HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 15, 1991 PH (10)4+ GF
Q CITY OF LODI COUNCIL COMMUNICATION
AGENDA TITLE: Appeals received from Bruce Schweigerdt and Ron Hilder regarding
the Planning Commission's conditional approval of the request of
Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc. on behalf of the Twin Arbors Athletic
Club for a Use Permit to expand and remodel an existing sports club
at 2040 Cochran Road in an area zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential
MEETING DATE: May 15, 1991
PREPARED BY: Community Development Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council consider the appeals of Bruce
Schweigerdt and Ron Hilder regarding the Planning
Commission's conditional approval of the request of
Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc. on behalf of the Twin Arbors Athletic Club for a Use
Permit to expand and remodel an existing sports club at 2040 Cochran Road in an area
zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential and take appropriate action.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: At its meeting of Monday, April 8, 1991 the Planning
Commission conditionally approved the above described Use
Permit. This action was taken after (1) three public
hearings covering approximately ten hours of
,,discussion;: (2) three meetings between the developers and the neighbors; (3) the
preparation of a traffic study and a later addendum to it; and (4) major
modifications to both the site plan and the proposed size and locations of the new
facilities.
The Planning Commission originally considered this matter on January 28, 1991 and
continued the matter (1) so that the developers and the neighbors could reach a
compromise; and (2) so that a traffic study could be prepared.
The major concerns expressed at the first hearing were noise to the surrounding
neighborhood, additional traffic, the expansion of a non-residential use in a
single-family area and concern about children walking to Vinewood School and the
park, especially along Peach Street which has no curbs, gutters or sidewalks.
The Planning Commission's second hearing on March 11, 1991 was continued because the
traffic study had been conducted on a date when school was not in session because of
an "In Service Day." The Planning Commission again asked that the two sides meet to
work out mutually agreeable solutions.
APPROVED.
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Manager
CCCD91.6/TXTD.01C
CC -1
Twin Arbors Athletic Club Use Permit Appeal
May 15, 1991
Page two
The attached information is in reverse order with the most recent material in the
front. The data includes:
1. The letter of approval which outlines the conditions with the approved site plan
and approved square footage to be added.
2. Correspondence from Tim Mattheis, Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc. outlining the
results of two neighborhood meetings conducted on March 26, and April 2, 1991.
3. The addendum to the traffic study dated April 2, 1991.
4. Correspondence from Tim Mattheis, Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc. discussing the
neighborhood meeting of February 21, 1991 with the first revised site plan and
comments.
5. Memorandum from the City Attorney dated March 7,1991 discussing the Twin Arbors
application.
6. The original Traffic and Parking Study for Twin Arbors Athletic Club dated March
1991.
7. A letter from the Community Development Director dated January 22, 1991
outlining the staff's original conditions for approval with the first site plan
attached.
8. Background data which outlines the history of Sunwest Tennis and Swim Club (i;e.
Twin Arbors Athletic Club).
FUNDING: None required.
Gapes B. Schroeder
C -community Development Director
JBS/cg
Attachments
CCCD91.6/TY.TD.O1C
1. The letter of approval which outlines the conditions with the
approved site plan and approved square footage tc be added.
r
`•
r
CITY COUNCIL
THOMAS A. PETERSON
•
DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mayor CITY OF L, O D I
City Manager
ALICE M REIMCHE'.
AMES W. PINKERTON. Jr.
City Clerk
Mayor Pro Tempore
PHILLIP A_ PENNING CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE STREET
BOB MCNATT
P.O. BOX 3006
City Attorney ;
JACK A. SIECLOCK
LODI• CALIFORNIA 95241.1910
JOHN R. (Randy) SNIOER
(209)334-3634
FAX (M) 733.6795
April 9, 1991
Mr. Tim Mattheis
Wenell Mattheis Bowe Inc.
222 West Lockeford Street, Suite 9
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Tim:
RE: Use Permit - U-90-30
Facilities Expansion and Remodel
Twin Arbors Athletic Club
2040 Cochran Road
At its meeting'of Monday, April 8, 1991 the Lodi City Planning Commission
conditionally approved your request on behalf of Twin Arbors Athletic Club
for a Use Permit to expand an existing facility (i.e. Sunwest Tennis and
Swim Club) at 2040 Cochran Road in an area zoned R-1, Single -Family
Residential.
P,lanning..Coamission's.approval,is subject to the following conditions:
1, that the property be connected to the City sanitary sewer system prior
to the issuance of_building permits and the existing septic tank
system be abandoned in conformance with requirements of San Joaquin
County Environmental Health Department with copies of the permit
issued by that agency submitted to the City of Lodi as proof of
compliance;
2. that the use of the existing on-site temporary detention basin for the
collection of storm water runoff be discontinued and an on-site
drainage system provided to collect all on-site drainage for discharge
to the public storm drain system;
3. that the building location and size, room sizes, setbacks and outdoor
amenities conform to the site plan submitted at the meeting and
labeled, "Final Revised Design Proposal";
4. that no aerobic exercise classes be conducted before 8:30 a.m. or
between the hours of 2:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.;
5. that the line of sight from the proposed second story deck to
backyards of nearby residents be mitigated with trees and landscaping
to the approval of the City;
6. that the tennis court lights be out by 11:00 p.m. during the months of
May, Jure, July and Augusc and 10:00 p.m. the remainder of the year;
Tim Mattheis
April 9, 1991
Page 2
7. that the basketball and volleyball lighting be out by 9:30 p.m. year
around;
8. that a 7 -foot masonry wall and screen trees to the approval of the
City be installed at the west end of the parking lot as shown on the
"Final Revised Design Proposal";
9. that if 20 or more of the adjacent property owners so request, a
parking review shall be conducted by the Planning Commission;
10. that the hours of the club operation shall be:
a. 7:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m. May through August
b. 8:00 a.m. - 11:00 p.m. the remainder of the year
11. that the temporary storm drainage basin be abandoned and filled to the
City's approval; and
12. that the developer/owner pay the fees shown below and any other fees
in effect at time of issuance of Building Permit:
Storm Drainage Fees $31,320.00
Sewer, Service (4 -inch) 680._00
Sewer Connection 28,652:50
As you are aware, Section 17.81.030 (E) of the Lodi Municipal Code requires
that any use requiring a Use Permit must be submitted with the final site
plan and building elevations to the City's Site Plan and Architectural
Review Committee for approval. You should contact David S. Morimoto,
Senior Planner, so that you can accomplish this requirement.
Section 17.72.110 of the Lodi Municipal Code provides for a five day period
in which concerned persons can appeal Planning Commission actions to the
City Council. If no appeal is filed by 5:00 p.m., Monday, April 15, 1991,
Use Permit U-90-30, as described above, will be in force and effect.
Sincerely,
i
B. SCHROEDER
unity Development Director
cc: Dennis Kaufman, General Manager
Lodi athletic Club
!ara, - -
COCNNAN weAp_ --_
Itl fAm SINGLE Cave wr ACCESS
rd -0' sETBAoc L P c �v1 Jv-
* !�1 . S Z
'' 1' O• ' Y;
POOL EOWA 3M
FIRE OMPTUENT
1 ... n` ' $ Eastrl0 POOL .ccEss
• f�
CONCRETE LUSOpwY KPwT • . I • r
YIP11.L. 7'EK:It • .• .
tX-'_::a-.,,,,..�'.''v�,`�^t.¢!:p�z*t.>::,ip?::e.;.. •-•: ........ ,..,plwlEW6i�wCEi ..�, -..x�.4a. - f.. _
E70.SE^6 =WEAosm MS IES L TtNC6CAPP4 . . .
LOCKI
.�. . tAf• t IOOSf71 NY 2400 SE. SCREEN
O
• 2600 SF. �Zyp SF
NE£OEp A00filOtMl — -- I
El
3twCFS .ti _ _ TE S • . ..- tArwA --- Q
PIlitlwB BUDOK V&%LL
AKANOON ANO ALL �'• _ _ 1 Aewe�oo I `t
ph- ENTICY POND. ' - -� I ! •
TM LAP CGCAPWG �• - I
SC"MV I FUIUM TEw+S000RTS �•
S.SSETBACK $1.5'PARKING • 't- ASTNmtw+1 - ACTIVIT L WN I I `�
'�S I 1
LOOM I 4 (
ter
mASTER SITE PLAN FWAL REVISED DESIGN PROPO-IAL
n
0
TWIN ARBORS ATHLETIC CLUB
COCHRAN ROAD FACILITY
APPROXIMATE
FACILITY AREA SUMMARY
ORIGINAL
EXISTING
ADDITIONAL
SO FT
LOUNGE
1,154
AEROBICS
SFT
WEIGHT ROOM
1,726
LOCKER ROOMS
864
BABYSITTING
874
LOBBY/DESK
2,400
1 Ani-, OFFiGFILAUNDRY/ ., ,
350...
'.` STORAGE
480
HALLWAYS/
400
EQUIPMENT/MISC.
TOTAL
4,494
TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
EXISTING AND NEW
ORIGINAL
MODIFIED
ADDITIONAL
ADDITIONAL
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
SO F•
SFT
600
600
1,400
1,250
1,600
874
2,880
2,400
580
580
812
480
730
43.7
L600
1.552
10,202
8,173
14.696
11667
r
2. Correspondence from Tim Matthias, Wenell, Mattheis, Bc,-ae, Inc.
outlining the results of two neighborhood meetings on March 26 and
April 2, 1991.
�1
April 4, 1991
ce'::.�'xliv
0E',,Et-0?MENT
Jim Schroeder,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
CITY OF LODI
Call Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
SUBJECT: 'TWIN ARBORS ATHLETIC CLUB
COCHRAN ROAD FACILITY
ADDITION AND REMODEL
Dear Jun:
At the request of the City Planning Commission at their meeting of March 11,
1991, we have again met with interested neighbors on the concerns regarding
our Use Permit Application Number U9030.
Two meetings were held with interested neighbors. At the first meeting on
March 26, 1991 held at 6:30 pm at Hutchins Street Square, a forum was
conducted resulting in a consensus as to what the neighboring residents were
concerned with'and-.-what they would like to see changed. We studied these
concerns and substantially redesigned our project to meet as many of them as
possible.
At the second meeting, held April 2, 1991, we presented our revised proposal
to the residents. It is our understanding from a majority of those present that
we had sufficiently addressed their concerns with the revised design. A list of
attendees for each meeting is enclosed.
The additional traffic study that was also requested by the Commission has been
completed. The overall findings confirm the findings and conclusions of the first
traffic report. A copy of the report summary is enclosed.
Following is an item by item outline of the issues we agreed upon with the
neighbors attending the meetings. The revised site plan as well as the original
modified site plan is enclosed for your review. At the end of the list, we
summarized those issues that we believe may be included as conditions of
approval for the use permit.
I would like to emphasize tho' near unanimity was expressed at the end of our
meeting of April 2 in favor of approval of our request for the use permit with
`.\ FATLL
r.\'T£RIOR 1
tarry Wim,U
rr., aranbeu
7ko m" Bose.
ansf"v
.w1
«' tonirro,rl.V.
Bel :�.�i..i::..•
Jim Schroeder
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
April 4, 1991
Page 2
the revised plan. It should also be noted that a few neighbors will continue to
express dissatisfaction with the proposal. They feel the proposal is still too large
for the neighborhood and under -represents the parking and use demand that we
are projecting. On these points we have agreed to disagree.
TWIN ARBORS ATHLETIC CLUB
COCHRAN ROAD PROJECT
NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW 42/91
■ Size of Overall Building
Resident Request: Reduce overall size from approximately 15,000 to
around 10,000 square feet
Revised Plan: Reduced overall size to approximately 12,600 s£
See attached -Square Footage Summary
i
■ ., Orientation of Facility on Site
Resident Request: Don't encroach into parking lot. Move aerobics
to south side of project.
Revised Plan: Pulled project back and relocated aerobics room
as requested.
Size of Weight Room and Aerobics Room
Resident Request: In an effort to reduce traffic and increase safety,
particularly at peak children pedestrian times
(between 7:30 and 8:00 am and 200 and 3:30 pm),
requested that weight room be reduced in size
from 3,200 to 2.000 sf and aerobics room be
reduced from 1.400 to 700-900 sf. Also concerned
that all aerobics of both clubs would be moved to
this site.
Revised Plan: Reduced weight room to 2,600 sf and aerobics
room io 1.250 sf. Furthermore, no aerobics classes
will be scheduled before 3:30 am or between the
hours of 2:00 and 4:00 pm. Aerobics will continue
to be offered at Hutchins Street facility.
Jim Schroeder
�. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
April 4, 1991
Page 3
Second Story Lounee
Resident Request: Eliminate sight into neighborhood yards fr^m
second story deck.
Revised Plan: A landscaping screen will be used as required to
mitigate this problem with immediate neighbors.
Massage and Fitness Program:
Resident Request: Concerned about traffic generated from non-
member use of these types of activities, particularly
if marketed to non-members by the club. The
image and legality of massage (as well as members
gambling at card games) was also a concern.
Revised Plan: Only members and guests will participate in club
activities. The club will not advertise for non-
_.,, member use of these types of programs; although
they may be included in overall membership
marketing activities. Club management will review
policy and current practices regarding massage and
card playing.
Morning Hours of Operation:
Resident Request: E)dsting use permit allows for 7:00 am summer and
8:00 am winter opening hours. Neighbors would
hke to maintain these hours and add a condition
thea scheduled classes not start until 8:30 am.
Revise Plan: As requested above.
Evenirn2 Hours of Overation:
Resident Request: Overriding concern seems to have been that the
club has not controlled the e-dsting hours of
operation. Reported that lights are left on at all
hours and groups use club well after closing. Most
neighbors said they expected several times a year
that special events would be held, but not the
Jim Schroeder
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
April 4, 1991
Page 4
West Edee of Parkine Ldf:
Resident Request: Leave 10 foot setback, provide masonry sound wall
and plant screen trees along length of parking Iot_
Revised Plan: Provides 10 foot setback up to beginning of future
parking lot area wberc it reduces to 8.5 feet in
otder to accommodate double row parking if
necessary at a future date. Masonry wall and
screen trees included.
. Parking Lot Entrance/Peach Street Traffic Flow:
Resident Request: Several different opinions on best solution to slow
traffic and provide safe crossing for children. Most
wanted to align club parking lot entrance with
Peach Street and make a four way stop. Most did
not want to improve Peach Street.
Revised Plan: Movr- club lot entrance to east. Recommend that
continual late usage. Others did comment that it
was worse in past years than currently.
Revised Plan:
Lights to be controlled by management from the
front desk inside the clubhouse. Increased
management staff will be on duty. Tennis court
lights to be off at 11:00 pm May through August,
10:00 pm the rest of the year. Basketball/volleyball
lights off by 9.30 pm.
After Hours Loiterine
in/around Parking Lot.-
ot:Resident
ResidentRequest:
Want to reduce drinking by teenage and other
groups of young people at night around club.
Some suggestions included hiring security guards
and/or closing parking lot with chain during off
hours.
Revised Plan:
Will investigate chaining parking lot and will
monitor complaints after new facility completed.
West Edee of Parkine Ldf:
Resident Request: Leave 10 foot setback, provide masonry sound wall
and plant screen trees along length of parking Iot_
Revised Plan: Provides 10 foot setback up to beginning of future
parking lot area wberc it reduces to 8.5 feet in
otder to accommodate double row parking if
necessary at a future date. Masonry wall and
screen trees included.
. Parking Lot Entrance/Peach Street Traffic Flow:
Resident Request: Several different opinions on best solution to slow
traffic and provide safe crossing for children. Most
wanted to align club parking lot entrance with
Peach Street and make a four way stop. Most did
not want to improve Peach Street.
Revised Plan: Movr- club lot entrance to east. Recommend that
Jim Schroeder
.--� COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
April 4, 1991
Page 5
City provide three-way stop at Cochran and Peach.
■ Basketball Court:
Resident Request: Reduce impact of basketball court noise by
relocating, mitigate the echo effect from proximity
to building and don't light after 9:00 or. 10:00 pm.
Revised Plan: Reduced court to half court, add a sand volleyball
area and don't light area after 9:30 pm.
• Maintenance of E-dsting Retention Pond at West Edge of Property:
Resident Request: Concern was expressed that weeds, grasses and
vines have overgrown the retention areas.
Suggestions ranged from maintaining a landscaped
lawn area to quarterly discing.
Revised Plan: Agreement to fill pond to City requirements and
maintain free of debris.
a Conditions Under Which Additional Parking will be Considered/Required-
Resident Request: If and when 20 or more adjacent property owners
request it, the planning department would review
and determine.
Revised Plan: Agree to above.
ACCEPTABLE USE PEFLIMIT CONDITIONS
1. Building location/size, room sizes, setbacks and outdoor amenities to be
substantially as shown on the attached site plan.
2- No aerobic exercise classes are to be conducted before 8:30 am or
between the hours of 2:00 and 4:00 pm.
3. Line of site from second story deck to backyards of nearby residents to
be mitigated with trees and landscaping.
