HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.6 7197 VillagePkwy CITY CLERK
File # 420-10
AGENDA STATEMENT
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 4, 2003
SUBJECT: Alternatives for 7197 Village Parkway
Report Prepared by: Christopher L. Foss,
Economic Development Director
ATTACHMENTS: 1. Location Map
2. Ordinance No. 21-98 ((Planned Development Rezoning)
RECOMMENDATION:~ Review the attached report and provide staff with direction.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None at this time.
DESCRIPTION: In the City of Dublin's FY 2002-03 Goals and Objectives (II-A-14),
the City Council directed Staff to "investigate the options for the property on the southeast comer of
Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard."
Background
The site in question (7197 Village Parkway) is a 1.018-acre (44,338 square feet) site at the southeast
comer of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard (see Attachment A). From the mid 1960's, the
site operated as a gas station until approximately April of 1998. Subsequent to the closure of the gas
station, the City Council, on July 7, 1998, directed staff to "initiate a General Plan Study and/or Zone
Change Study to evaluate the appropriate uses for the property located at 7197 Village Parkway that were
consistent with the desires of the City Council to encourage Village Parkway to develop into a vital
downtown area."
With that direction, staff conducted a preliminary land use analysis of the property and recommended that
the following commercial uses be permitted on the site:
Community-Serving Retail: general merchandise stores, clothing/shoe stores, gift/specialty stores,
bookstores, and similar stores.
Office and Service: Legal offices, medical/dental offices, travel agency, hair/beauty salon, other
administrative and professional offices, and similar offices and service uses.
Eating, Drinking, and Entertainment: Restaurants, cafes, ice cream shops, video rental,
delicatessens, and similar uses.
These uses did not include automotive-related uses, such as service stations, automobile/vehicle
brokerage, rental, sales, service, and/or repair.
COPIES TO: Robert Linchks, Tosco Phillips 66 Co.
ITEM NO. ~
H/cc-forms/agdastmt. doc /~ .....
Staff completed a zone change study for the project and determined that rezoning the property from the
C-2, General Commercial Zoning District to a Planned Development (PD) Zoning District with
development regulations similar to the C-1, Retail Commercial Zoning District would best meet the needs
of the City for creating more retail opportunities within the downtown core. In addition, rezoning the
property to a PD Zoning District would allow greater flexibility needed to encourage innovative
development and creative site layout. The intent of the PD Zoning District is to create a more desirable
use of the land and a better physiCal environment. The PD Zoning District established permitted,
conditional, and prohibited uses and development standards for the site (please review the attached PD).
The permitted uses fall into three main categories: Community-Serving Retail, Office and Service, and
Eating, Drinking, and Entertainment. The permitted uses under the PD were intended to compliment the
existing retail and commercial office and restaurant uses along Village Parkway and the surrounding
downtown area. The PD was also intended to foster a more pedestrian-friendly environment for the area.
The PD also includes architectural design standards that promote pedestrian interest and pedestrian use.
Due to the incompatibilities with permitted and existing uses, the following uses were prohibited: Drive-
In/Through Businesses, Service S, tations, Automobile/Vehicle Brokerage, Automobile Rental, Automobile
Repairs and Service, Automobile Sales and Service, and Automobile Storage Lots. On December 15,
1998, the Dublin City Council adopted Ordinance No. 21-98 which adopted the Planned Development
Rezoning (see Attachment 2).
Ownership
Conoco Phillips, a new company that was created by the merger of Conoco Oil and Phillips 66, is the
parent company of Tosco Operating Company, Inc., a Delaware corporation, which currently owns the
site. Since the adoption of the site's Planned Development Rezoning, the site has remained unoccupied.
According to conversations Staff has held with a representative of the property owner, the property is
subject to a synthetic lease that was entered into when Tosco acquired the site. A synthetic lease is a
financing mechanism that allows the company to control the real estate without being required to show the
real estate asset on its financial statements. This financing mechanism allows a company (Tosco) to enter
into a lease agreement with an independent trustee (BNY Western Trust Company), which acquires title to
the real estate and acts as the borrower, but allows Tosco to buy back the property at a pre-determined
($1.108 million) price that will pay off the fmancing at the same time. The company derives benefits
associated with real estate ownership by depreciating improvements for tax purposes. In short, the
synthetic lease provides the benefits of owning property with the benefits of any operating lease. The
synthetic lease is generally for a specified amount of time (5-10 years), at which time the property can be
refinanced or purchased According to the conditions of the synthetic lease, the property has a value of
$1.108 million (or $24.99 per square foot). The site has been in escrow on two occasions for at or near
the asking price, but according to a representative of the property owner, neither deal was consummated
due to use restrictions placed on the site by the City.
