HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Reso 88-051 PA 87-159.2 First Western Development Minor subdivision 7 acre site ( into two site) RESOLUTION NO. 88 - 051
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
1) DENYING PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT MINOR SUBDIVISION REQUEST TO
SUBDIVIDE AN EXISTING 7.002 ACRE SITE INTO TWO SEPARATE SITES (PARCEL A
CONTAINING 5.908 ACRES AND PARCEL B CONTAINING 1.094 ACRES) AT 7450 AMADOR
VALLEY BOULEVARD;
AND
2) DENYING PA 87-159.2 FIRST WESTERN DEVELOPMENT VARIANCE REQUEST TO ALLOW A
SUBSTANDARD PARCEL WITH INSUFFICIENT EFFECTIVE LOT FRONTAGE AT 7450 AMADOR
VALLEY BOULEVARD
WHEREAS, First Western Development filed an application for a
Minor Subdivision request to subdivide an existing 7.002 acre site into two
separate sites (Parcel A containing 5.908 acres and Parcel B containing 1.094
acres) and a Variance request to allow a substandard parcel (Parcel B); and
WHEREAS, the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
need not be fulfilled as Staff is recommending denial of the Subdivision
request and denial without prejudice of the Variance request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said
application on August 15, 1988 and September 6, 1988; and
WHEREAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all
respects as required by law; and
WHEREAS, a Staff Report was submitted recommending that the
Subdivision request be denied and the Variance request be denied without
prejudice; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hear and consider all said
reports, recommendations and testimony as hereianbove set forth;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE Dublin Planning Commission
does hereby find that PA 87-159.2 First Western Development Minor Subdivision
and Variance request is inconsistent with the intent of the applicable
Subdivision regulations and City Zoning Ordinance in that:
1. The subdivision would result in a parcel that would not have
the required effective lot frontage as defined in Section 8-60.13 of the Dublin
Zoning Ordinance;
2. There are no topographic limitations or soil or geological
conditions which would warrant granting a Variance from the effective lot
frontage requirements as the lot is a relatively flat site.
3. Granting of a Variance from effective lot frontage does not
provide an opportunity for a more effective or desirable land utilization as
development of the existing site is possible without subdivision of the site
into separate parcels. From a planning perspective, it is more desirable and
effective for the site to develop as one parcel, functioning as a single retail
center under one ownershp or proprietary interest. Development of the site
under one parcel would eliminate or minimize the problems which could arise
with future expansion of development on the site, obtaining access easements,
location and placement of freestanding signage.
4. There are no particular circumstances in which the granting
of the Variance would meet or exceed the intent of the effective lot frontage
requirement. The primary intent of the effective lot frontage requirement is
to provide adequate street frontage for pacels, thereby enhancing visability
from adjacent streets and promoting uniformity and compatibility of lot sizes
and development within a zoning district.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT THE Planning Commission does hereby
deny PA 87-159.2 First Western Development minor Subdivision and Variance
request for substandard effective lot frontage on Parcel B.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of September, 1988.
AYES: Commissioners Barnes, Mack, and Zika
NOES: Commissioner Burnham
ABSENT: Commissioner Tempel
Planning Commission airperson
ATTEST:
Planning Direct r