A
Jim Schroeder
^. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
April 4, 1991
Page 6
4. Tennis court lights to be out by 11:00 pm during the months of May,
June, July and August, and 10:00 pm the remainder of the year.
Basketball and volleyball lighting will be out by 930 pm year around.
5. Masonry wall and screen trees to be provided at west edge of property
as shown on site plan.
6. Parking review to be conducted upon request of 20 or more adjacent
property owners.
7. Hours of operation: '-00 am - 11:00 pm Mai through August
8:00 am - 11:00 pm the remainder of the year.
Sincerely,
WENELL MATTHEIS BOWE
Vr"v
>-
Tua Mattheis
Vice -President
TM:mh
f:2/9077.11
MEETING ATTENDEES
Meeting of March 26, 1991
NAME
Sharon & Richard Marini
Joan Aston
Karen Keagy
Ann Carlin
Mike Steward
Bruce Schweigert
Randy Koepplin
Doug Wied
Dave Holmes
Ron & Joann Butler
Bruce Thomsen
Diane Bruno
Ron & Kari Hilder
Bruce Thomsen
Scott Dasko
Doug Wied
Charles Barnhardt
Wendy Shropshire
Barbara Berris
Lynn Holmes
Jim Schroeder
Joan Aston
Ron & Joann Butler
Mike and Patty Steward
Sharon & Richard Marini
Ron and Kari Hilder
ADDRESS
840 Tilden Drive
2003 Cochran Raod
731 Peach Street
2041 Cochran Road
803 Tilden Drive
747 S. Mills
808 Evert Court
824 Tilden
1080 Port Chelsea Cricle
832 Tilden
2017 Cochran
2005 Cochran Road
808 Tilden Drive
MEETING ATTENDEES
Meetings of April 2, 1991
2017 Cochran
712 Peach
824 Tilden Drive
1900 S. Hutchins
1900 S. Hutchins
2138 W. Vine
1080 Port Cheslea Drive
City of Lodi
2003 Cochran Road
832 Tilden Drive
803 Tilden Drive
840 Tilden Drive
808 Tilden Drive
3. Addendum to the traffic study dated April 2, 1991.
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.
Transportation Conwttants
775 sunrise Avenue
Suite 240
Roseville, CA 95661
916 773-1900
April 2, 1991
Mr. Dave Anderson
President
Spare Time, Inc.
7919 Folsom Boulevard
Sacramento, CA 95825
r
Re: Twin Arbors Athletic Club Traffic Study
At the March 11 Planning Commission meeting in Lodi, the Commission raised two traffic
issues which required further study.
The first issue concerned the fact that we mistakenly conducted traffic counts on a non -school
day (Wednesday, March 6). These counts showed a lower pedestrian and bicycle count than
experienced on a typical school day.
The second issue was that we did not analyze weekend traffic. The Commission felt that we
should investigate traffic conditions on a Saturday.
Purgose
In response to the Commission's request, Fehr & Peers Associates conducted traffic counts on
a weekday (Friday, Marclr22) and a Saturday (March 30). In addition, Lodi Department of
Public Works laid machine counters for a one-week period on four street segments near the
project.
Findings
Here are the pertinent findings of the study.
Average Daily Traffic Volumes - The following shows the seven-day average daily traffic
volumes on the pertinent street segments and compares them to the original estimate by Fehr &
Peers Associates.
Street nt
Tilden Drive
Cochran Road (west of Peach)
Peach Street
From City's
Machine Counts
400
560
550
Fehr & Peers
Estimate Shown
In March Traffic
Re= (Figure 51 Di
340 -60
620 +60
590 +40
f�Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc
Tramponawn CoraAants
Mr. Dave Anderson
Sparc Time, Inc.
April 2,1991
Page 2
The differences between the machine count results and our original estimate is minimal- We
slightly underestimated traffic on Tilden Drive and overestimated traffic on Cochran Road and
Peach Street Again, the differences are inconsequential and do not alter the findings of the
original report.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Traffic Volumes - As expected, the pedestrian and bicycle activity in tht;
study arra was much greater on the weekday when school was in session (Friday, March 22)
compared to the weekday when school was not in session (Wednesday, March 6). The
number of observed pedestrians and bicyclists was 119 on the school day, compared to 45 on
the non -school day.
Figure 2 in the accompanying packet shows that the morning pedestrian and bicycle activity
occurred primarily within a 1i2 hour period, from 7:30 to 8:00 am. This presumably is the
time when children walk or bike to school. The afternoon peak was also distinct, with over 31
pedestrian and bicyclists travelling through the study area within the 15 -minute period from
2:30 to 2:45 p.m. Again, this is the time period when most children walk or bike home from
school. From 2:45 to 4:45 p.m. the activity stayed constant with 3 to 10 pedestrians and
bicyclists per 15 minute period, and then reduced to 2 to 4 pedestrians and bicyclists per 15 -
minute period from 4:45 to 7 p.m.
Saturday JEjffic - Table 6 in the attached packet shows that Saturday traffic volumes on all
street segments are slightly lower than an average day. Also, the Saturday pedestrian and
bicycle activity is lower than a school weekday (92 versus 119).
The amount of traffic which entered and exited the driveways of the Cochran Road club was
about the same on all three days we counted, about 130 vehicles entered and exited the Club
driveway on Wednesday March 6, Friday March 22, and Saturday March 30. The weather
was clear on all three days. Please note that the Easter egg hunt held at the Club on the
Saturday probably inflated the number of vehicles that would have entered/exited the Club on
that day.
The difference between daily traffic volumes shown in our original report and those from the
City's machine counter arc minimal and inconsequcntial. The daily traffic volumes on a street
segment in the study fall well within the standards for residential streets.
The number of observed pedestrians and bicyclists was much higher on the school weekday
than the non -school weekday (119 versus 45). The morning and afternoon peaks were
distinct, with the majority of children walling or biking to school between 7:30 and 8:00 a.m.,
and the majority walking or biking home from school between 2:30 and 2:45 p.m.
Finally, the number of vehicles which entered and exited the club was the same on all three
days counted, about 130 on Wednesday March 6, Friday March 22, and Saturday March 30.
f�Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc
Transpa-Lawn Cons"rants
W. Dave Anderson
Spare Time, Inc.
April 2,1991
Page 3
I have attached some figures and tables for your review.
Please call if you have questions_
Sincerely,
FEHR & PEERS ASSOCIATES, INC
Alan D. Telford, P.E.
Associate -in -Charge
AI7T:pd
i cc: Tile Mattheis
912-101
Table 1
—�
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Observation
Friday, March
22, 1991
Are They All
Number In
Children
Where Did They Come From And
Z
,roue_
(Yes or No)
Where Are They .cine TQ
7:06 a.m.
2
Yes
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
7:08
1
No
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
7:16
1(Bike)
Yes
Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay
735
1
Yes
Peach - South Peach
7:36
1
Yes
Peach - North to East on Tokay
7:37
1(Bike)
Yes
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
738
2
Yes
Peach - North to East on Tokay
7:40
2
No
Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay
7 :43
1(Bike)
Yes
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
7:43
1
Yes
West on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
7:48
1
No
Tokay - Peach - Tilden
7:48
2 (Bike)
Yes
West on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
7:50
2 (Bike)
Yes
Peach - West on Cochran
7:52
1(Bike)
Yes
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
7:54
1(Bike)
Yes
West on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
7:54
1(Bike)
Yes
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
7:56
1(Bike)
Yes
West on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
8:05
1(Bike)
Yes
West on Cochran - Tilden
833
1
No
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
9:01
1
No
Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay
9:15
1
No
Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay
9:19
1 (Bike)
Yes
West on Cochran : Peach - East on Tokay
10:52
2
No
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
12:12 p.m.
2 (1 Bike)
Yes
Peach - Tilden
12:21
1
No
Athletic Club - West on Cochran
12:30
1 (Bike)
No
Peach - West on Cochran
12:41
1
No
East on Cochrm - Athletic Club
1:20
1(Bike)
Yes
Peach -East on Cochran
1.33
1(Bike)
Yes
Peach - Tilden
2:24
1(Bike)
Yes
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
2:24
2
Yes
Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay
226
1
No
Peach - West on Cochran
2:33
1
Yes
Peach - West on Cochran
2:34
1 (Bike)
Yes
Peach - West on Cochran
2:35
1
Yes
Perch - TlWcn
236
4
Yes
Peach -1 stopped 2nd house from Tokay
- 3 Tilden
2:37
1 (Bike)
Yes
Peach - Tilden
2:38
2 (1 Bike)
'fes
Peach - East on Cochran
2:38
2 (1 Bike)
Yes
Peach - East on Cochran
2:39
1
Yes
Peach - 2nd house from Tokay
2:41
5 (3 Bikes)
Yes
Peach - 2 Tilden; 3 west on Cochran
2:43
2 (Bike)
Yes
Peach - East on Cochran
2:45
2
No
Peach - East on Tokay
-- 2:58
1 (Bike)
Yes
Peach - East on Cochran
Table 1 (Continued)
Pedestrian/Bicycle Observation
Friday, March 22, 1991
Are They All
Number In Children
T� Group (Yes or No)
3:02
1
Yes
3:08
1(Bike)
Yes
3:13
1
Yes
3:15
3 (Bikes)
Yes
3:20
1(Bike)
Yes
3:22
1
Yes
3:23
2
No
3:28
1 (Bike)
Yes
3:33
3 (Bikes)
Yes
3:34
1
Yes
3:39
1
Yes
3:46
3
No
3:48
1
No
3:53
3
Yes
4:03
2
Yes
4:10
1
Yes
4:13
1
No
4:16
3 (1 Bike)
Yes
428
1
Yes
4:29
1(Bike)
Yes
4:31
3 (1 Bike)
Yes
4:31
1(Bike)
Yes
4:33
1(Bike)
Yes
4:38
1(Bike)
No
4:48
1
No
4:52
1
Yes
5.12
2 (1 Bike)
No
5:16
1 (Bike)
Yes
5:22
1
No
5:23
1
Yes
5:32
1 (Bike)
Yes
5:34
1
No
5:55
1(Bike)
Yes
6:11
3 (Bikes)
No
624
1(Bike)
Yes
6:33
1
No
6:58
1(Bike)
Yes
Where Did :hey Come From And
Where Are They Going To
Peach - Tilden
Peach - Tilden
Peach - West on Cochran
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
Tilden - Athletic Club
Peach - West on Cochran
Tokay - Peach 2nd house
Athletic Club - Tilden
Peach - West on Cochran
Tilden - East on Cochran
West on Cochran - Peach - West on Tokay
Peach - Tilden •
East on Cochran - To end of Cochran -
West on Cochran - Tilden
Tilden - East end of Cochran
Peach - Cochran - Peach (selling Girl Scout
Coolies)
Eact on Cochran - Athletic Club
Peach - Tilden
East end Cochran - Tilden
Athletic Club - West on Cochran
Tilden - East Cochran
Peach - East Cochran
Tilden - Athletic Club
Athletic Club - Tilden
Peach - West on Cochran
Tilden - Athletic Club
Peach - West on Cochran
Peach- Tilden
Eau on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
Athletic Club - Tilden
Tilden - East end Cochran
East end Cochran - Tilden
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
Pesch - West on Cochran
East Cochran - Peach - Tokay
Peach - West on Cochran
Peach- Tilden
Peach - West on Cochran
Table 2
Pedestrian/Bicycle Observation
Saturday, March 30, 1991
Are They All
Number In
Children
Where Did They Come From And
T
Sjmup,
fYes or No)
Where Are Thav GoinE_ To
8:17 am-
2
No
Peach -Tilden
8S9
1 (Bike)
No
Tilden - Peach - Tokay
9:15
1 (Bike)
No
Tilden - Peach - Tokay
9:25
1
No
Tilden - Peach - Tokay
9:31
2
No
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
9:34
: (Bike)
No
Tokay - Peach - Athletic Club
9:57
1
No
Tilden - Athletic Club
10:08
1
Yes
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
10:14
1
No
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
10:14
2
Yes
East Cochran - Peach-TTokay
10:14
1(Bike)
Yes
Tilden - Peach - Tokay
10:25
1(Bike)
Yes
West on Cochran - Peach - Tokay
10:38
1
Yes
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
10:39
1(Bike)
Yes
Tokay - Peach - East on Cochran
11:07
2 (Bike)
Yes
Tilden - Athletic Club
11:14
2 (Bike)
Yes
Tilden - Peach - Tokay
11:31
1
No
Athletic Club - Tilden
11:44
1(Bike)
Yes
Tokay - Peach - Tilden
11:48
1
No'
Cochran
11:50
1(Bike)
Yes
Tokay - Peach - Tilden
12:15 p.m.
4 (2 baby stroller,
No
Tokay - Peach - Tilden
2 Mothers)
12:19
1(Bike) • '
Yes
Tilden - Peach - Tokay
12:27
1(Bike)
Yes
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
12:43
1
No
East to end of Cochran - West on Cochran
1:10
1
Yes
Tilden - Athletic Club
1:11
1
Yes
Tilden - Athletic Club
1:12
1
No
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
1:34
2 (Bikes)
Yes
East on Cochran - Peach - Tokay
1:52
2 (Bikes)
Yes
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
2:10
1 (Bike)
No
Athletic Club - Peach
2:10
2 (Bikes)
Yes
Tokay - Peach -'Tilden
2:12
2
Yes
Tokay - Peach - Athletic Club
2:13
1(Bike)
Yes
Peach - West on Cochran
2:30
2 (Bikes)
Yes
East on Cochran - Peach - Fast on Tokay
2:34
1
No
Athletic Club - Tilden
2:38
1
No
Athletic Club - West on Cochran
2:46
1
No
East on Cochran - Athletic Club
2:58
'l
Yes
Athletic Club - West on Cochran
3:18
2
Yes
Athletic Club - Peach - East on Tokay
3:19
1(Bike)
Yes
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
3:34
1(Bike)
No
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
3:47
1
No
Tilden - Athletic Club
3:49
2
No
Tilden - Athletic Club
3:49
2 (Bikes)
Yes
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
3:58
2
No
Tokay - Peach - Tilden
4:01
1 (Bike)
Yes
Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay
Table 2 Continued
Pedestrian/Bicycle Observation
Saturday, March 30, 1991
Are They All
Number In Children
33M GrouR (Yes or No)
4:04
2 (Bikes)
Yes
4:15
2 (Bikes)
Yes
4:21
1
Yes
4:32
1(Bike)
Yes
4:32
2 (Bikes)
Yes
4:37
1
No
4:37
2
No
4:50
1
Yes
5:04
2 (Bikes)
Yes
5:06
2 (Bikes)
Yes
5:12
2 (Bikes)
Yes
5:19
2 (Bikes)
No
524
1(Bike)
Yes
533
1(Bike)
Yes
5:34
2 (Bikes)
Yes
5:48
1(Bike)
No
5:51
1
Yes
5:52
1(Bike)
Yes
./i ec : i Yee .• i �
East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay
Tokay - Peach - Tilden
Tokay - Peach - Tilden
Tokay - Peach - Tilden
Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay
Athletic Club - Peach - Tokay
Athletic Club - Tilden
Peach - West on Cochran
East on Cochran - Peach - Tokay
Tokay - Peach - Athletic Club
Athletic Club -1 West on Cochran;
1- Tilden
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
Tilden - Peach - Tokay
Tokay - Peach - Tilden
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
Peach - Tilden
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
East on Tokay - Peach - Tokay
I
Table 3
Hourly
Variation
In Traffic From Twin Arbors Athletic Club
Cochran Road Facility
Friday
Vehicles
March 22-1991
Saturday. March
Vehicles
30. 1991
(In
and Out)
Pet _rent of Day
(In and Out) Percent
of DU
7-8 a.m-
4
1.5%
0
0%
8-9
6
2.2
9
3.5
9-10
10
3.7
20
7.8
10-11
16
6.0
32
12.5
11-12
17
6.4
39
15.3
12-1 p.m-
12
4.5
30
11.7
1-2
20
7.5
25
9.8
2-3
25
9.4
33
12.9
3.4
29
10.9
21
8.2
4-5
41
15.3
20
7.8
- 5-6
33
12.4
18
7.0
6-7
28
10.5
8
3.1
7-8
14
5.2
1
0.4
8-9
—12
�1
—Q
0.0
Total -
267
100.0
256
100.0
Table 4
Hourly Variation in Pedestrian and Bicycle
.Traffic on Peach Street
TIM
Psdestrians
Friday. March
Bicycles
22. 1991
Tod
0 Day
Pedestrians
Saturday. March
Bicycles
30. 1991
Total
% of Day
7-8 a.m.
11
11
22
23.2%
0
0
0
0
8-9
1
0
1
1.0
2
1
3
4.29'0
9-10
2
1
3
3.2
2
2
4
5.6
10-11
2
0
2
2.1
5
3
8
11.1
11-12
0
0
0
0
2
4
6
8.3
12-1 p.m.