In addition to the economic and entitlement issues related to this site, there is also the limiting factor of
the condition of the soil. When Tosco acquired the site from British Petroleum (BP), BP retained the
"ownership / responsibi[itf' for the cleanup of any contamination on the site. Tosco has indicated that BP
has received a "No Further Action" letter from Alameda County that requires no further clean up of the
site at this time. According to Alameda County Environmental Health staff, the site has been reviewed,
monitored, and cleaned to established property standards, although residual amounts are allowed to
remain on the site. On this site, remediation work included the removal of the contaminated soil and the
placement of several monitoring wells. If the property were to change from an automotive-related use or
one in which the ground was disturbed, the site would be subject to a re-evaluation by Alameda County
staff based on the new use and and the property owner could be required to clean the site to a higher
standard.
Due to the fact that the groundwater at the site is at approximately 8 feet, the property owner has indicated
that they are looking for "on slab" development that would not disturb the site. Alameda County staff
stated that sub-surface activities could result in the discovery of additional contamination that could
warrant additional investigation. Even though they do not have responsibility for any potential cleanup of
the site, the property owner does not want to burden any furore sale with the potential for a required site
investigation and/or cleanup. This condition could limit future development options for the site.
Alternatives
Over the past few years, the City Council has expressed concerns about the lack of development on the
site. Staff has been asked to prepare this memorandum outlining potential development scenarios for the
1.018-acre site. From Staff's perspective, there are three options: Private Development under current
zoning, Private Development under revised zoning, or City of Dublin ownership.
ALTERNATIVE 1
The site could be sold and developed by a private developer consistent with the approved zoning. Over
the past two years, developers have expressed interest in developing a neighborhood-serving retail center
of approximately 10-12,000 square feet with several retail establishments permitted under the PD such as
dry cleaners, small restaurant, video store, etc. Despite the fact that the site is available and the proposed
uses are permitted under the PD zoning, developers have indicated that the potential drawbacks to
development of the site include the fact that the site's asking price may be too expensive to achieve a
developer's desire return on investment, and the site is two blocks from a major arterial - which would
limit the center to neighborhood serving retail only.
Interested developers have told Staff that the combination of the site's price, coupled with any City-
imposed traffic impact costs, could deter any potential retail development on the site at this time. On or
before June 17, 2003, Staff will ask the City Council to consider a proposed Downtown Traffic Impact
Fee (TIF) program to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements to accommodate present and future
development in the City's Central Business District. It is staff's estimate that the new TIF fee could add
as much as $200,000 to the development cost of an 11,500 square foot neighborhood retail center
(approximately $4.50 per square foot of land). In an attempt to stimulate development of this site and
other sites with unique circumstances within the Central Business District, Staff would propose to, if so
directed, return to the City Council with an Economic Incentive program relative to the proposed
Downtown TIF for selected sites and/or uses in the Central Business District at the same time as the
Downtown TIF discussion.
If the City Council were to select this option, it is likely that a development of a 10-12,000 square foot
neighborhood retail center would occur within the next 12-18 months. The net cost to the City would be
up to the amount of the Downtown T~ (if enacted) that the developer would be required to pay. The
maximum total TIF for such a project is currently estimated to be $200,000.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The site could be re-zoned to reinstate drive-through and certain automotive-related uses so the site could
be developed / re-used by a private developer. Staff has received numerous calls from automotive users
(automotive sales, automotive repair, automotive body shops, etc.) and drive-through retail establishments
that would like to enter the Dublin market and could make use of the site (including the building). These
users have indicated that the cost of the site is acceptable, that they could produce additional sales tax
revenue to the City, and they would also conform to the development of "slab on grade" being urged by
the property owner. The drawback to this scenario include the uses would be inconsistent with the current
PD zoning and the Village Parkway Specific Plan which would require modification.
If the City Council were to select this option, there would be no costs to the City.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The City of Dublin could purchase the site and therefore control the ultimate use for the site. None of the
estimated costs to the City described below include further remediation of the site that may be required.
Although BP apparently is contractually obligated to Tosco for cleanup costs and the site has been
reviewed, monitored and cleaned to Alameda County Environmental Health's cun'ent established property
standards, if the City purchases the site the City is in the chain of title and can be held responsible for
cleanup, if further remediation is necessary. At this time, the cost of any remediation is undetermined.
