.. 0 pr c--) C \' 4111k .•••. 1 ftst*Nt. 1 P4 IS V % c co 4g6 , $_....•_,,., ..... . ,_ c .1\12.0Zoljl.78-114 i _ • e n \- . 10,40, 0_, M113 \ 41',1,',' :•-, ..404 „. : ___ _ A, ________-T-----. _ . 40 \)&111. 404../.:111 atliW A ----":7----- ------ N O 80-80 - Willi ' -•-•.- . . (. . we-var.-if-- i.1.Y -0 11.11tiN____------- • -----------;-•------------- ....------ isb. _ . 011,,••• '4.1 • __--- --- •-, 1. • C ,c ( :,,:.. ... , :,/ / le _____ • DI- iIa ' .� z. . o m� ', a age. I 4 :1: !› i . : 110 's >=o� s I ]] IP A i ;ZIZ 2-EQb I 1 ti,11 zi: fl;1:: 1-—C 5 4> 11 11:8 ii I • 4.3, T. -- r / il it f ir ( r I z. \ - I; IIIII fI 0 i 0 i I ki t; his "�gz ig!;! ]• h F_r y i �fZ 22zm -t zMr. 0 O z F ER 3i (QZ� r '�w �yt0 o ...1.3:6ba?Z �:______— ____ RAC 1 p YR Z ° li r aE wS°'� sa°bi�1. /\\\i —___\\\ J� 1 r,1 1 ;,Sf 25.1y GG;*0•r .z . D I I._ •. d. O ii y �� (: i �Eti,q5▪ i"L n of s£�6j L; z r ;iI I?r; I Ai , I h i� £Fi .. •I I R M ATTACHMENT pA 88-0n r' ' oss kmr•Lcolo-‘ | , 17/ 1 1 I | . |/ , . § . iI } I § I . , I $ 1 ! \ i ) }� / � i }s 9§`tf 2 i 5e, 7 - | // | ; /' \ \ , ■. ;; ! ; � ■ \ d1 `i I � a ■,,%4; 2 I ry I ' 7Iiir i n | ' n$ I \ / 1 J . . /'§�`�`-`_ :� �> ƒ i ,a ! )r , \ 2 | ® 2 ! 7; 1 |� : sitRi=,& 0 ! } o - ! . ' 7j.. - / !!!|`& 2 : A |J�-|, > . / !, lgA#ai m . q\\ tt .1 k� &\ \ .1.6• RItt | ( , / ( n g ; 3( | - : `IIN \ |1§,|--gt' I { - /P �{ ' I: b s % ; \ //! j i i a a \ \ '• ii . � . , , C ..?; | 7}1 k i ■ \Q!§ « ti G ; § - , 5& 6 } / , 1I . I 1_ 1 k - i8tii. mo 0W \ ® >[ 3 \ R_\ \^ / / , af P§ti ilk e f • \ k A , `H NI E | 'O1sta-obi*proves , CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT Planning Commission Meeting Date: March 21, 1988 SUBJECT: Resolution initiating amendment to Zoning Ordinance to provide conforming status to properties rendered non- conforming solely because of condemnation of property. EXHIBITS ATTACHED: A. Draft Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution if FINANCIAL STATEMENT: No fiscal impact on the City DESCRIPTION: On March 7, 1988, the Planning Commission considered the Dublin Boulevard Extension Plan Line studies. Acting on Staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission directed Staff to prepare an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to provide conforming status to properties rendered non-conforming solely because of City condemnation of property. A review of the Zoning Ordinance amendment procedures indicates that such an amendment may be initiated by resolution of the Planning Commission. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution initiating the amendment. ITEM NO. 9. 1 COPIES TO: RESOLUTION NO. 88- A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN INITIATING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE CONFORMING STATUS TO PROPERTIES RENDERED NON-CONFORMING SOLELY BECAUSE OF CONDEMNATION OF PROPERTY WHEREAS, the City of Dublin has, in the past, and may continue, in the future, to process and adopt street plan line studies; and WHEREAS, the street plan line studies may result in condemnation of property; and WHEREAS, it may be equitable to provide for conforming status to property that would otherwise be rendered non-conforming solely because of condemnation of property; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Dublin Planning Commission does hereby initiate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to provide conforming status to properties that would otherwise be rendered non- conforming solely because of condemnation of property. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of March, 1988. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Planning Commission Chairperson ATTEST: Planning Director