1
1
2
2.1
2
2
4
5.6
1-2
0
2
2
2.1
3
4
7
9.7
2-3
17
11
28
29.5
2
6
8
11.1
34
9
7
16
16.8
4
4
8
11.1
4-5
6
2
8
8.4
3
8
11
15.3
k.. ;
5-6
2
3
5
5.3
1
12
13
18.0
6-7
1
5
6
6.3
0
0
0
0
'
7-8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
,•`'.
8-9
--Q
.�
si
..4
.S2
Total
52
43
95
100.0%
26
46
72
100.0%
f
Source: Lodi Department of Public Works
Ha: Machine counter malfunctioned on Friday afternoon, so Friday's count was not accurate.
Table 5
Hourly Variation in Peach Street Traffic
By Weekday
3/1801
3/19/91
3/20/91
3/21/91
Time
Monday
juesday
Wednesday
Thursday
T W
9'0 of Day
12 MN -1 a.m.
1
4
1
2
8
0.3
1-2
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
2-3
0
1
1
0
2
0.1
3-4
1
2
1
1
.5
0.2
4-5
2
4
2
3
11
0.5
5-6
5
5
2
3
15
0.7 j
6-7
7
12
14
13
46
2.0
7-8
46
36
43
39
164
7.1 `.
8-9
42
30
31
40
143
6.2
9-10
34
17
19
23
93
4.0
10-11
31
17
15
17
80
3.5
11-12 N
22
20
32
30
104
4.5
12 N-1 p.m.
22
47
- 33
44
146
6.4
1-2
40
48
15
36
139
6.0
2-3
49
45
44
50
188
8.2
3-4
40
56
34
43
173
7.5 :
4-5
79
43
47
68
237
10.3 i
5-6
65
57
56
60
238
10.4
6-7
49
36
41
73
199
8.7
7-8
27
23
20
49
119
5.2 '
8-9
17
27
27
40
111
4.8
9-10
6
6
16
9
37
1.6
10-11
8
5
6
8
27
1.2
11-12
_1
3
2
7
--A
0.6
Total
594
544
502
658
2,298
100.0
Source: Lodi Department of Public Works
Ha: Machine counter malfunctioned on Friday afternoon, so Friday's count was not accurate.
Table 6
Summary of Street Counts
24-11our Volumes
Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday
3/16191 3/17/91 3/18/9t 3/19/91
Tilden Drive
400
234
410
420
Cochran Road (west of Peach)
530
330
529
533
Cochran Road (east of Peach)
97
66
96
86
Peach Street
497
305
594
544
1 Counter malfunctioned. Estimate based on the three other street counts.
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
7 -Day
30/91
3/21/91
3/22/91
Average
405
464
493
404
546
632
801
557
113
111
151
103
502
658
7711
553
30
FIGURE I
DAILY ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE
CHARACTERISTICS OF CLUB TRAFFIC
25 FRIDAY, MARCH 22,1991
23
21
20 20
20- Wool
to
N
W
J
U
_ 16
W
> 15
LL / VEHICLES EPIIEANO 13 13
w ■ VEHICLES EXITRJt3 12 te•
LU
2
Z 10 10
10 p
a
7 . 7
a
0
a
7 7
6
5 4
ww
4
3
2
1 1
0
7-a A.M.. a-0 AM. 0-10 A.M. 10.11 A.M. 11.12 A.M. 12-i P.M. 1.2 P.M. 2.3 P.M. 3.4 P.M. 4.6 P.M. 6.6 P.M. 6.7 P.M. 7-111P.M, a-9 P.M.
HOUR OF DAY Fehr & Peen Associates, Inc.
Transportatbn Consultants
FIGURE 2
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAFFIC
ON PEACH STREET, COCHRAN, OR TILDEN
34 FRIDAY, MARCH 22,1991
32-
30-
28-
26-
.
2302826
U)
70KAY
24
22-
20- W
2 20
Wmum-
18 a
16 p F
14
w
m
12 2
10-
8.
0 a
6
4-
20 2-
0
7 :15 30 :45 8 :15:30 :45 9 :15:30:45 10:15,30 :45 11 :15:30 :45 12 :15:30 :45 1 :15,30:45 2 :15:30:45 3 15:3035 4 :15:30.45 5 :15:3D :45 6 :15:3D:45 7
TIME
® TOTAL PEDESTRIANS PLUS BICYCLISTS LLii
CHILDREN (WALKING WITH NO ADULT PRESENT) Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.
Transportation Consultants
25
20
15
10
5
0
FIGURE 3
SATURDAY DAILY ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE
CHARACTERISTICS OF CLUB TRAFFIC
SATURDAY, MARCH 30, 1991
7-8 8-9 9.10 10.11 11.12 12-1 1.2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-6 6-7 7-8 879
A.M. P.M.
TIME OF DAY
■ VEHICLES ENTERING
® VEHICLES EXITING
Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc.
Transportation Consultants
f
y
i
14
i
's
12
'
N
Z
1Q a
m
3
w
W.
8 a
O
s a
w
m
z
4
I
t
2
FIGURE 4
SATURDAY PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAFFIC
ON PEACH STREET, COCHRAN, OR TILDEN
SATURDAY, MARCH 30,1991
r--,
0
8 :15 .'30 :45 0 :15 :30 :45 10 :15 :30 :45 11 :15 :30 :45 12 :15 :30 :45 1 :15 X30 :45 2 :15 :30 AS 3 :15 �0 :45 4 :15 �0 :45 5 :15 X10 :45
A.M. P.M.
TIME
TOTAL PEDESTRIANS PLUS BICYCLISTS
CHILDREN (WALKING WITH NO ADULT PRESENT) �ehr 6 Peers Associates, Inc.
ra".porta6on Consultants
NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS TO AND FROM ATHLETIC CLUB
l
4. Correspondence from Tim Mattheis, Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc.
discussing the neighborhood meeting of February 21, 1991 with the
first revised site plan and comments.
March 7. 1991
�-e
RECEIVE50]
alrM4�wf
LIAR 0
COMUNITY
EVEL PMEN
DEVEtOP6IERT
BEPARTMERT
Mr. Jim Schroeder
Community Development
CITY OF LODI
Call Box 3006
Lodi, California 95241
SUBJECT: TWIN ARBORS REMODEL AND ADDITION
COCHRAN ROAD FACILI: Y
Dear Jim
As requested by the Lodi City Planning Commission at its meeting of Monday,
January 28, 1991, we have held a joint meeting with representatives of Twin
Arbors Athletic Club and neighbors of the club to receive concerns raised at the
public hearing. The results of the meeting are outlined below.
As also requested, we have contracted with a traffic engineer to conduct a
parking and traffic study outlining the effects of the project on the
neighborhood. Due to weather delays, the study is still in progress as of this
date. We expect that findings and recommendations will be presented to the
City for your review before the Planning Commission meeting on March 11th.
Notices for the neighborhood meeting were sent February 14, 1991 to all
residences on the City's public hearing notification list. The meeting was held
February 21, 1991 at the North Hall of Hutchins Street Square. Sixteen
neighborhood residents attended the meeting. An agenda is enclosed for your
reference.
Listed below are the on-site modifications to our proposal we have made as a
result of discussions with the neighborhood. An itemized list of neighborhood
concerns noted at the meeting and our response to each concern are discussed
on the attached pages.
PROPOSAL MODIFICATIONS:
1. A seven foot (T) high masonry wall will be built at the east property line
at the parking area to provide a sound and vision barrier to the adjacent
residences.
2. The pians for future tennis courts on the west edge of the property at the
retention pond area will be deleted. In lieu of the north tennis court, the
area will be reserved for future overflow parking lot area should the 82
planned spaces not provide sufficient parking. At the time of a parking
l...y trrwrtt
rim Ala Arts
A
Mr. Jim Schroeder
CTTY OF LODI
March 7. 1991
Page 2 of 2
lot extension, the masonry wall at the west property line will be extended
the length of the new parking area.
Parking lot lighting will be designed to remain within club property lines.
It will be turned on only when overflow parking is needed. The
remaining area to the south will be reserved for a future activity area.
Lighting in this area will not be placed higher than four feet above grade.
The current retention pond will still be abandoned and drainage
connected to the City storm system as required by the City.
3. The abandoned retention pond area will be more consistently maintained
by the management until the area is improved in the future. During
construction of the dub, the area will be cleared of heavy brush and scrub
trees. It is the managements intent to keep the area free of high weeds
and migrant shrubs.
4. To help minimize reflected noise from the basketball court across the
canal to the neighboring houses, the existing exercise room building will
be removed. the replacement building will be designed with a single story j
wail surface against the basketball court to mitigate reflected sound.
5. The club hours will not permit outdoor recreational activity - swimming,
tennis or basketbap - before 8:00 am all year.
Sincerely.
WENELL MATTHEIS BOWE
'b� 14
Timotli ' *atthe"
Vice-Presidcnt
TM:cb
cc: Neighborhood Residents
J
SUMMARY OF NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING DISCUSSIONS
Listed below are the concerns of the neighborhood raised at the
neighborhood meeting and our response to each concern:
1. Noise at early morning hours and hours of operation.
The club will prohibit outdoor recreational activity before
8:00 a.m. all months of the year. This includes tennis,
swimming, basketball and any yard activities. • The exercise
activities will be totally contained inside the building.
Windows in the aerobics room are not operable and will
provide a sound barrier. At peak usage, the club expect
15-25 cars at the facility before 7:00 a.m.
2. Guarantee for its that property values will rise and not fall as a result
of the club expansion.
The club is in no position to measure value in the
neighborhood. We believe the improvements and available
recreational facilities will be an attractive amenity to the
Sunwest neighborhood and community.
3. The future tennis courts at ;he west edge of the property are not part
of the original use permit as so stated.
City records of the use permit and conditional letter make
I
no mention of these tennis courts. The future tennis courts
were shown and designated on the approved set of building
permit plans at the initial site development.
4. Are you increasing insurance coverage for damage done to adjacent
property because of the new club?
The club is more than adequately covered for insurance
needs.
5. Concern about noise in the pool area, specifically early morning swim
meet activities
�-, As stated earlier in #1, the club will prohibit swimming
before 8:00 a.m. all months of the year. After the sun sets
pool use is generally only lap -swimmer creating no
appreciable noise.
6. After hours noise and lights, maintenance of tennis courts and
employees using facilities.
Neither activity is club policy and both will be curtailed.
Maintenance of courts will be during club hours. Tennis
court lights will be securely controlled from the new front
desk area. Employees are prohibited from using club
facilities after hours.
7. How much noise will be generated from tate babysitting room? Isn't
this really a day care center?
This function is not a day care; this is only a babsitting area.
Children will be watched by staff as a convenience to the
members who are on the premises at that time. The
children will not be allowed in babysitting area any longer
than two hours. The fire department occupancy will allow
18 people in the room at one time.
8. How will the abandoned drainage ditch be maintained? Stated that
it has been inadequate bt the past.
The ditch will be cleared of weeds, shrubs and trees during
r construction. The water from rainfall will be diverted to the
City's storm system. The area will be plowed under once a
t
year and kept free of fall weeds and `migrant shrubs.
9. When club first opened, many lours parties and noise problems.
These are past issues.
10. How is the club complying with the noise ordinance?
The club has been an integral part of the neighborhood
since it was constructed; it existed before many of the
houses surrounding it. The improvements will not
appreciably alter the level of noise in the neighborhood.
Again, the outdoor recreational activities will be prohibited
J
before 8:00 a.m.
21. How is the club going to address after-hours trespassing use of parking
lot and retention area?
The club improvements will increase security with the re-
building of fences between the parking lot and the retention
area. Additional lighting at the west parking area will
discourage loitering.
12. TIte design of the building is inappropriate for the neighborhood; it
slwuM look like a house in the residential area.
The design is appropriate for the neighborhood. It
compliments the neighborhood characteristics in scale,
height, proportion, massing, texture and color. The building
is not a house, and it is our professional opinion that it not
try to falsely imitate a house; rather it should compliment
the neighborhood in the above characteristics.
13. The high wall of the existing exercise room will act as a sound board
and reflect basketball court noise across the irrigation canal to the
residences.
The existing building, and its two story walls, will be
removed. The design of the new exercise room will lower
the wall from 24 feet to 14 feet. Landscaping trees planted
against the building will also assist in defusing reflected
69
d
sound.
14. Has an altentative site been studied for the club?
The club has been and will continue to be an important part
of the Sunwest community. A site move is not economically
feasible.
15. 77te future planned tennis courts on the west edge of the property are
going to be a noise, Itghting and properly damage nuisance.
The club will abandon its plans for these future tennis
courts. In lieu of the tennis courts, the club will use the
area for future overflow parking if needed and as a future
activity area.
TRAFFIC
The following concerns were raised by the neighborhood regarding traffic
and parking issues. These will be addressed in the traffic study.
1. What is the expected intensity of use generated by the club
improvements? How many people and cars? How does this
compare with the intensity of use at the Hutchins Street Club?
2. Is there adequate parking? Will parking take place on the street?
3. Concerned about the safety of children walking to school, especially
WRO
on Peach Street where there are no sidewalks.
4. Concerned about the speed of traffic in the neighborhood,
specifically generated by the club.
5. Concerned about increased traffic on Tilden and Peach Streets -
how much will be generated by the club?
6. Concerned that because Peach Street is unimproved in lighting and
sidewalks; increased traffic will make it too dangerous.
7. Concerned about crossing traffic on Peach Street and Cochran
Road. Currently there are no traffic controls at this intersection.
0
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING
FOR DISCUSSION OF
TWIN ARBORS ATHLETIC CLUB
ADDITION AND REMODEL
February 21, 1991
AGENDA
7:00 p.m.
■ Introduction of T.A.A.C. Representatives
Format of Meeting
■ Overview presentation of proposed additionlremodel
to Cochran Road Facility
■ DISCUSSION FORUM
Presentations by neighborhood, residents
8:45 p.m.
■ Summary for forum discussion
• =
■ Adjourn
i
w.Tnar
K �
rC AGw�i
KIM
1..11['wf1 1.1 LkL1wOM� MYO/
wAna'
Mw+aMaI=lol — t-- -
ws.s
t . F&CFEATIONO& ACTWM
' t CdlflJim OCOO10
Air
F&MADMEM"a2 STOW
� a 1---- --- 111ffi1 tODAY s.rwn
au.ortr 1 w.e,e ' s ww
-
� :-- -•J � - DESKW 11EW IADSA)
�-•� �.� - - I MRM Uw"m E11lA4TMAIL, •. r—Aft04
�
90-]OAOO"KNALBIMCM
. OfI11MNOQ/OACCOMM ~- Vaim J 1 ; '_"' .r..00LL•Amla.
,..� n r.� Co
iW iio
FLFOUMMam 1
I. L Je–
{ nUM ACT" MEA ��� ; rT
LEGEM
I•'i '� ! . a�MOPQGALWOTED sMs+DlmwAw
lwsm 9U ,L„„ Twin Arbors AthleticClub
Facilities Expansion
- 2040 Cochran Road
U-90-30 REVISED P.hAN •�"
man
-rr
5. Memorandum from the City Attorney dated March 1, 1991 discussing
the Twin Arbors application.
e
r-
'� CITY OF LODI
MEMORANDUM
To: James B. Schroeder, Community Development Director
From: Bob McNatt, City Attorney
Date: March 7, 1991
Subject: APPLICATION OF TWIN ARBORS TENNIS CLUB
As I understand it, a question has been raised regarding the land use
classification of the Twin Arbors athletic club on Cochran Road.
Specifically, as I understand .it, the issue is whether exercise machines
constitute an accessory use to the general classification of "recreational
facility".
The history of the site indicates that the land is zoned Low Density -
Residential, and the facility has been operating under a use permit issued
several years ago by the City. The club now seeks to expand its exercise
or workout facilities, and objections have been raised.
The starting point is Lodi Municipal Code Section 17.09.030 (G) which
allows in R-1 Districts "golf courses ... and similar recreational
uses". The question then becomes what is a "similar recreations usel?
Words in a statute are to be given their usual and ordinary meanings
wherever possible (younger v. Alameda Superior Court 127 Cal.Rptr.
122). It would appear reasons a to me to conclude that a "similar
recreational use" could easily include a tennis and health club, subject to
securing a use permit. I don't think I've seen a tennis club that didn't
include exercise machines.
The Planning Commission has authority under LMC Chapter 17.72 to classify
those uses deemed conforming, to any particular zone. The Planning
Commission apparently has already done so in the matter of Twin Arbors
where it approved the original use permit which included exercise
equipment.
This conclusion is further supported by a discussion contained in
California Land Use (Longtin) Section 3.10(2)) which states "A zoning
administrator or the planning director) is ... given authority to
determine what uses are similar ..." While one case cuesti�rs such
interpretive authority (People v. Binzley 146 Cal. App. 2nd Supp.
889), courts generally give great weight to the zoning administrator's
interpretation.