Staff will look into this issue further if the Council is interested in any of the following possibilities.
The potential development(s) under this scenario could include the following:
A. The City of Dublin purchases the site (with General Fund revenue) and prepares an RFQ to
solicit a retail developer to develop the site Under this scenario, the City of Dublin could long~
term lease the site to the developer or sell the site to a developer at a below-market cost (if
determined to be for a public purpose) to stimulate development. In order for the Council to sell
the property to a developer for less than the fair market value (or less than the City paid for the
property), the Council would have to find that there was a public purpose to be served by the sale.
The public purpose could be that the sale of the property would result in development of the
property, thus increasing the City's receipt of property taxes and sales taxes. The costs to the City
for this option could be as much as $1.108 million (depending on the revenue re-couped from the
sale of the site to a private developer).
B. The City of Dublin purchases the site (with Housing revenues) and considers Senior or
Disabled Housing for the site. Given the constraints of the Site (size and height limitations due to
adjacent single-family homes), further study would be required to determine the appropriate and
possible number of units that could be built on the site. Under this scenario, the City of Dublin
would most likely enter into a long-term land lease arrangement with a Senior or Disabled
Housing developer. The amount of financial assistance required for this project, beyond the land
acquisition, is undetermined at this time. This development scenario may require construction that
would encroach into the 4-foot depth limit set by Conoco Phillips [and may be discouraged by the
seller. Staff would also need to do research into site remediation requirements. This scenario
would also require amendments to the General Plan and Village Parkway Specific Plan. The costs
to the City for this option could be as much as $1.108 million for the land and an undetermined
subsidy for the housing portion of the project.
C. The City of Dublin purchases the site and considers a 1.018-acre City park (Neighborhood
Square) or other appropriate community facility. With the influx of new in-fill development being
considered throughout the City's Central Business District (ex. West Dublin BART Housing),
Staff is attempting to identify potential park sites and this site could help meet the community's
needs. Staff has estimated, in addition to the land acquisition costs of $1.108 million, that the cost
of the park construction alone would be approximately $600,000 for an estimated project cost of
approximately $1.7 million. Under this alternative, the site remediation requirements would need
to be closely reviewed.
D. The City of Dublin could purchase the site (with General Fund revenues) and construct a
parking lot. The business owners on Village Parkway have historically decried the lack of parking
as one of the detriments to their current and future business successes. According to a preliminary
review by Public Works Staff, this site could accommodate approximately 90-100 parking spaces
and could provide a location for one of the City's proposed identification monuments. The total
cost of the parking lot (land value plus construction) would be approximately $1.25 million.
Conclusion
For the past four years, 7197 Village Parkway has been vacant and has become a community eyesore.
Given the site's asking price and the current PD zoning, development of the site will most likely not occur
for the foreseeable future. Staff recognizes that above-mentioned alternatives may not entail every
potential option available, but Staff does believe that any of the alternatives outlined could help activate
the comer and could benefit the Village Parkway area. As part of the City Council's consideration, it may
wish to only have Staff pursue further exploration of one of the alternatives and defer commitment of City
funds until the impact of the State budget deliberations on the City's budget are known.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council review this report and give staff
appropriate direction.
ASSESSOR' S lC, AP 94. ~ '"""~ '""~"
OFA SUB. OF PLOT ~ OF THE DOUGHERTY RANCH(POR. PLOT 59)¢Bk.~5 Pg.~?
TRACT 2662: (Bk.50Pg.36) P, M. 1052 (Bk.79 Pg,?.O)
/
.'~-- -'-- -- -- /7'5 / TRACT 2717(E~k.50P(J, Sm (Bk.gePg.16)
PM.
2149
.~ ,~".~I CHANGERS ->~'~~: ~-------.....
~ ,' 4;4~ ~~~ ~ SUBJECT
tw .. ~:'l ifE
~ ~, ~ ~'~/.oo~:t,'J · ~,. SITE
~ ,
~o5 ; ,,4';:,";,
..... · ,,,;,,
~ ~ ®,.~,~.~,~ ~ t ...........
i 206
van
[,,~XI'_~,N, II ~ _
'~e--. ~.._ o° .;'¢ % ..~; ,.~,:~. .. :;;,1 __
Attachment
ORDINANCE NO. 21 - 98
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADOPT
THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REZONING (PA 98-049) OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7197
VILLAGE PARKWAY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VILLAGE PARKWAY AND AMADOR
VALLEY BOULEVARD (APN: 941-210-13)
WHEREAS, on July 7, 1998, the City Council instructed staff to initiate a General Plan Amendment
Study and/or Zone Change Study to evaluate appropriate uses for the property located at 7197 Village Parkway
("Property") consistent with the desires of the Council to encourage Village Parkway to develop into a vital
downtown area with offices, restaurants, cafes, remit services, and other pedestrian-friendly land uses; and
WHEREAS, in response to the City Council's direction, staff conducted a preliminary land use
investigation for the Property and recommended the following commercial uses:
Community-Serving Retail: general merchandise stores, clothing/shoe stores, gift/specialty
stores, book stores, and similar stores;
Office and Service.: legal offices, medical/dental offices, travel agency, hair/beauty salon,
other administrative and professional offices, and similar offices and service uses;
Eating, Drinking and Entertainment: restaurants, cafes, ice cream shops, video rental,
delicatessens, and similar uses; and
WHEREAS, Community-Serving Retail, Office and Service, Eating, Drinking and Entertainment uses,
as those terms are used in this ordinance, do not include automotive-related uses, such as service .stations,
automobile/vehicle brokerage, rental, sales, . service and repair; and
WHEREAS, on July 2 I, 1998, the City Council also directed staff to prohibit any drive-through uses
on the Property; and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 1998, the City Council found that the approval of additional subdivisions, use
permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement that would allow the future use of the
Property for automotive related uses, such as service stations, automobile/vehicle brokerage, rental, sales,
service and repair, would result in that threat to public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, on July 21, 1998, the City Council adopted a forty-five (45) day moratorium on the
acceptance, processing or approval of any applications or permits for subdivisions, use permits; variances,
building permits, or any other applicable entitlement on the Property for any uses other than Community-
Serving Retail, Office Service, and Eating, Drinking and Entertainment; and
WItEREAS, due to staff needing additional time to complete the General Plan Amendment Study to
evaluate appropriate uses for the Property, on September 1, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 12-
98 which extended for ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days, from September 6, 1998, u. ntil July 21, 1999, the
forty-five (45) day moratorium it adopted on July 21, 1998; and
WHEREAS, staff completed the zone change study and prepared a Planned Development (PD) District
Rezone and Development Plan for the Property in compliance with Ordinance No. 12-98, which rezones the
Property from the C-2, General Commercial Zoning District to a PD Zoning District; and
Attachment 2
WItEREAS, the application has been reviewed in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines and the City Environmental Guidelines, and determined to be
exempt from CEQA because the project will not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. Any future development that is proposed for the project site will be Subject to CEQA review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission'did hold a public hearing on the PD District Rezone,
Development Plan on November !0, 1998, and did adopt a Resolution recommending that the City. Council
approve a Planned Development Rezone and a Development Plan for PA 98-049; and
WI~REAS, proper notice of said public hearing was given in all respects as required by law; and
WltEREAS, properly noticed public hearings were held by the City Council on December 1, 1998 and
December 15, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Staff RePort was submitted recommending that the City Council approve the
application; and
WltEREAS, the City Council did hear and use its independent judgment and considered ali said
reports, recommendations and testimony hereinabove Set forth.
~REAS, pursuant to section 8.32.070 and 8.120.050 of the Dublin Municipal Code, the city
Council makes the following findings:
1. The Proposed Planned Development Zoning District and Development Plan (Stage 1 and 2) meet the
purpose and intent of Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance because they will provide retail
commercial and office uses that are appropriate for a site which is located at a major intersection within
the Dublin's downtown instead of automotive related uses, which would be possible under the
requirements of the C-2 Zoning District; and
2. Development under the Planned Development Zoning District and Development Plan (Stage 1 and 2)
would be harmonious and compatible with existing and future development in the surrounding areas
and especially with the residential area to the south due to the setback, parking and landscape
requirements of the Planned Development Zoning District and due to the prohibition of automotive and
drive-through uses that would likely cause land use incompatibilities with the adjacent residential uses,
and potential noise and air quality impacts; and
3. The PD Rezone is consistent with the general provisions, intent, and purpose of the PD District Zoning
District of the Zoning Ordinance in that it contains all information required by Chapter 8.32 of the
Zoning Ordinance for a Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan and accomplishes the objectives of
Chapter 8.32, A through It, of the Zoning Ordinance; and
4. The subject site is physically suitable for the type and intensity of the zoning district being proposed
because it is located within a developed downtown area, was previously developed, and because it is
located adjacent to roadways which are designed to carry traffic that would be generated by the
proposed types of uses; and
5. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the health or safety of persons residing or working
in the vicinity, or be detrimental to the public health,, safety and welfare because the project has been
built according to City laws and regulations and because the Planned Development Zoning District will
limit land uses to those which are appropriate for this site; and
6. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Retail/Office designation of the Dublin General Plan
and the proposed use types are permitted by said designation.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Dublin does ordain as follows:
SECTION 1.