Without the benefit of more extensive research, my initial feelings are
that the question of whether exercise machines are an accessory'use to a
tennis club has been answered by the Planning Director and Planning
CDTWINAR/TXTA.OIV
Community Development Director
March 7, 1991
Page Two
Commission a long time ago. A challenge to that determination is probably
not timely. The athletic club, by virtue of its long period of operating
exercise equipment in conjunction with the tennis club functions has
probably established its right. Under the Hagen case, which we have
discussed on numerous previous occasions, the r of a use permit may
have certain vested rights which cannot be taken away by the city absent a
showing that the use constitutes a nuisance. Although some neighbors of
` the club are understandably concerned with the uses, and have complained
about past problems, the information I have does not sound like a court
R
could justify revocation of the use permit on a nuisance basis.
s Please let me know if there are further questions.
BUB McNWTr
City Attorney
BM:vc
cc: Planning Commission Members
CDTWINAR/TXTA.01�
6. The original Traffic and Parking Study for Twin Arbors Athletic
Club dated March, 1991.
I
0
Traffic And Parking Study For
Twin Arbors Athletic Club
(Cochran Road Facility)
Lodi, CA
March, 1991
Table of Contents
S��
Introduction .............................
Traffic..............................................
A. Existing Conditions .. ............................. .
B. Impact of the Proposed Projcct .......................... .
G Impact of Additional Traffic Vofurnes .......................
Parking...............................................
0
P1ae
I
2
2
3
4
6
List of Figures
..l:u. Pau
1 Daily Arrival and Departure Characteristics of Club Traffic ......... 7
2 Existing Turning Volumes During Peak- Hour of Club (7-9 Fm)....... 8
3 Existing Turning Volume., During Ptak .dour of Adjacent
Street(6-7 p.m-) ..................................... 9
4 Distribution of pub Traffic ............................... 10
5 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes on Street Segments .............. 11
6 Daily Traffic Volumes at Intersection Approaches ............... 12
7 Change in Existing. Average Daily Traffic Due to Project .......... 13
S Change in Daily Traffic Volumes Due to Project ................ 14
9 Change in PM Peak Hour Volurres Due to Project ............... 15
List of Tables
Table page
I Pedestrian Observation .................................. 16
1. Introduction
Twin Arbors Athletic Crib consists of two facilities; one located on Hurchins Street and tht
other located on Cochran Road. A member of the athIedc club can use either facility. The
Hutchins club is known more as an indoor club with activities such as racquet5ail,
weightlifting and aerobics. The Cochran club, locared in a residential neighborhoxl, is
primarily an outdoor rennis/switnrning facility with high sumrncr usage.
Spare T=O. Inc. is proposing to expand and remodel the facility on Cochran Road. ':'he
proposed expansion ipcludes an upgrade of facilities, a new aerobics room, an expanded
weight room, additional tennis courts, as well as other less significant irnprov.,=nts. The
proposal also includes the expansion of the facility's parldng !or from 78 to 82 parking spaces.
Due to concerns of neighborhood residents living near the Cochran club, the City planning
staff asked Spare Time, Inc. to hire a traffic consultant to study the traffic and parking impacts
of the proposed expansion and to meet with the neighbors to hear their concerns. Spare Time,
Irc. commissioned Fehr &Peers Associates to perform the traffic/parking study.
Spare Time. Inc. management and a representative of Fehr & Peers associates Met with the
Ioeal neighbors on February 21, 1991 to discuss their concerns about the proposed remodeling
and expansion. About 16 residents attended the meeting. They raised several issues,
including some relaxed to traffic and parking.
The purpose of the study is to determine the impact of the Cochran Road club expansion
(referred to herein as "proposed project") on traffic and parking.
W
II. Traffic
This chapter discusses the cu,:cir waffc conditions in the irmnediate v:cinirl o: the project,
estimates the =ount of tr,.ffic that will be generated by the project, indicates the resulting
increase in u—ffic on the local strew, remarks or, the acceptability of :hose traffic increases.
and finally recommends n easures to rr-Britt-ze t:�tc impacts of the increased traffic.
A . Existing Conditions
The traffic study focused on roien:l traffic impacts )f the project onto Coc.ltr n Road, Ti -;den
Drive and Peach Street. All threc'of the roads arc residMial streets and all -host exclusively
serve only traffic generated by uses (horr:es and ;he existing club) within the neighborhood.
Fehr & Peers Associates conducted traffic counts at the club driveways and at the intersections
of Cochran/Peach and CochraruTiiden or: Wednesday, March 6, 1991 from 3 a.m. to 9 p.m.
(the hours that the club is open). The weather was clear and sunny on the day of the count, so
the club experienced typical usave for that drre of the year. Fi bre 1 shows t.Fte total traffic ;hat
entered/exited the club over the 13 hour period that the club was open. As shown., 131
vehicles entered the club during the 13 ;.ours that the club .vas open. The club traffic activie.
was highest from 5 to 6 p.m. (13 entered and 19 exited) and from 7 to 8 p.m. (18 entered, 14
exited). Figure 2 shows rhe intersection turn volumes from 7-8 p.m. rigurc :� shows club
traffic during the adjacent street peal: hour (6-7 p.m.).
We also identified which roads traffic used after exiting the c1ub. As Figure Al shows, 45%
used Peach Sweet, 25% used Tilden Drive, and 30% continued on Cochran Road. This
information was utilized to assign the increased traffic genc.ated by the proposed project.
The wafFc counts were factored to represent Average Daily Trak (ADT) volumes. Figure 5
shows the existing ADT volumes on the study sweets. The AD -I's range from 340 vehicles
per day on Tilden Drive to 620 vehicles per day on Cochran Road between Tilden Drive and
Peach Street. Figure 6 shows daily tiler volumes at the study intersection.
We also noted the pedestrian and bicycle activity derng the hours counted. Table 1
summarizes the pedestrian observations. On average, 3 pedestrians per hour were observed
waMrg in the immediate area of Tilden/Cochran,'Peach. The data shown in the table is
considered typical of a residential sweet; however, it represents information taken on a non -
school day.
The technicians who performed the traffic :punts reported that motorists on Cochran Road,
Peach Street, and Tilden Drive !ravelled at a higher rate of speed than typically expected in a
residential neighborhood. Thev also :noted that the vehicles acccssin; the club did not scent to
drive any faster or slower than non-clab vehicles.
The technicians also reported that they observed a couple o: "close -calls" or near accidents
during the day at the intersection of Cochran Road and Peach Street. At thrnectino with the
local neighborhood, several msidcnts also mentiored that vehicles travelled at a high rate of
speed through the area, and that tdtey nzd seen several ";lose-ca!ls" at :.`ie Cochran/Peach
intersection.
.2.
We reviewed C. ry records to der:rminc the recent accident his -cry ir. the study ar,a. In the past
five ye=s, only one n-affic accident was reported at the Cochran/Peach intersection. ':hat
accidert trivolved a vehicle travelling uestbrund on Cochran. Road gettine hit 'broadside by a
vehicle mrnlm! richt from Peach Street These movements were rhe same ss .::.scribed as
"close -calls" by the counting technicians.
B . 1mp3ct of the Proposed Project
Thr most diffieuit task in titc study was to estimate tate amount of traffic that the proposed
project will generate. At fist, one may thin': that the arrouat of square Footage i�r numlI•r of
ccurts would be the most reliable variable to estirrate traffic from a club, but available statistics
indicate that membership is the most accurate variable.
Fehr & Peers Associates obtained information at the Johnson Ranch RatrquetClub in RoscvUie
which indic--ted that the club Venerated 0.8E vehicle trips per-nembersh;p. To verify the
reliability of this rate fel the proposed project, we performed a traffic count a( both the
Hutchins club and the Cochran elute. Aeeordin-
., to Spare Time, Inc. ma nagcrtent, there a.
currently about 1,650 memberships in the Twin Arbors athletic Club. During this time of
year, about 1,350 memberships utilize the Hutchins club, while 300 memberships use the
Cochran club.
On Wednesday, February 27, 1991, a total of 578 vehicles entered and exited the Hutchins
club during the entire day. This represents about 0.86 daily trip ends per club membership (a
vehicle entering and exiting the club is considered two trip ends). As previously discussed,
131 vehicles enteredfexited aha Cochran club on Wednesday, March 6, 1991. This.repr:sents
about 0.87 daily trips per clab membership. Thus, the daily trip rates at three different clubs
were 0.86, 0.87 and 0.88 daily trips per membership. The consistency of the rase indicates a
high degree of reliability.
We used the rate of US daily vehicle tries per membership to estimate the amount of traffic
that the proposed project will generate. The existing club membership during early March is
300. Spare Tune, Inc. management has indicated that the ultimate membership capacity of the
remodeled/expanded club is estimated to be 1,0(X? memberships, which is an increase of 700
memberships. At 0.88 trips per membership, :00 new memberships will Generate 616 daily
trips (308 in and 308 out).
Information published by the Institute of Transportation En-inecrst indicates that a racquet
club generates about 10% of its daily traffic during the p.m. peak 1 -.our. Therefore, of the 616
trip ends that the proposed project will generam in ar entire day, about 62 additional trip Bids
will occur during the p.rrL peak hour.
Using the distribution pattern shown earlier ir. Figure 4, daily traffic volumes will increase by
280 vehicles on Peach Street, 150 vehicles on Tilden Drive, and 190 vehicles on Cochran
Road west of Tilden. Figure 7 shows that tn.ffrc on these road segmt:nts will increase by 44%
to 47%. Traffic volumes on Cochran between Tilden Drive and Peach Street will inercase by
550w, while Cochran Road adjacent to the project will increase by 155i'o. It is important to
note that the increases shown in Figure 7 represents increases in winter traffic volumes. Spare
1 Trip Gener+tinn_ 4th Ftikinn, fnuitutz of Transportation Engineers, Septemtxr 119S7
-3.
Time, Inc. managew.cat has indicated ; hat summer membership at file Cochran club is about
500. which is double the winter me_r Lnership. Thus the increase in traffic on the local streets
will be less in the summer than in the winter.
Figure 8 shows the amount of daily --sffic increase at the ro:hran/Peaca and Ccchran/iiden
intersections.
The resulting ADTs on Cochran Road range ffrim 610 on 41c ,c-ment vest o!'79deo Drive to
1,070 on the segment adjacent to the club. Tl.e resulting AD,r is S?0 or. Peach Strer.t end 490
on Tilden Drive.
C . Impact of Additional Traffic Volumes
The intersections at Cochran/Peach and Cochrar/I'il�en will continue ro operate st LOS A with
the project.
Cochran Road, Peach Street, and Tilden Drive are residential streets. According to the C:ry of
Lodi's design classifications. Tilden Drive and Cochran Road (except for a shor, st-amen) are
standard residential streets. Peach Sweet is a minor residential satet because it lacks curb,
gutter, side -malk and has only a 50 -foot right-of-way.
Standard residential streets are dLsigned to carry 500 to 4,000 vehic:es per day. With the
r- additional traffic generated by the proposed project, Cochran Road Will have an ADT of 1,0'20
vehicles (highest segment), and Tilden Dtve will have an ADT of 490 vehicles. Thus, the
project traffic volumes are well within the design capacity of the streets.
As discussed. Peach Street is classified as a minor residential street. The traffic volurne range
for minor residential streets -is 0 to 500 vehicles per day. The existing ADT on Peach Street is
590, which means its current volume exceeds its design capacity by 90 vehicles. The
proposed project will increase the ADT on Peach Street from 590 to 870.
An article in a recent transportation publication entitled "Maximum Traffic Volumes For
Livable Streets"2 suggests traffic vclun:e thresholds for Level of Service A on residential
sweets. Level of Service (LOS) is a tc-..n used to describe the quality of traffic Operation on a
road facility. It is denoted by letters ranging from A to F, with A being the best level of
service and F being he worst. The author's description of LOS A for residential streets is
"that traffic condition where any giv-_n vehicles or the roadway is unaffected by any other
vehicle." The level of servica of a residential street depends on the w:l,,h of the street and
whether streetside parking is allowed. For a road having Peach Sweet's characteristics, 24 -
foot width without parking, the maximum traffic volume threshold for LOS A is 840 vehicles
per day. The traffic volume projection on Peach Street is 870 vehicles per day, which is
slightly above the LOS A limit.
2 Published;n We"em.t.. November -December, !M.
Recommendations: Based on reports of "close -call" accidents by the local residents and the
field technicians, we recommend the City investigates implementing a stop -sign at the
Cochran/Peach intersection. Based on our analysis and obser adons, it appears that a stop
sign is needed at the Peach Street approach to the intersection. This will clearly give right-cf-
way to CocLran Road tr..ffic and should reduce the accident pmential at the inteasec don.
As far as the upgrading of Peach Street is concerned, if the C. chooses to use its design
standards as the basis far determining if a sweet reeds to be upgraded, then Pesch .:street needs
to be upgraded to a standard residential street regard:ess of tI:e proposed project. if in the
LOS A volumes are the basis :cr determining if t. a road needs to be upgraded, then Peach
Street probably does not need to be widened since the projec:cd volurncs (8770) cxcecd LOS A
capacity (840) by only 30 vehicles.'
.5
r001�
III. Parking
I he proposed project will also inerrase the present parkin- demand at the existing club.
Fr.*ldttg util:zauot: surveys comp:_ted in : eb:u�ry, 1991 irdicste that the maximum number of
vehicles parked in the lot was 27. j
According to Spare Time, Inc. management and local reside. -Us, narking demand is
substantially higher during the summer months. Mann 4�,Cn c'rt and local rTsic!en� agreed that
the maximum parking demand during the suacrier is about 50 vehicles, CxCept during the City
tennis tournament.
Spare Time, inc provided Fars & Peers Associams with statistics on rnernbership and paddng
at three other clubs. The foLowing shows the parking demand and total rues-bereships at each
club: -
Membership
FaTInna Provided cayacizy
Cold River 128 1,600 : space per 12.5 mernberships
.'.stomas 162 2,500 ? space per 15.4 m:mberships
Johnson Ranch 156 1,750 1 space per 11.2 memberships
Iaguna Creek 188 2,500 1 space per 133 memberships
Total 634 8,3501 1 space per I2.1 membenhips
As shown above, one parking space is required for a rangy between 11.2 and 15:1
memberships. The average is one space per 13.2 memberships. Using these r--:ios, the
proposed project will require between 65 and 39 parking spaces.
The proposed project will increase the number of parking spaces from its present 73 spaces to j
82 spaces, which equates to I space per 122 tremberships. Only the Johnson Ranch Club
provides more parking than this on a membership basis. Based on this information, the
proposed parking supply should be adequate to handle the expected demand. However, in
case the demand someday exceeds the supply, Spare Time will expand ;he parking Iot in the
vacant laced in the northwest corner of the, site.
.6.
30
2s
r-�
FIGURE 1
MAt1 v AmolvAl ANn nimARVIRR
8.9 A.M. 9.10 A.M. 10.11 A.M. 11-12 A.M. t2.1 P.M. 1•z P.m. z•3 r.r+. a•. �.�. • .^ - - - - - - - -
HOUR OF DAY
Note: Tiaffie o wnis taken on %%'aloe :day. Mata ► 6.1991.
ENISTING TGRUING VOLUMES
VbLt A Pools Assoclatas. lmc
FIGURE 2 DURING PEAK HOUR OF CLUB
Vir;ST TbKAYSt..::�'.'
lu
c.0
w 1:
ma.
WEST.tVINE lST
ENISTING TGRUING VOLUMES
VbLt A Pools Assoclatas. lmc
FIGURE 2 DURING PEAK HOUR OF CLUB
EXISTING TURNING VOLUMES DURING
FIGURE 3 ! PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET fwraPears Arso{.�a1ea,Ina
11 Tutnycuattn cnwwuarr.
(6-7 P.M.)
{U
COCHRAN RD.":.:
cn
•.
)j)
Gpy
LLJ
cl
U -lull
WE
EXISTING TURNING VOLUMES DURING
FIGURE 3 ! PEAK HOUR OF ADJACENT STREET fwraPears Arso{.�a1ea,Ina
11 Tutnycuattn cnwwuarr.
(6-7 P.M.)
EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMESfi?FoMwPoeCs?w tatoa,Inc.
FIGURE 5 ON STREET SEGMENTS _ _
Y�
NQT TQ SCALE
is`11m i ,
�
I�
���
• •
-
AT f CLU$r x.11' t
i
EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMESfi?FoMwPoeCs?w tatoa,Inc.
FIGURE 5 ON STREET SEGMENTS _ _
FIGURE 6 DAILY'FRAFFiC VOLUMES ^! ]I-,— � Fehr i Paara Aeaxlar•a, Inc.
AT INTERSECTION APPROACHES
E A T.
WEST Y8•
�.
�C'
.L
vk i
k
N O
82
209.137
.. COCHRAN Rb.: ..
...:
�—.
217
t77 --i
190
131\ 151
y'
40
114
u
s;.
id
k s WES;VINE ST
.E
a r:�sa
k
FIGURE 6 DAILY'FRAFFiC VOLUMES ^! ]I-,— � Fehr i Paara Aeaxlar•a, Inc.
AT INTERSECTION APPROACHES
FIGURE 7 (11 CHANGE IN EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC ` Folw&Poorsassoclotes.Inc.
DUE TO PROJECT I t.•..,"ua,`°..
309 {p2} tl :f ' s ; 269 {92) � =►
1901
439 1q y
I
L
Tl
Lu
r.
..i!
i
i
,
WESTV�NES7 '-
C
XX—EXISM.r, • PACAACT VOLUTIES
i
(TY)-PR0JEl7 ONLY VOLUP S tFR011 CLUB EXPANSION)
FIGURE 8 CHANGE IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES FoMdPeaYR6tOf.I61p5,Me-
DUE TO PROJECT
a
` `. s i �FF ix'i -. x x �.'ti }+# ¢fS �s. 5 �yr F : - �i-yt#•x at
s ^
-
t<
i
WEST VINE ST
XX-EXISTIMU PROJECTUOLUMES
i,. (YYy PROJECT OJtLY VOLUMES (FROM CLUB EXPNISIO)J)
FIGURE 9
CHANGE IN PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
�` Fshr6PursAsacelbs,tne
DUE TO PROJECT
-
TYdiN�A
"u
ATNI VTI
a
` `. s i �FF ix'i -. x x �.'ti }+# ¢fS �s. 5 �yr F : - �i-yt#•x at
s ^
-
t<
i
WEST VINE ST
XX-EXISTIMU PROJECTUOLUMES
i,. (YYy PROJECT OJtLY VOLUMES (FROM CLUB EXPNISIO)J)
FIGURE 9
CHANGE IN PM PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
�` Fshr6PursAsacelbs,tne
DUE TO PROJECT
Table 1
�-. Pedestrian Observation
Are They All
PM
-16-
Number in
Children
Alicm Did They Come From And
Time
Qrnu2
(Yes car NO)
_ :L'ae-e Are Tma Go -n.- To
8:44 a.m.
1
No
Pesch St. - East en Cochran
9:04
2
No
Tilden - Auhlydc Club
10:27
1
Yes
Cochran - 3 houses East on Cochran
10:38
2
No
P.:=h - West on Coch-ran
11:02
2 (like)
No
Ti -Iden - Athletic Cu:b
11:44
1(Bike)
Yes
Tilden - Athletic Club
11:53
1(Bike)
Yes
Peach - East on Cochran
11:57
3 (Bike)
No
Athletic Club - Tilden
12:18 gm.
1
Yes
Peach - West on Cochran
12:31
2
Yes
Cochran - 3 houses West on Cochran
1:07
2
\To
Peach - Tokay
1:08
1
No
West end of Cochran - Peach - W. T okay
1:52
2
No
W. Tokay - 3rd house on Peach "
2:05
1
No
East on Cochran - Peace - East on Tokay
2:07
1
No
F—tst on Cochran - Peach - Fast on Tokay
2:41
2
No
Tilden - Peach - Ease on Tok--ay
3:00
1
No
West on Tokay - Peach - Athletic Club
3:11
1
Yes
Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran
327
2 (Bike)
Yes
Tilden - Athletic Club
3:36
2
Yes
East on Cochran - Atl&lcdc Club
420
4 (2 Bike)
Yes.
Athletic Club - Tilden
(2 Walker)
4:28
2
No
Peach - Tikkn
4:54
1
Yes
Tilden - Athletic Club
5:05
1
No
Peach - Tilden
5A2
I
Yes
Athletic Club - Tilden
5:42
1
No
Peach - West on Cochran
6:00
2
No
East on Cochran - Au.dc Club
6:33
2
No
Athletic Club - West on Coclu- n
PM
-16-
7. A letter from the Community Development Director dated January 22,
1991 outlining the staff's original conditions for approval with
the first site plan attached.
CITY COUNCIL
DAVID M HINCHMAN. Mayor
JAMES W PINKERTON. Jr
Mayor Pro Tempore
PHILLIP A. PENNING
JACK A. SIEGLOCK
JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER
January 22, 1991
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
(209)334-5634
FAX (2091333.6795
Mr. Tim Mattheis
c/o Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc.
222 West Lockeford Street, Suite 9
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Tim:
THOMAS A. PETERSON
C81V Manager
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
BOB MCNATT
City Attorney
RE: Use Permit - U-90-30
Facilities Expansion and Remodel
Twin Arbors Athletic Club
2040 Cochran Road
The Lodi Planning Commission has scheduled a Public Hearing for 7:30 p.m.,
Monday, January 28, 1991 to consider your request on behalf of Twin Arbors
Athletic Club for a Use Permit to expand and remodel facilities at 2040
Cochran Road in an area zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential.
At that meeting the Community Development Department will recommend the
following conditions for approval: ,
1. that the subject project be connected to the City sanitary sewer
system;
2. that the existing septic tank system be abandoned in conformance with
the 'requirements of the San Joaquin County Environmental 'Health
Department with copies of the permit issued by that office submitted
to the City as proof of compliance;
3. that the subject parcel be connected to the City's storm drainage
system with the necessary on-site improvements being completed;
4. that the developer/owner pay the fees shown below and any additional
fees at time of issuance of Building Permit:
Storm Drainage Fees $31,320.00
Sewer Service (4 -inch) 680.00
Sewer Connection 28,652.50
5. that all conditions established by the Site Plan and Architectural
Review Committee (SPARC) become a part of the Use Permit.
Sincerely,
4"<Z I
�. �ommA ES B. SCHRO DER
unity Development Director
cc: Lodi Athletic Club
r
Ccoft� 10-D
r :III illlsilllllllll y .K
V
I lel li 1 '� - - - • 'ay _!�
10.1 0!*r..q
ILL I
1IF7It
I ..moi
a
I � t
I t i I
R11
I I I IF -11
I i
®MAMSMKM
TWIN ARBORS A71-fLEMC CLUB
e 1 •/t4
3
o
,2_,1_90
Twin Arbors Athletic Club
Facilities Expansion
=� Ir- 2040 Cochran Road
0.90.30 page t of Z t-t�-91
8. Background data which Outlines the history of Sunwest Tennis and
Swim Club (i.e. Twin Arbors Athletic Club).
r�
BACKGROUND DATA
SUNWEST TENNIS AND SWIM CLUB
1. Information from San Joaquin County Files
2. Excerpts from Minutes of Planning Commission September 13, 1971
3. San Joaquin County Referral
4. Zoning Variance - A-22-35 - Reduce Fence Setback
5. Use Permit - U-72-29 and Amendments in 1978 and 1979
... ......
............
.0� ....... L ....
..... t. -O. .... j500, e.-I:;t oi Le -war Sacra=ento
................................... .......... . .. . . .. ..............
—__._..»._......»-_..___..........__._..._.....__............... . ..................... . ............. ._ ...._.. ___---------•--.....
__..__._.....»....».._............._.__..__..._........_............................ . . . ........
- -- ----- . . . . ........ . .......... . ........................... . .... ....... . . . ..........
L -Sal Cwzar of pic rty I -zol cant
.......... ............ .. ......... . ...... . ............
14--i!!ng Xidres3 . ......... . ............ . . - - - -------- - --- ------------ --------- - ----------------------- --- . .....
Accepted Crdi:.
=Ce MO
ESM-MLISH T=VNIS AZTD S31=31
a 2EQUEST:
»..=....»_ ._.............. .
. ......... ........... . ................................ . ........ . ................. . .................................... ......
::tr M;ury L
of Aonlicc .. .............. ........ .. ..... . .
......................... .. ... .l__:......................... ... ....
a . ..... . . ....... by ria...... A
........ ........ on...
RG=Cn for AC.-_;-jn . ............ . ............ . . .. .. . .. ......................
................ ........ ............................. ..............
. . . . ....... . . . ........... . . ..... ......... ....... .................. ................... . ....... ...........
v sub;*0 to tees Oper4limm; -Almn"Idt 00 1&* mvwse slie.
. .......... Vii. ......
9-23-71
__._».........-....... . . .. ....
Cera
Z.;cra :1 _-,-Z2TV=CI3 =--'en upen -7r;etll .*,:Om dm I-Ocizion ";-'I C,=issWwlJBoCri C!
. .................. ....
.. . .................................... . ;at -:I; L . ..............
J. =79':,- _. _d •J'e ..i ..tet :. nv..':J ......7 ...:o t '.'1L =7. :7 L:: •i1 �^i =-xf .� :a0 x'.!00 .7f :E's
'::nrriva, cnv :_ 7 r„:.i==-.: cc St_!a L:x u
rt __-..:_.....: ..:,_ i :C-2!.4_rrq y!alstt.� :, Ct:.r:+Lt AA •+:' t�r� re :enef this aaa, tb..t
:v=:3 e -cu►r :.s -VC:t+ ;v:r::ca of 1„s s:s-: ^^- :t, a aalaance 12 2ei' :ed
• cs :oi: ys:
"_iu!s'r-ers !a aei .td !a=:yt!'zq :es;u:!sq 5a s:;tsasaaabls er inlawf:l Fac-:-as cc _-eta
n:g:cet 4ic'a :t, :f mrsa :o �ai 3:�::a :o iealL3, saitw or 7aBIiC wslt�, a 'ua
s s!g3tly
ar ci:_cs:: a :a a _rc.ta zu -a :a :tet -r :ts ro:t5 UI-2 Cc=fcs tylia eajorent ci ::fa vc zopartT
-cr. =40t
�ptd :se xrit i ::Wl e 8
r'r:" t cj 5Jmrt!1!ad 23
=CViaq.:cr_e�s:-:g a aim s•::ctursi aitaset!oa al:a!1 :s
xco 'Z --:t _ : _. .,•/ rc:.-!ra :: a sa!d : !et?!= --aaIl Be firs: cvpr_:od Sy "u Mznainq r er .
f xat, Cts saicn x .-r• s .i .;jj•2stZaat.
3. T!klz ---so °! is -:7a:= ::ser tas c=.jit:ca !Sat said permit act be b,,sfarrcd rltdla a SUap brad ahoy
i 0.4 data x _:acval.
4. a: C-sti_nage plan and pa_ement of .e -a to the Degart=ent
of 9-ablic
S: a=a to 3e obtained f=cm the �Decarttent of
1 - `.. _ _..__... _._.. .: _. _ _ _•l•'„—_.3;SC, 7 �:I3 a=3St_a=,r3 O: "I' C: _7 O. .•.CG' .
.�. 1...-.:, i� ... .. ...:1� �=alt: ✓;.at=2C�.
I
..Jr _ ... •112 .'�L"'�`I.•iuf ,tet•: _.u• . , r•' _ 1: .. •v-1'7 . • .,L��."' �.^../
_a e:s rabi-.JA S 1Y.d'C.: Yle iOut2l
31:..`a o= CCC_'—=n1 :toad, ::cm 1775' co 25CJ' ca=t of :ower Sacramento
Road, .;out.l of Lobi, in an I -?A Zone.
CCNSI,ZrSMTICNS: The Planning Depart=ment introduced a
: •.+rittan re_ ort into the record_
=2--:^47CATIC 7S: Lcdi, recc=nenued approval 3ubjec= to the inprovemen_
Coca. Wn Road to county standards. _ : iciticn D:st-i. :
_ec==er_ding construction of a c_.cl_n•e __nc_ of a -nin:_n%-n height c:
to be located cet:aeen the T,istrict'3 right -of -:pal for canal and
prcoosed deveio=ment.
STS.: Jae art.ment of ?ublic ele ks, racc.-=erdi. g dedication of
t 5' of frcntage for the widening to 43' of Cnchran Road and the
i—mrovement of that road to the standards of the pity of Lodi.
?13^ai he ^evart-ea reccatmending conditional apyr.oval
?73T,IC �.r..�_IING CP=IZD
=2 --lie-ming "er3cn3 3Cc%3 im _avor _ a=nlicati=_n:
.:253=2. 22:1:._3
-- C -- can oc•�, d Ne?�_ ...�.....�=e1.., r -i ent
_.
-,a araa. '_h2-. mad:? the L9: T;l� .an --r2 grounds ,wil;.
-'_` A_ ads
----
�'e'C:'SS=C_J �,1-D FINDINGS: Commissiushrrs cCcmb ana idaid:hc-?= sp
- OtCC ..n
he ia3ue and in t: -heir cununent3 t a _oilcwi. g fiad:ags were made:
There is a definite need fcr this type of development. The access
'was a cause of some cenc-zin. (The applicant stated that he would
not object to a 5' dedication o; frontage for the widening of tate
access). Further finding w46 that a 6' fcnce is all that is
necessary rather thant'he 20' fence suggested by the Woodbridge
;irr--gaticn District.
MOTICN: Moved, seconded (Gunderson -Donald) and carried by a unanisc_r
:roll call vote to approve the permit subject to the following:
J 1. Approval of drainage plan and payment of fees to the Department
of Public wor:cs.
2. etc:cachment Permit3 are to be obtained from the'Departnent of
?UbliC Or"C3.
3. anproyal c� the Civision of lard.
4. 1__c3r.i_.. and isrioveaen: to h3 standard3 C. cht City Lodi.
_ of ,
,_ f__^:a;e for the widening c_ Cochran P.cal-
�. __ r:•�a: o= tL'a Lccal ?eait_h
------------------ — ..•.r._..wr•„c r.S,..—+r.._..— —_
,Application No.
Data Zecaivud ^� � ?� ?! i r3tuzn^•i
Cc=:ent3 rade hereon have been made without cc:=?lete information
�1 as to intent of ano1icant and tzarefore should be taken with acme
degree of caution in iata_.retat'_en thereof. Pzgli..inar-f evaluations
of site feat=es art- as f031CW3:
L I. ROAD :RWITAC-2 A r.OIL'�TS eer Ord. 672 (by ) t
A. L•aprovecent to be constructed by permittee at time of
prc:-ert r develocment: Yes No
S. cst?..-iat3d fee fcr future improvement by County - approx =at*
length of frontage ( ) x r_cTuired widening
I ) x $ /aq.rt. - a"
C. Enaineered clan for road improvements and storm facilities
within ". to be submitted for P.W.D. approval: Yes
No
D. Zncxcac2..ent aermit: Yes No
�. Cc:�n:3:
I:.
C.we Cr d. .3^,
A. of =!cht 7_ '•iav: Ya3 �� vC.
3. WZ : t-- :a'_
C.
•�;.`�%�' �:'! t�C.'�G1 s Zvi -� ��3�!'�:.;'✓.-fF•'~.�
(r -ad)
D. Division of land: las 11 ,Nc
ol
E. CcmmentS :-
^-., f Gam✓ ,call'V- , ZIi71.,-" .`%.:e �� fes. 6„r�•. c�s%�%>
�:�:r•,l:�v.,s/ c.".�::...rl ;C.G'i�va:' � D�i� �.'Scf G!se �/5�.-:f �:�r d�-
u �A=v
v--slCU--k I ACC=:,3
A. incrcac.haeat ;ern' -t: Yes c,- / :To_+•�
B. :x---ber o° approaches psr frontage:
C. Naximt= width of acceos (-measured at ?P lino) t fes.
D. :cnco, cr.:rb or othez pay3ical barriar tp vehicular traffic
:Coss __Cr_t.1c2: Yz3 � No
. � �.. .�.��•.q �.• TT,!' �•a. � +LTi•'_ .. ... • ..
H
Public harks Cerart-ent C`ec.. '.113t (Can't)'� P3g$ r
m. '_la__'• -Dime Size:
C:.^._.i' ents : 7 //fir. i s7 e i
IV. TRA271C R-EQUI.Z.'&MTS (b? Q-7� ) :
Asvhalt CCnc eta Cu;S for traff1C dalinoat30t1: Yes
B.
Cf: 31t3 tri_'i_ d3tail and parking plan,
::o
C.
Ccrsment3:
V. ?LCOD
CCt3T40L EEQUI.Rr_:L-TS (by
A.
Tar_inal d_ainam faci►l✓t- available: Yes_' :ic
Of 373i13b? a f3Ci== �7:
�G •
��=—_-72=..C:1 : .7f '.3�i%•31 �"3S:]3t3Q CLic3nne1. �E'S N
.�
Daaicat_cn oz =iatl _ of :yay: !03 =,0
,.2:
1=d lavell.-.g cerci= -ter Ord. 662: Yas :To
?.
?S ^C=tll 31J j3C = tO ..,urda tIcn: `AAs
a==Oval
=Lard ]n_-a-rsl. 733 :70
% K";
V1. D?_xImxG
QUi r:+rs (b•7: _ 4'l
A.
acprox.Lmate trust f rr fee per Ord. e1192 't
Ord. 1359 �� $ Scoa .ac -z
B.
Additional facilities: Yet. No
C.
Engineered drainage plot plan to ba :,.uhmittnd for P.N:D.
approval: Yes No_
D.
Ponding and percolatimn s!rstam: Ye:: `� No
E.