Pursuant to Chapter 8.32, Title 8 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code the City of Dublin Zoning Map
is amended to rezone the following property ("Property") to a Planned Development Zoning District:
Approximately t .06 acres at 7197 Village Parkway (APN 94 !-210-13) located at the southeast
corner of Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard.
A map of the Property is outlined below:
Subject l:'roperty
From C-2, General Commercial Zoning District
To PD, Planned Development Zoning District
SECTION 2.
The regulations of the use, development, improvement, and maintenance of the Property are set forth in
the Stage 1 and Stage 2 Development Plan (Exhibit lA hereto) which is hereby approved.
SECTION 3.
The City Clerk of the City of Dublin shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three (3) public
places in the City of Dublin in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of
California.
STAGE 1 AND STAGE 2
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
This is a Development Plan for PA 98-049 pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance
for the property located at 7197 Village Parkway (APN 941-210-13), located at the southeast corner of
Village Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard. This Development Plan meets all of the requirements
for Stage ! and Stage 2 review of the project.
The land use designations for this PA 98-049 PD Zoning District are established to: a) accommodate a range
of community-serving retail and mixed-use projects incorporating retail, service and/or office uses; b)
provide appropriately located areas for retail stores, offices, and service establishments, offering commodities
and services required by residents of the City and its surrounding market area; c) provide opportunities for
retail stores, offices, and service establishments to concentrate for the convenience of the public and in
mutually beneficial relationship to each other; d) provide space for community facilities and institutions that
appropriately may be located in commercial areas; d) provide adequate space to meet the needs of modem
commercial development, including off-street parking and truck loading areas; and e) minimize traffic
congestion and to avoid overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size
in relation to the amount of land around them.
This Development Plan includes: development standards; permitted, conditional and prohibited uses; design
standards and Stage 1 and 2 site plan; labeled Exhibit lA to the Ordinance approving this Development Plan
(City Council Ordinance No. 21 - 98), and on file in the Planning Department. The Planned Development
District allows the flexibility needed to encourage innovative development while ensuring that the goals,
policies, and action programs of the General Plan, Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, and provisions of
Section 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance are satisfied.
A. Permitted Uses/Site Area/Densities:
Permitted Uses:
1. Community-serving retail uses, including, but not limited to:
a. General Merchandise Store
b. Discount Retail Store
c. Clothing/Fashion Store
d. Shoe Store
e. Home Furnishing Store
f. Office Supply Store
g. Home Appliance/Electron/cs Store
h. Home Improvement/Hardware Store
i. Music Store
j. Hobby/Specialty Interest Store
k. Gifts/Specialty Store
1. Jewelry and Cosmetic Store
m. Drug Store
1 EXHIBIT lA
n. Auto Parts Store
o. Toy Store
p. Book Store
q. Pet Supplies Store
r. Sporting Goods Store (without sale of firearms)
s. Grocery/Food Store
t. Video Rentals
2. Office and service establishments, including, but not limited to:
a. Bank/Savings and Loan
b. Real Estate/Title Office
c. Travel Agent
d. Legal
e. Accounting
f. Medical and Dental
g. Optometrist
h. Architect
i. Employment Agency
j. Hair/Beauty Salon
k. Cleaner and Dryer
1. Shoe Repair
m. Key Shop ':
n. Tailor
o. Athletic Club
p. Formal Wear/Rental
q. Other Administrative and Professional Office
r. Technology Access Center
s. Tele-commuting Center
3. Eating and drinking establishments including, but not limited to:
a. Restaurant
b. Delicatessen
c. Specialty Food (e.g. bagel shop)
d. Bakery
e. Cafes
f. Ice Cream Shop
g. Sandwich Shop
Site Area: approximately 1.06 acres
Densities: .25 to .50 Floor Area Ratio
2
g:\pa98-049\7197vppdl
B. Conditional Uses:
1. In-patient and out-patient health facilities as licensed by the State Department of
Health Services
2. Wine or liquor bar with on-sale liquor license
3. Micro-brewery
4. Video Arcade
5. Sporting Goods Store (with sale of firearms)
6. Public and semi-public facilities (Governmental or institutional-type facilities. Public
facilities include: schools; libraries; city office buildings; State, County and other
public agency facilities; post offices; fire stations; and utilities. Semi-public facilities
include: churches; theaters; community centers; and hospitals).