Cc=ents:
•�
-• v r !i �y o v a i i. �� !.r .t r'i is s� nf�.� �1t-•:•�.� r.�i _ �
�s
I
'' :rf' _'t1•�•:.f• .� '.. TL is,_ :.i: •— — — :'.'fi/, .; "TJ.'�•�►'r�."�.!.1 :'��'�r!1�T .{. �T4 �:
S..
'.il
'> .k+c`�•r'�:f�Zy=•�M• ..r =
_ fY is ... _ ,._ a .•t _.,-•]._-... - .. -�-
� .�
,• �' i1e►•1.�.L •'•.7
.. T��� _ _ ... �.._�
re• • mss'
•. '• - :.?a�.':rhF••r����i•• Y•4_"s'-•►:.1.'S:;�Hs ra �'._ .y�,r,. �`Asrc,�r� (. - :+t^t.�� «j ���.>'.'JTiI�"t:�rr�:+`T'���•
' � ; �.5. r-a�tJ-,Cr�tr..i � .`.:a •ta .: ;� i•^.3\� S.ri..✓fe l:- .�}a.-�au-:!:... -ai• '" _
:l �,�... - � j ..+.. ,�, y_ y�-ter. '��,.. r..:2 C.�:i.:. • -
4i=1air--.r.= 4SEl.��::1��.:-��•
3 vt i� �• t�fis.' 4 t -.L j
04
43
IU
. - _r fr�:rC7'r- }• r�1. .. ..• 1' _ � .r .l'- 7C -.I ri�� ... , _ :.;ti =�•.'x-:� :V^ �-��!�, �• /
_ ...�- Vie•• - ^car: •.k• - � ♦ '•� .
'•�',i(�`• • fir_ i'• :,+. _•', r! C%1.��. r i - ;ir; y,� '�:_
,ti r t _ �siib•�i � I•IYIiA v r' - .:1� ..� - 1� } 4 �1•a.�
,- � _ r .. - .._ -'�• 'f' _ r• '� ..: _ 1. =.s xti..
' '• .• -: . a '� -� _ u `t l.1 f(`'- � . :.
#'i L:• ,. - iso` _. '—•r � .: "•r-! (tea :-;�`' -i,':tri=.
�;�� .:C.^��`, ..�f%k•' F~v :��•.•.' �''mow, - .� (. } .� �'•� `; �Ja° ..
I 1!
�•^i— =._� ter;: Ej '.-'.r �
:-�`•� ��-''_�'!rrf•.`"�i��..�s• • :'fi�}r.� rtr
•'. _ .a'• `Plat.. v •�'
�'-w.:�' . •'�. v- �� :�Ok'+_t f.`i �y :�• )a �i.?f2 �. ' iT•r+�l�Lt7.�?7i •s..
��•+ _ _ �V .,+\_• •• i..-. tit ig•...•.., +, +
-�- � �'! : - _ •l�O AO, �;:.-- = � tel',
•ate+• ` .. ., `' �'�' �,'' �-`•-
7 err
t'r s- tM •" din L .�.'•` a!� . ' ''•~`
�t•�+?Y„r. �1+'♦;,` ��• 7t..:� C, •ems _.
.'7�c ',y+1:art -.► t'�/;�.. ra:•'..S' L ,.J••.♦
1���, , �•.{'i r `1G� 'R'+•. a�"��Yrn :f r�s:.:t'f �ri±:
.
3" L4
-Ly
A•: =. ..t'".. ?:• .fir✓ r
7 S C Z I P -T I
REFLAND=2R:D TO Int '•HIS R -?CRT AS FOI.3- SITUaT_D IN THE STATE C=
THE L `•
CALIF32%,A, C01.11T'/ CF SAN.bCAQ'�I:., %"D IS t;_'sCRI13E:� i_LC::S
: t
EAST, STI
Tti= :C2'",AST •TER (`6c :/4) OF 5'TI ^`� Ti
A BC.cT2CV CF tea.: ` : .-CLNT. i 13 J 3ASc
Ca`15:!i? IHR_ iii .:c�-r:1 •:•:::��: \U)
AND `".ERIGIAN, CE.5CZI3n_D AS -CLLVJS:
C0:'.!'E*JCI:iG At A ?CI?1T Ch EN
THE SCUTH LS OF SAI �. QL'A Z'=� -CT iCFi� .
. - uZTE:2 S.C7IOy; THENCE
340 FE . aEST OF THE SCUTHEASc�CCR.;=R OF SAID Q" A
NCRTii 0' 02' 34r' :�=5T 325.30 _T TO THE C!%ITEZ Lit:. CFCOC:-�:UN
WEST, 43y.40 FET TO y"2 TZU- POINT OF
ROAD; THENCE NORTH 230 12' 3011 • <CUTH:.O' 02'
3EfaNMING OF THE HEREMAFTER DESCRIBED TpACT; T4E4CE '200 F.E, ;HENCE
5011 EAST, 213.00 FEET; THEN ,y02TH 33� i2• 33" WEST- ?,A�'c2 SECTICtt
•r= CF 637 F ------T TO T!i_ t
SOi1iH 'a r,' 1 :�J" .AST, A GiSTa1l:12': =� ' � i iCii Li:�E, .> �ISTt.Iz'= CF
LI:d= -=E?iC5 EAST, ,aL: _c -
475 T Ti NCZ !iCR:.i ^�u '.C1 :I11 ,v=s� a . �.
C= .7LINE C 3A1 D '..a�„yRr:� D - -�c P
TME '47'rl LINE C= SAID
SSIS3
I -C
1-71.346-1 PAGE 3
N.
0 - 23,
woo
O E S r R I P T 0
:HAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CCLNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCR13ED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL CNE:
1 BEING A PORTION CF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTIGN TEN (IG), TOWNSHIP
THREE (3) NORTH, RANGE SIX Cb) EAST, MOUNT CI:.dLC BASE AHO `"E?IDIAN,
AND 9zGINNING FOR THE SAME AT A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAH QUARTEP
SECTICN 170 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID ;!!ARTER SECTION
AND RUNNING WEST ALONG SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE 740 rEET; TrENCE NORTH
ANC PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID QUARTEP SECTICN N[i FEET; THENCE
_AST AND PARALLEL TO THE SCUT!'. LINE OF SAI^ CUARTER SECTION 747 FEET;
THENCE SCUTH 825 FEET TO THE POINT OF
PARCEL TWO:
A PORTIC14 OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION TEN (10), TOWNSHIP Tyvcc
(3) NORTH, RANGE SIX (6) EAST, MOUNT DIABLO SASE AND MERIDIAN, AND
COMMENCING FOR THE SAME AT <. POINT ON THE SOUTH L!NE OF SAID QL'ARTER
SECTION 340 FEET WEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID QUARTER SECTIC.V
AND R.NN1NG THENCE HEST ALONG -SAID QUARTER SECTI!'N LINE 740 FEET; ':!-+_'!CE
NORTH PARALLEL WITH THE WEST LINE OF SAID QUARTER SECTION, 925 F==T;
T'iENC= EA57 AND PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTH LINE .^.F SAID ?UART'cR SECTIoN,
740 FEET; TeENCE SOUTH PARALL-L WITH THE EAST LINE C� SAID QU•:�T=Z
SECT!CN £25 F==T TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCE?T THE WEST 2 ACRES THEPECF.
ALSO EXCEPT '.H_REFRCM A PCRTICN OF THE NCRTHEAST '!'• CF SECTICN T=N
(:O), TC',*NSHIP THREE (3) NORT!'!, RANGE SIX (5) E13—, ':L?iT CIA2LO 1AS_
AND !'c�IOIA.V, CESCRI3ED AS FCLLCaS:
CMMENCING AT A POINT CN THE uTH LI;1_ OF sAl l 1 • .+s:'a ►! 3_
:e=ST Cr TH. SCUiY. .15T CORNER OF S A I V 1!4 SC_'_r'N, THE'10E NORTH 0' 02'
3v" .#EST 3:5.00 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF 'C•^.'•iR t4 ROAD; TWE?ICE !!GIRTH
39' 12' 30" '.LEST 634.14O. -FEET TC THE TC•UE. POINT nF BEliNNING OF
hEREINAFTER DESCRIBES! TRACT; THSNCE SVUTH 00 77' 30" EAST 213.00 FEET;
THENCE SOUTH 89c, 12' 33" EAST 23^.00 FEET; T?'EVCE NCR -.H 00 02' 3C" -
WEST 218.00 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF SAI(% CCCHRAN ROAO;-THENCE ALONG
SAID CENTER LINE OF COCHRAN ROAn, NORTH 890 12' 30" WEST 200.00 FEET
TO THE TRUE POINT OF ^".It,.NING.
"EXHIBIT A"
SS/SB
I-0 171346 PAGE 4
'fie::.
�,.
,i: t1�.�
; A.' 3 4: '�.:g: 9..7 •..
$� - �i°� :i. t.::iT - •."v'e rta�.''1 .�,{'.;..;,:r,'•:.gib
i+Y_,�f.}�.`-.:
. Minutes of Sertember 13, 1971 19 1
y"•, Mr. Howard Wallace requested a Use Permit to establish a rest home for USE PSRMIT
I the care of six non-ambulatory crib children at 829 South Garfield REST H01 -C
Street in an area zoned R -;O, Medium Density Multiple -Family -Resi-
dential.
829 711TH
The followir._. Terson was present and spoke in favor of granting the GA3EI� D
Use Permit:
1. Mr. Howard Wallace, 25187 North Watkins Road, Acarrpo, California.
He stated that he and his wife presently care for three such
ri children_ at their county address and that they were moving to the
O�
City. He said the apclication to care for six children was to
cove= any Possible future expansion.
U It was moved by Commissioner Katzakian, seconded by Commissioner
U Altnow and unanimously passed that the above Use Permit of Mr. Howard
Wallace be ar•roved with the provision that the oaeration of the home
and any necessary improvements to the structure conform to all of the
requirements of the various state and local agencies concerned with
the welfare of the children.
SAN v CA"tis I : CCUNT-Y ti =R.RALS
The Planning Commission was in receipt of the referral by the San
LTSE P7RMTT
Joa--uin County Board of Zoning Adjustment of the request of Mr. John
^E::SIS CLUB
Cavell for a Use Perni'� to establish a tennis and swim club on the
south side of Cochran Road from 1775 to 2500 feet east of Lower
_
j. `L
Sacramento Road in an area zoned I -PA, Interim -Protected Agriculture.
CCO'lPA: 30AD
The Planning lirector introduced the request and stated that the City
had recom-mended denial of a Use Permit on the ad4acent property be-
cause the area lacked terminal stores drainage. However, the County
had aperoved the trevious request. The Director stated that Ns.
Cazell had offered some possible solutions to the storm drainage
problem which were being investigated by the Public Works Derartment.
The following persons were present and spoke on this matter:
1. Ns. John. Ca:ell, 324 La Vida Drive, Lodi. He reviewed his sug-
gestions :or resolving the storm drainage problem and stated that
all of the parcels between Cochran Road and the extension of
:Test Vire Street from the W. I. D. Canal to Lower Sacramento Road
would probably seek annexation to the City.
2. Yx- Dennis Sherherd, 126 South Crescent Avenue, Lodi. He stated
that he recresented S. & H. Recreation. Developers (i.e., Sun -;lest
Swim and Racquet Club) and described the proposed facility which
would be oriented toward family recreation.
3. Mr. Nei! Porterfield, 8:0 South Mills Avenue, Lodi. He stated that
re lived across the canal from the z_ro_cosed club and favored the
arrroval of :he Use Permit.
_ Minutes of Septecber 13, 1971
4. ;dr. Albert Stirm, 1001 York Street, Lodi. Although he
favored the Use Permit, he expressed concern about lighting
and noise adversely affecting, adjacent properties.
After further discussion it was moved by Commissioner Robinson,
seconded by Commissioner Reid and unanimously Passed that the
City Planning Commission recommend to the San Joaquin County
Board of Zoning adjustment that the above Use Permit request of
vr. John Capell be a::proved with the following conditions:
1. installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lights
along the entire Cochran Road frontage; and
2. Drovision of a cul-de-sac turn -around where Cochran Road
dead -ends into the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal.
ADJOURR-E tT As there was no further business to be broubht before the Planning
Commission., Chairman Gassin declared the session adjourned at
9:15 p.m. The next Regular Session will be at 7:30 p.m., Monday,
September 20, 1971 in the Lodi City Council Chambers.
Attest:
1
,;A;: B. SCHROED 7?
Director - Secretary
l '
40,
GENTLEMEN:
''T:„: '� • •:.ilk c;
Enclosed is application U-72-50 for your review,
comments, and recommendations. A brief summary of the application
is as follows:
Proposal: = MABLZSH TENNIS A14D 5;; Ld CLUB
Land Area: I�
Sanitation:
Water Source:
Drainage:
Parking Area:
Observations:
so
Please return your comments and recommendations to the San Joaquin
County Planning Department, 1850 East Hazelton Avenue, Stockton,
California 95205.
The public hearing on this application will be held on 9-16-71
if your comments or recommendations are returned by
they can be included in the Planning Staff's report.
Thank you.
San Joaquin County Planning Department
-1 - • X71
OF i-1 dUST:•a....T
. A??LIC:::..T :c/o Dc ..-s :1`r
I G.; _,C re Sca'1-.:
ci?:^gcc:ass .. 5 ac:i.,....C�_.&9
.......................P=I�°Iy_ 3.-52 17 ....................
.
J LOCATION: on Llnc .,out': - -• ic..... _...ocl-ran..-:.o�c.,. o -
:�� G'' COC' ::r..
177-5' 2500' :az;;k: of Lower Sacramcnto
... -- -- ................... ..................... .. ............................................. ........................ I ... ....... I ......... I. ..........
.....
road, sou of Lodi
Legal Crr:.c: o: property Anglican t
,..ail -.ng Address ........................................ ........................................................................
.sops... L ...................... Page ..........
....... =6.......
Zonirg........... 1:n A....... Accepted under s: aria:...... : v<:. ...........of Ordinance ESE,
a RZQUEST : EST:: LIS :'_� �::� ...=;..D.. '"................. _....
.................. •....---.................._.................... -....- - .... ............................ _... . •...................
I (Cde) ce::;f: •or c: c':c: i L;. -.I -:or penalty o: perjury that the forecoinq is
true arc cc,. -,:.:t.
Signature o: yppliccnt ............. '------------ .---------- ...........................
.
37
�r Authorized Representative
San Jocyuin County .-�:anning Depart.mert
1350 East Haze!ton Avenue. Stockton, Ca1lfomia 95205
By............:i. Wes z,...Planning Aide ..II............... Date ..... 8-16-71
....................
Public Hearing Fee 525.00 Receipt No....355.7.......
_ XT:C:d:.......................................................... by t.~.e.......... I................................................................... on .... .
Rea�;o:: for Nation ........................••--...........................................................................................................................
n Suoject to the operotionol standards listed on tie reverse side
................................................................................................................ .
Director -Secretary
..............................................
Date
Board of Supervisors action upon appeal frost the decision of the Plarrirg Commission/Board of Ad;t:�::nert•
Board.............................................................................................. decision by Resolution dated .................................... .
_................. .. .. _SSSS - --- ... , .._- SSSS.. .
r
AGENDA - BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT, S. COU!.=
Sept. 1i, 1971, Thursday, 7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HZARING MR USE PERMIT 2iO. U -72-15O of JOHN CAPELL, c/o Dennie Shepherd,
to establish tennis and scrim club, on the south side of Cochran Roac, from 1775'
to 2500' east of Lower Sacramento Road, south of Lodi, in an I -PA Zone.
tU RrI S IN BRIEF a S. J. CO. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTIMT - Sept. 16, 1971....
8. John F. Capell (c/o Dennis Shepherd), U-72-50: Permit conditionally approved to
establish tennis and swim club, on the south side of Cochran Rd., from 1775• to
2500' east of Lower Sacramento Rd., south of Lodi, in an I -PA Zone. Unan.
September 14, 171
Mr. Donald Foster
Acting Planning Directcr
San Joaquin County
1,350 East Hazelton Avenue
Stockton, California
Dear Don:
Re: Use Permit Application 7o. U-72-50 - Ph-. John F. Cavell
C/o `exe Dennis .2. Shepherd.
At its meeting of Monday, Septcmber 13, 1971 the Lodi City
Planing, ConmiGzion reco=ended the approval of the request
of I:r. John Cat -ell, c/o ice. Dennis 2. Shepherd for a Use
Pernit to establish a tennis and swim club on the south
aide of Cochran _Road from 1775 feet to 2500 feet east of
Loner Sacramento Road in an area zoned I -PA, Interim -Protected
Agriculture frith the condition that Cochran Road be improved
to City standards.
City of Lodi street standards would require curb, gutter,
sidewalks and street lights as well as a cul-de-sac turn-
around where Cochran Road dead -ends into the Woodbridge Irri-
gation Diutrict Canal.
It should be noted that the City has no terminal storm drain-
age facilities, available to the subject property. 'However,
our Public Werho Dopartment is presently investigati" alter-
nate deans of providing this utility service.
Sincerely,
Planning Director
Jia : }s
cc: Mr. John 7. Ca -call
i1r. Dennis 3. Shepherd
Public :loeks Director
i
August 15, 1972
Lodi City Marager
221 W. Pine Street
Lodi, Calif. 95240
Attn: Mr. Hank Glaves
Dear Hank;
I recently purehased•25 AC. in the county, south of
Cochran Road, between Cornuu_.ity Hospital ?�:id the W.I.D.C.
Canal. We are interested in developi: g t'�o, 5 AC, parcels
immediately. One would be a rauirement home complex and the
other a swim & racquet club.
he growth of Lodi in the southwest direction clearly
shows our land is in the middle of the lc.Sical growth pattern
that Lodi is taking. All city utilites c.^o available to us
except storm drainage.
We recuest that the city staff initiate a study regard-
ing the folloving three proposals which -,ould fulfill city
drainage requirements.
1. We build a pond to city specifications which will
serve our drainage needs until.the city provides a storm
basin to serve us.
2. We build a pond to City of Lodi zpecifications. We
drain or pump the drainage Water into the City's pond west
of the canal. south of Tokay. The va„e_ ould hence be pumped
into the n'.I.D.C. per present agreement.
3. We build a pond to city specIfications. The pump
on the Woods property would be reduced fr capacity to divide
Its present capacity between it and a second pump, which we
would install adjacent to our property c: the eventual Vine
Street bridge. Both pumps together equal present Woods pump.
Upon City approval of one of these proposals, we wish to
have our entire area annexed into the Cit?. Naturally all
expense of the above proposals would be born by us.
Ve vould hope you can give immediate attention to this
matter.
Yours t:uly,
•.,oh,. ��•?ell.
/j2L L^_ Vicki Drive
(! Lodi, Calif .
JC:j--a
1972
MIYO
TO: Planning Co =rsssior.
:MOV.: Planning Director
SUB.ri.H=— Revised Conci_tions - Sun 'west owi.c, and Tennis Club.
rfter a further review of the plans for the proposed Sun :'est Swi:= and
Tennis Club, the jt-ff recommends approval with "he.following co ::iti,,:;ns
1. That the deve_apoent be subject to st nd=d City c: :,oi= reu:si~e::jcr.
J
for off-site _ roverients (excluding „tor.: ._. ,axe w•id a=it.:ari sewer
uhich by Citi Co-..Mcil actio: may be termorary)
.2• That Cochrzx -4o&.d be establiLhed as a ;5-i00t __4j^'.—Or—%—!q centered CII
the present centerline;
3. That a c -..l -de -sac turn -around be de:ic-ted and i_:trcved :here Cochran
Road deaaend.. at the SOO t3-^"Q�'y •!T District n:k to the am ^oval
.. i f lrri� L1O: .. Cr .�iF.a.._ •,_ _•,F+ -
Of the Pulslic :iorks ieparlument;
4• That-- t.Jc_ i
y:p0 r: C.^.L yL`.^,a. be ['"L`.a_:teC.`,:ac ert_:@ .=aeAE`,`„II SSI :11$
;rontaLze on Cochran goad;
5. Tivat the de irn ti ::L off-streettaming facilimiec be Ir confor� &.nce
to adopted Cit-. =...rr-in
o. 7haz the lamdzca in.. be insta:led to the a. pr ovw of the ::u:=ic ori:E
Department; and
7. That a.^. auto.-ated syrinkler Stater be installei to the of the
?ublic 1..10 3's ueDar tmen..
A-72-35 Sun West Swim Club
C
AF•FLICATION NO. A-72-35
THIS SPACL FOR OFFICE USE C14LY
Filing Fee ) PLA14NING COF11•iISSION
Received By } CITY OF LODI Vol,
Receipt No. )
Date ) r
APPLICATION%
Application No. ) ,
Received By ) for+ry
Date ) VARIANCE J ri
------------------------------------) rZ,
Name of Owner -S,.,: Address </,5, Phone
T. -f -C n n4 nt-nrray.+v in nivaa+;nn_ AAdrpnn I `(l l'X]/..l Rel- - zc� �i(/C
Between (,c_, r h (I I stpMot and f�W rf, Street
Legal Description - Acreage (Attach separate sheet if necessary)
Present Use: /,) C.���— 7�0 . ,Cc�::rld % a_ CZUZone:
Cite the regulation from which a variance is sought 5•e!' :� �'J ' C l�
roc I iF.Jt f• , i rri�wr �) '4/L�
Describe the nature and degree of variance sought l2� 10y e e 7
d `�
.. I/ / /Y'.C: t'e:.I L (i %� crry e � e te� �•.l � - U P - .S� e ��G � e+.. C...-t�.:.,.rd
Attach a plot plan of the premises showing location of existing and proposed
improvements and variance applied for.
A variance is described by the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
"In specific cases where it is exceptionally difficult, if not impos-
sible, to comply with the exact provisions of this chapter (Chapter 27,
Lodi City Code), the Planning Commission shall have the power to allow
such adjustments from the provisions contained herein as gill prevent
unnecessary hardships or injustice, and at the same time most nearly
accomplish the general purpose and intent of this chapter."
The purpose of a variance.is as follows:
The sole purpose of any variance shall be to prevent discrimination,
and no variance shall be granted which would have the effect of grant-
ing a special privilege not shared by other property in the same
vicinity and zone.
- 2 -
In ordfr that the Planning Commission may make the determinations described
above It is necessary that the following statements be completed:
1
There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the property involved because
2: Such variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right possessed by other property in the same
vicinity and zone, and denied to the property in question because
3. The granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to
the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements in
such vicinity and zone in which the property is located because
L/l �-
gnatur pplicant
ZMPORTAW
Note: i Planning Commission policy requires the applicant be present for the
hearing on this application before any action will be taken. The
applicant will be notified of the time and place of the hearing.
I for department use only
Action of Planning Commission on i �"
I -
Applicant notified of Commission action: Date
By;
April 2", 1572
:;un -jest .7onnis and Swim Club
C/o Pr. Terry iazza '
4 south 1.1casant flvenue
Lo=i, California
entlemen:
se: Variance - 3eiuce :rant Yard frow 2% fe-A to 7. feet.
:t its meeting of ;".onday, I U 249 1972 the Lodi ::ity
i lannirg Conmi-nsion aFproved the request of the ;;un
Tennis ani :;xim Club by Mr. Terry Piazza for a V%riance
to reduce the required front yard fror� ?.0 feet to a rin.a-ur.
of 7:'z feet to permit the erection of a wfoot-hii;h fence
adjacent to a required cul -do -sac at the east and of Cochran
oad in an . _aL zoned :i-1, 3i: rle ; aQily :iesi. enti:Li.
In a --.proving your request the Aanning Com-3snion deter -
in -.d that a "Zoning; Mirdehin" existed because the City
of Lodi had reauire-d the. cul-de-sac which encroached into
the Cochran Road front yard aetback nr^u. If the cul-de-
aac had :Tot been required, a Variance wo•:1d not be necessary.
^_incerely,
ming Director
JW.: kr
cc: X.r. :tennis Sherherd
Jr. Anth•.;ny t hn
•�c� rccPr,�cf�"
•%� MGCif•
Fr 4 ealzt-6r-19,
UZI
_
G H
1*-"
_
:r
f ! Ahn U -72 -?9
THIS SPACE FOR OFFICE USS CINLY
Filing Fee ----- )
Re— ved By
Receipt No. )
Date )
AFFLICATION NO. --72-29
PLANNING COY!iISSION
CITY OF LODI
Application No.
)
APPLICATION
Received By
)
for
Date
)
USE. PERMIT
--------------------------------------
--------------------C---------------Name
Nameof Applicant
Address: r , .
' �,� . ,� i `!
1 - ;' - _
Telephone No. -
Between -L.
Street and
Legal Description
- Acreage
(attach
separate sheet
if
necessary): /",.l
'�: -• ; `= _.
Present Use %
/
r?
Zone
�
,
Describe the use proposed:
�-
- , ., , ,
-
l• '
.1 %
r
/
/!'
rte' l- �.�.�
4
Attach a plot plan of the premises showing location of existing and proposed
improvements.
In order that the Planning Commission may make the determinations prescribed
by law, it is necessary that the following statements be completed. (If
additional space is needed, please use additional sheets and attach.)
1. Please describe the relationship of the proposed use to the
other uses in the general area, giving special consideration to degree of
compatibility of uses.
2. Please describe methods (i.e., location, design, orientation, etc.
of improvement such a:, builiings, drives, walks, fences and walls and land-
scaping) which will be used to enhance the compatibility of the present
neighborhood uses with the proposed use.
r
3. Please describe what devices and techniques will be employed to
minimize noise, smoke, dust, fumes, uibraticn, odors and hazards.
If applicant does not own `.he property in question, please have the follow-
ing "Consent of Owner" sided by owner:
I, owner of the above-described
property, have familiarized myself with the above application and do hereby
give my consent to the applicant az requested in this application for a
Use Permit.
Date
Signature of Owner
Phone
flailing Address of Owner
Signature of,/Applicant
I WORTANT /
Note: Planning Commission policy requires the applicant be present for the
hearing on this application before any action will be taken. The
applicant will be notified of the time and place of the hearing.
for department use only
Action of Planning Commission on l
Applicant notified of Commission action: Date:
By:
l
April 10, 1979
Mr. Randy Snider
managing Partner
Sun West Swim— 6 P.acquet Club
2040 Cochran Road
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Mr. Snider:
RE: A1,MO ENT TO USE PERMIT
At its meeting of Monday, April 149, 1979 the Lodi City Planning C
Commission amended the Use Permit for the Sun West .Nim and Racquet
Club to Includa the condition that the club not operate before 7:00 a.m.
for the months of June, July and August and 5:00 a.m. the remainder
of tie year.
This condition is in addition to those established by the Planting
Coumtission on April 10, 1972 and November 13, 1973.
The new requirement as well as the one added last November grew out
of complaints raised by Mr. Bruce Sweigerdt, 747 South Mills Avenue,
concerning the operation of the club.
It is the Planning Commission's position that if the club operates
within the conditions, Mr. Sweigerdt's concerns :►ave been rectified
and no further review will be necessary
If we ran be of any assistance to you, please feel free to call
upon us.
Sincerely,
JAMES B. SCHROEDER
Community Development Director
JBS:bjb
cc: '1r. Bruce Schweigerdt
City Manager
City Attorney
November 16, 1978
Mr. Pandy Snider
Managing Partner
Sun West Swim S Racquet Club
2040 Cochran load
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Mr. Snider:
RE: AMENDMM TO USE PERMIT
At its meeting of Monday, November 13, 1978 the Lodi City Planning
Commission amended the Use Permit for the Sun West Swim and Racquet
Club to include the condition that the loudspeaker system not be used
after 9:00 p.m.
This additional condition grow out of complaints raised by Mr. Bruce
Schweigerdt, 747 South Mills Avenue, concerning the operation of the
club. Since the Commission took no action on Mr. Schweigerdt's other
questions concerning the doors on the handball court and the club's
operating hours, you may assume that your past practices can continue.
The Planning Commission will again review this matter at its first
meeting in April, 1979.-
Sincerely,
979.
Sincerely,
JAMES B. SCHROEDER
Community DevelopmentDDirector
JBS:bjb
cc: Mr. Bruce Schveigerdt
City Manager
May 15, 1991
Lodi City Council
305 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
RE: Use Permit - U-90-30
�•
Facilities Er.oansion and Remodel
Twin Arbors Athletic Club
2040 Cochran Road70
Appeal
Mayor Hinchman: members of the Council:
-
Let the record of this meeting note the fact that on May 1. 1991, in
public session, I requested that the matter of this appeal be delayed
until July in order that I might be present to share my concerns in
person. My request was denied and as a result I am submitting this
document in my absence. to be read in the hearing.
I also take careful note of the statement included in the Notice or
Public Hearing, namely:
If you challenge the subject matter in=court, you rnav
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the Public Hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the
City Clerk. 221, West Pine Street, at or prior to the
Public Hearing.
Any member of the Council who has a business or other vested interest
in this matter should consider removing themselves from this
proceeding to prevent a conflict of interest. Any member of the
Council who is a member of the Twin Arbors Athletic Club should also
consider whether their part in these proceedings is proper.
I have filed this appeal on five grounds, as follows:
1. The legality of the proposal
2. The absence of an environmental impact statement
3. The hours and manner of operations of the Club
4. Traffic safety
5. History of poor planning
A detailed discussion of each of these points follows, and I would
suggest that the Council consider each concern separately in order to
facilitate comment. discussion, and an cirwrly process.
THE LEGALITY OF THE PROPOSAL
On March 7, 1991, City Attorney Bob McNatt issued d memo on the
subject of the application of Twin Arbors tennis Club. the result of
a request by city staff. I believe that this request was initiated
1
C.
.
due to neighbor concerns as to the legality of the new and expanded
club to exist within a R -i zoned area.
Mr. McNatt's memo unfortunately is limited in scope and only
addresses '. .whether exercise machines constitute an accessory
use to the general classification of 'recreational facilitv.—
It is true that the neighbors were concerned about this facet of club
operation; however, the overriding issue was the legality of
permitting a commercial --�nterprise of this nature to Operate within a
R-1 zoned area. This is clearl,i evident in the petition submitted by
neighbors which was presented to the Planning Commission prior to the
March memo:
We the undersigned are concerned that Twin r4rbors
Athletic Club's remodel and expansion be in accordance
within residential use and zoning of: our neighborhood.
That this unprecedented expansion or a commercial
entity in a purely single --Family residential area be
weighed heavily toward the preservation of Out -
neighborhood. the protection of our property values and
the safety of our children. We cannot express strongly
enough that this is a residential neighborhood zoned R-1
single-family. The property owners in those single -
Family homes should be the singularly -most important
consideration of your action. (29 signatures reoresentinq
17 neighboring households)
In his memo Mr. McNatt cites the relevant section of the Zoning
Ordinance (17.09.00-G), but ends his reference by failing to include
the most germane point of the section, to wit:
The Following uses are permitted in the R-1 district
subject to securing a use permit: . . .(G.) Golf course
(excluding miniature golf course) and similar
recreational uses of a noncommercial nature (emphasis
added).
There is simply no disputing the fact that the proponents of this
development, a Sacramento -based corporation, are seeking to expand a
presently non -conforming facility into a full-blown commercial
enterprise. The tremendous capital investment that they are making
is predicated on a cost -benefit ratio of 3 times current membership.
Spare -Time Inc. seeks to "serve" its present customers by increasing
demand and usage by 3 -fold. There has been no resnonsible accounting
on the part of the developer as to the impact such an increase will
have on the surrounding neighborhood; and their assertion that any
negative impact will be "mitigated" through the use of shrubbery and
a black wall on the north-west corner of the property, and some trees
on the north-east corner is plainly ludicrous.
The original Sun West facility was established .is .-i private tennis
and swim club. The 8/16/71 application for a county use permit. and
( the subsequent hearing clearly document this intent -it the original
developers.
When the Facility was annexed by the city in April, 1972, it existed
as a private tennis and swim club. Over the years the club as
evolved (illegally) into a "tennis, swim, and 4'Icness c'_ub temohasis
added. Use Permit acolication. 1/11/91). There is nothing in the
records to show that .3 use permit was sounht by the owners prior to
expanding the club's operation to a "fitness center." In Tact. the
conversion of the then existing and approved handball court into a
weight room was declared by city inspection to be an "illegal
conversion" (4/8/91 letter').
It has been argued that the facility represents a nonconforming use
as defined in section 17.03.390 of the Zoning Ordinance. This may
very well oe true; however it is my position that in its original use
as a tennis and swim club the facility was a nonconforming use when
annexed to the city. But in its present form, as a tennis, swim, and
fitness center it is an illegal usage; one that was never reviewed
and approved by city officials.
It has been argued that the fitness services offered by the facility
are an accessory use as defined in section 17.03.030 of the Zoning
Ordinance, a use which is on'y incidental to those of the general use
of the facility. However, ter listening to the proponents of the
new and expanded club it is clear that the fitness services that the
club plans to offer represent a substantial component of the clubs
program. It is highly questionable that fitness services are
currently an accessory use in light of the fact that the applicants
themselves have included the designation as-ra "Tennis, swim and
fitness club" on their 12/90 application for the use permit in answer
to the question, "Present Land Use."
Furthermore. when architect Tim Mattheis submittea iiqures ror
calculating the parking spaces required for the oroiect he 4oresaw
this usage: Pool. 20 spaces; Tennis Courts, 26 soaces: 1=xercise
services. 31 spaces. Clearly the proponents are seeking to develco
more than a tennis and swim club. The City of Lodi is being asked to
legitimate a commercial enterprise which has illegally evolved over
the years.
There are other pertinent definitions found within the Zoning
Ordinance which need to be considered by the Council. The first
deals with the term club found in section 17.03.190. "Club' means
an association of persons for some common nonprofit purpose. but not
including groups, organized primarily to render a service which is
customarily carried on as a business." Technically it is
questionable if this facility was ever a "club." Presently to refer
to Twin Arbors as a "club" is euphemistic at best, and fictitious at
worst.