7. Community care facility/large (7 or more)
8. Other uses that could possibly meet the intent of the Planned Development (PD)
District - Community-Serving Retail; Office and Service Establishments; and Eating
and Drinking uses.
C. Prohibited Uses:
1. Drive-In/Drive-T~ough Business
2. Service Station
3. Automobile/Vehicle: Brokerage; Rental; Repairs and Service; Sales and Service; and
Storage Lot
D. Dublin Zoning Ordinance - Applicable Requirements: Except as specifically modified by the
provisions of this PA 98-049 PD Zoning District, use, development, improvement and maintenance
of property within this PD Zoning District shall be subject to the provisions of the C-I, Retail
Commercial Zoning District of the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance with regard to
permitted/conditional uses, land use restrictions and minimum/maximum development criteria.
E. Development Standards:
1. Setbacks
a. Front and Side Yard (street side):
minimum 10 feet
b. Rear (easterly property line):
minimum 15 feet (for first story)
minimum 25 feet (for second story)
minimum 35 feet (for third story)
3
· g:\pa98-049\7197vppd 1
c. Side Yard (southern property line):
minimum 5 feet
d. Vehicular access shall be maintained between this property and the property to the
south.
2. Height Limitations
3 stories, 45 feet high
3. Parking
a. All uses for the site shall comply with Chapter 8.76 Off Street Parking and
Loading Regulations of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance.
b. All parking shall be located on the southern and/or eastern portion of the
property.
4. Landscaping
a. All required setback areas, including the comer area of the property (Village
Parkway and Amador Valley Boulevard) shall be properly designed and
landscaped in order to establish a high level of development quality while
providing for neighborhood identity where appropriate. The design shall
, utilize street tree plantings with complementary landscape materials.
b. The comer landscaping should incorporate significant landscape, including
specimen trees and special "city entry" image treatment whenever appropriate.
The design shall ensure that any comer landscape plan conforms with the
Traffic Visibility Area requirements of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance to protect
public safety.
5. Outdoor Seating
Outdoor seating for eating and drinking establishments are allowed within this PD Zoning
District and may be located in the westerly and northerly (street side) setback areas provided
these uses do not occupy more than 50% of the setback area.
Design Standards:
General Commercial Design Standards
1. Any new building developed at the site shall achieve a human scale and
interest. The building shall exemplify a sense of proportion to the physical site
and surrounding properties. The building design shall incorporate building
4
g:\pa98-049\7197vppd 1
elements, such as wall insets, balconies and window projections, which may
help produce a proportionate building and reduce the scale of larger buildings.
2. The building color shall be compatible with the neighborhood and shall
reinforce the visual character of the environment of'the proposed buildings.
Integral coloring of concrete, stucco, and similar materials is encouraged.
Bright colors may be used to provide an attractive and distinctive accent to the
building.
3. The choice of materials, colors, signs and the level of architectural detailing for
the new buildings shall be thoughtfully integrated into the design of all
building elevations.
Retail Commercial Center Design Standards
1. All new retail commercial development with eating and drinking
establishments may incorporate an outdoor seating area, activity plaza or
courtyard to enhance pedestrian use; public and civic interaction; and events.
2. All furniture and accessories provided for the outdoor seating area shall be
compatible with the architectural design of the building.
3. In order to promote a pedestrian environment, the ground floor level of the
buildings shall include display windows, courtyard entrances and other
elements of pedestrian interest.
G. Proposed Development:
1. Any new development proposed for the site shall be subject to a new Development
Plan pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Zoning Ordinance and a Site Development
Review permit. The decisionmaker for the Site Development Review shall be the
Community Development Director (and his/her designee).
2. New office building developments shall be encouraged to include a mix of
community -serving retail uses, and eating, drinking and entertainment
establishment-type uses.
H. Site Plan and Architecture:
A Site Development Review shall be prepared for this project which shall provide a site plan, floor
plans, building elevation plans and any other applicable architectural plans or other documents as
required by the Director of Community Development.
5
g:\pa98-049\7197vppd 1