The other definition appearing within the Zoning Ordinance which the
Council needs to consider is that of business or- commerce
(17.03.170): "'Business' or 'commerce' means the purchase, sale or
other transaction involving the . . . disposition of any . . .
service Tor profit or livelihood, including orfice buildings,
offices. recreational or amusement enterprises."
Clearly, this proposed commercial Facility, which will etmplov 10 - 12
persuns during peak usage hours. if allowed to exist within a R-1
zoned area, render, meaningless the Zoning Ordinance of: the r_ity.
If I understand the Zoning Ordinance correctly, realizing the nature
.
of this proposal, the appropriate zoned district ror thi3 project is
that or' P -D (Planned Development) which is designed to
accommodate various types or development. . .which can be made
appropriately a part of -a planned development (17.33.020). In a
P -D zone any and all uses .are permitted: provided that such use or
uses are shown in the development plan for the particular P -D zone as
approved by the city council (17.3.030)."
NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
As part of their application 4 -or a use permit, the proponents are
recuired to -File -For .in Environmental 4ssesslnenC. phis was Cone.
however city staff determined that the project was cateaorlcally
exempt from a formal assessment. It 1s my view that this exemption
was at -anted erroneously.
The California Environmental duality Act does provide for cateacr:cal
exemptions, however this project does not meet the criteria for
exemption. When it addresses existing facilities (article '.Q.
section 15301-e) the allowance for exemption only applies ii� the
addition to the existing facility is no more than bV percent of _he
floor area of the structure before the addition, or .500
feet. whichever is less: or 10,000 square feet or less :r tri ;rea ,n
which the project is located is not envir-onrhentally sense~_i
The Use Permit Application which accompanied the request 4or-
` environmental assessment is clear in stating that the plan calls zor
a continued present use, . with remodel of 4.500 sf o+= _launouse
with 10,300 sf of additional . . . facilities." These numbers simply
do not allow for an exemption, and one should not nave been :,eciared.
The developers have repeatedly been asked to provide their assessment
as to the impact their club, slated to increase 3 -fold, will have on
the neighborhood. They have either been unwilling or unable to
respond to this reasonable request. Their assertion that an expanded
facility would enhance the values of neighboring properties has
consistently been met with scorn by the neighbors themselves.
Because the city has exempted the developers from an EIS there is no
one who can provide an objective report as to the project's
environmental impact.
HOURS OF OPERATION
The statement of use which the proponents filed with their
application stated that . . Hours of operation will be from 5:30
a.m. to 11:00 p.m. (sect;on entitled "Proposed Land Use)." A
legitimate concern on tra part of the developers for the R-1 zoned
area would have revealed that the current use permit was amended in
1979, '. . . to include the condition that the club not operate
before 7:C#0 a.m. for the months of June. July and August and 9:00
.A.m. the remainder of the year. . . . the r-Hsult of neighbor
concerns.
` At the February 2'1, 1491 meeting between the proponents and neighbors
Mr. Mattheis clearly stated that "The club hours will not permit
outdoor recreational activity swimming, tennis or basketball -
4
before 8:00 am all year." This stat,?((gent was also issur=d In ..)r,tin(j
and submitted to the Planning Commission as such (letter of =?,
addressed to Jim Schroeder).
1
l
The matter of closing hours has also venerated much confusion.
Because of neighbor concerns the proponents stated at the March 11
meetino that the club would close by !0 P.M.: however it is obvious
now that this promise never materialized in written form. In
granting the use permit the Planning Commission granted the hours
that the oroponents wished: 7 A.M. - ll P.M.. May through August: 3
A.M. - 11 P.M., the remainder of the near.
How could these closing hours possibly alt :nto a R-1 toned district?
The Noise Regulation Ordinance (No. 1"491 of the City of Lodi,
enacted in 1989. states that, "The standards which ,mall be
considered in determining whether a violation of this section ibubl►c
nuisance noise) exists shall include. . . .whether the nature or the
noise is usual or unusual ror the area .irid houe-. (emphasis added).
Also considered in this section is tnu proyimity of the noise
to residential sleeping facilities: the nature and the toning of the
area within which the noise emanates, etc., (section 9.=O.026).
In a later section (9.20.030) the noise ordinance estaoli_,nes P.M.
as the hour when noise can no longer be generated. ".1h.at -r,a
purpose of a city-wide noise ordinance cal1-!ng for- a 11) P.il. standar
for noise elimination when the Planning Commission grants . (tee
permit to a facility, located in the heart of a resident:.., ,reel.
which -allows for operation until 11 P.M,:'
TRAFFIC SAFETY
Although my residence is not located on one of the streets wnich will
be adversely affected by this development, I have a great deal of
sympathy for the concerns of those neighbors.
The Council may, or may not be aware, that the final proposal by the
developers called for a 3 -way stop corner at teach and Cochran
streets. The Planning Commission discussed this, however deferred to
the Council for action sometime this summer, and proceeded to approve
the permit anyway.
HISTORY OF POOR PLANNING
In March of 1981 the Council was confronted with another situation
related to the sister facility of Twin Arbors. The problem centered
around the lack of proper parking spaces for the Lodi Sports Center,
located on South Hutchins. One man who testi Fred before the Council
called the parking problem the biggest in.af(i ever committed by the
city's Planning Commission.
Mayor Walter Katnich was especially (iisturbeo Uv the developments
statlnq that "Word does get around that the said proprietors of the
club are having a good laugh. . . that Lt's the r-itv's problem. . . .
I don't really appreciate the fact that they think they nulled a
fast one on us."
5
The reoorter covering tme muetinq noted that when Mr. Schroeder was
asked to explain the snafu :r olannina he said that his deoartment
and the Planning Commissicn had little previous experience on parking
requirements of such clubs viren the or000sal came before them.
"We had never dealt with a racquetball club before." he
said. "The assumption was that the people building the
racquetball club knew more than we .iia. Obviously.
none of us knew anvthina." ("rouncil t;tymied by club
parking woes". Lodi News -Sentinel. March 19. 1981).
There has been a lona history o+ problems .-jit.h these clubs. Over
the past o years since Spare -Time has owned the.Cocnran Rd. Facility
it has steadily deteriorated in appearance. Function and use. Thev
now hope to renovate the facility and turn it into a profit-making
venture. There is no doubt in my mind ^hat it successful in this
regard, that profit will come at the expense of the residential
neighborhood. We do not want the south Hutchins Street problems
transferred to Cochran Road.
We have a Zoning Ordinance. designed to establish districts within
the community where appropriate development can occur. There :s
simply no way that a permit should be granted For a Facility of :his
nature to be built in the middle of a R-1 zoned area. To-iliow the
granting of this use permit would establistr a very trouolinr[
precedent.
CSincerely,
Bruce Schweigerdt, MA
747 South Mills
Lodi, CA 95242
6
TO: Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
X _- County Clerk
County of San Joaquin
FROM: City of Lodi
P.O. Box 3006
Lodi, CA 95241-1910
Project Title
TWIN ARBORS.ATHLETIC CLUB COCHRAN ROAD FACILITY (formerly Sunwest)
Project Location - Sped is
2040 Cochran Road
APN 027-310-08
Project Location - City Project Location - County
Lodi San Joaquin
Description of Mature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project
Lodi Athletic Club is proposing an expansion and remodel of an existing tennis,
swim and fitness club. The proposal will include 8173 square feet of additional
exercise, office, locker and lounge facilities. The project will also relocate
some existing facilities and expand the parking lot. New landscaping will be
installed.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project
City of Lodi
Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Pro ect
Lodi Athletic Club - 1900 South Hutchins Street, Lodi; CA 95240
Exempt Status: (Cbeck One
Ministerial (Sec. .21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(x));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)).
Categorically exempt (Sec. 21084; 15300)
Reasons why project is exe%t:
Section 15301 Class 1 (2)(A) & (B) Existing Facilities
Project will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet and is
located in an area that is served by public facilities and is not environmentally
sensitive.
Contact Person Area Code Telephone Extension
James B. Schroeder, Community Development Director (209) 333-6711
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a notice of exemption been filed by the public agency approving the
project? Yes No
Date,Received forRiling:
Community Development Director
Revised March 1986
281
May 15, 1991
Lodi City Council
305 West Pine Street
u5
Lodi, CA 95240
T
RE: Use Permit - U-90-30
t�
rn
Facilities Expansion and Remodel
rn
Twin Arbors Athletic Club
2040 Cochran Road
r-M��
; n
Appeal
M
Mayor Hinchman; members of the Council:
Let the record of this meeting note the fact that on May 1, 19919 in
public session, I requested that the matter of this appeal be delayed
until July in order that I might be present to share my concerns in
person. My request was denied and as a result I am submitting this
document in my absence, to be read in the hearing.
I also take careful note of the statement included in the Notice of
Public Hearing, namely:
If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may
be limited to raising only those issues you or someone
else raised at the Public Hearing described in this
notice or in written correspondence delivered to the
City Clerk, 221, West Pine Street, at or prior to the
Public Hearing.
Any member of the Council who has a business or other vested interest
in this matter should consider removing themselves from this
proceeding to prevent a conflict of interest. Any member of the
Council who is a member o{ the Twin Arbors Athletic Club should also
consider whether their part in these proceedings is proper.
I have filed this appeal on five grounds, as follows:
1. The legality of the proposal
2. The absence of an environmental impact statement
3. The hours and manner of operations of the Club
4. Traffic safety
5. History of poor planning
A detailed discussion of each of these points follows, and I would
suggest that the Council consider each concern separately in order to
facilitate comment, discussion, and an orderly process.
THE LEGALITY OF THE PROPOSAL
On March 7, 1991, City Attorney Bob McNatt issued a memo on the
subject of the application of Twin Arbors Tennis Club, the result of
a request by city staff. I believe that this request was initiated
1
due to neighbor concerns as to the legality of the new and expanded
club to exist within a R-1 zoned area.
Mr. McNatt's memo unfortunately is limited in scope and only
addresses ". . .whether exercise machines constitute an accessory
use to the general classification of 'recreational facility.—
It is true that the neighbors were concerned about this facet of club
operation; however, the overriding issue was the legality of
permitting a commercial enterprise of this nature to operate within a
R-1 zoned area. This is clearly evident in the petition submitted by
neighbors which was presented to the Planning Commission orior to the
March memo:
We the undersigned are concerned that Twin Arbors
Athletic Club's remodel and expansion be in accordance
within residential use and zoning of our neighborhood.
That this unprecedented expansion of a commercial
entity in a purely single-family residential area be
weighed heavily toward the preservation of our
neighborhood, the protection of our property values and
the safety of our children. We cannot express strongly
enough that this is a residential neighborhood zoned R-1
single-family. The property owners in those single-
family homes should be the singularly most important
consideration of your action. (29 signatures representing
17 neighboring households)
In his memo Mr. McNatt cites the relevant section of the Zoning
Ordinance (17.09.030-G), but ends his reference by failing to include
the most germane point of the section, to wit:
The following uses are permitted in the R-1 district
subject to securing a use permit: . . .(G.) Golf course
(excluding miniature golf course) and similar
recreational uses of a noncommercial nature (emphasis
added) .
There is simply no disputing the fact that the proponents of this
development, a Sacramento -based corporation, are seeking to expand a
presently non -conforming facility into a full-blown commercial
enterprise. The tremendous capital investment that they are making
is predicated on a cost -benefit ratio of 3 times current membership.
Spare -Time Inc. seeks to "serve" its present customers by increasing
demand and usage by 3 -fold. There has been no responsible accounting
on the part of the developer as to the impact such an increase will
have on the surrounding neighborhood; and their assertion that any
negative impact will be "mitigated" through the use of shrubbery and
a block wall on the north-west corner of the property, and some trees
on the north-east corner is plainly ludicrous.
The original Sun West facility was established as a private tennis
and swim club. The 8/16/71 application for a county use permit, and
the subsequent hearing clearly document this intent of the original
developers.
When the facility was annexed by the city in April, 1972, it existed
as a private tennis and swim club. Over the years the club as
2
evolved (illegally) into a "tennis, swim, and fitness club (emphasis
added, Use Permit Application. 12/11/91). There is nothing in the
records to show that a use permit was sought by the owners prior to
expanding the club's operation to a "fitness center." In fact, the
conversion of the then existing and approved handball court into a
weight room was declared by city inspection to be an "illegal
conversion" (4/8/91 letter).
It has been argued that the facility represents a nonconforming use
as defined in section 17.03.390 of the Zoning Ordinance. This may
very well be true; however it is my position that in its original use
as a tennis and swim club the facility was a nonconforming use when
annexed to the city. But in its present form, as a tennis, swim, and
fitness center it is an illegal usage; one that was never reviewed
and approved by city officials.
It has been argued that the fitness services offered by the facility
are an accessory use as defined in section 17.03.030 of the Zoning
Ordinance, a use which is only incidental to those of the general use
of the facility. However, after listening to the proponents of the
new and expanded club it is clear that the fitness services that the
club plans to offer represent a substantial component of the clubs
program. It is highly questionable that fitness services are
currently an accessory use in light of the fact that the applicants
themselves have included the designation as a "Tennis, swim and
fitness club" on their 12/90 application for the use permit in answer
to the question, "Present Land Use."
Furthermore, when architect Tim Mattheis submitted figures for
calculating the parking spaces required for the project he foresaw
this usage: Pool, 20 spaces; Tennis Courts, 26 spaces; Exercise
services, 31 spaces. Clearly the proponents are seeking to develop
more than a tennis and swim club. The City of Lodi is being asked to
legitimate a commercial enterprise which has illegally evolved over
the years.
There are other pertinent definitions found within the Zoning
Ordinance which need to be considered by the Council. The first
deals with the term club found in section 17.03.190. "'Club' means
an association of persons for soma common nonprofit purpose, but not
including groups, organized primarily to render a service which is
customarily carried on as a business." Technically it is
questionable if this facility was ever a "club." Presently to refer
to Twin Arbors as a "club" is euphemistic at best, and fictitious at
worst.
The other definition appearing within the Zoning Ordinance which the
Council needs to consider is that of business or commerce
(17.03.170): "'Business' or 'commerce' means the purchase, sale or
other transaction involving the . . . disposition of any . . .
service for profit or livelihood, including office buildings,
offices, recreational or amusement enterprises."
Clearly, this proposed commercial facility, which will employ 10 - 12
persons during peak usage hours, if allowed to exist within a R-1
toned area, renders meaningless the Zoning Ordinai,: of the r_ity_
If I understand the Zoning Ordinance correctly, realizing the nature
of this proposal, the appropriate zoned district for the project is
that of P -D (Planned Development) which is . .designed to
accommodate various types of development. . .which can be made
appropriately a part of a planned development (17.33.020). . . . In a
P -D zone any and all uses are permitted: provided that such use or
uses are shown in the development plan for the particular P -D zone as
approved by the city council (17.33.030)."
NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
As part of their application for a use permit, the proponents are
required to file for an Environmental Assessment. This was done,
however city staff determined that the project was categorically
exempt from a formal assessment. It is my view that this exemption
was granted erroneously.
The California Environmental Quality Act does provide for categorical
exemptions, however this project does not meet the criteria for
exemption. When it addresses existing facilities (article 19,
section 15301-e) the allowance for exemption only applies if the
addition to the existing facility is no more than 50 percent of the
floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2,500 square
feet, whichever is less; or 10,000 square feet or less if the area in
which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.
The Use Permit Application which accompanied the request for
environmental assessment is clear in stating that the plan calls for
a continued present use, ". . . with remodel of 4,500 sf of clubhouse
with 10,300 sf of additional . . . facilities." These numbers simply
do not allow for an exemption, and one should not have been declared.
The developers have repeatedly been asked to provide their assessment
as to the impact their club, slated to increase 3 -fold, will have on
the neighborhood. They have either been unwilling or unable to
respond to this reasonable request. Their assertion that an expanded
facility would enhance the values of neighboring properties has
consistently been met with scorn by the neighbors themselves.
Because the city has exempted the developers from an EIS there is no
one who can provide an objective report as to the project's
environmental impact.
HOURS OF OPERATION
The statement of use which the proponents filed with their
application stated that . . Hours of operation will be from 5:30
a.m. to 11:00 p.m. (section entitled "Proposed Land Use)." A
legitimate concern on the part of the developers for the R-1 zoned
area would have revealed that the current use permit was amended in
1979, ". . . to include the condition that the club not operate
before 7:00 a.m. for the months of June, July and August and 8:00
a.m. the remainder of the year. ," the result of neighbor
concerns.
At the February 21, 1991 meeting between the proponents and neighbors
Mr. Mattheis clearly stated that "The club hours will not permit
outdoor recreational activity - swimming, tennis or basketball -
4
before 8:00 am all year." This statement was also issued in writing
and submittem to the Planning Commission as such (letter of 3/7/91,
addressed to Jim Schroeder).
The matter of closing hours has also generated much confusion.
Because of neighbor concerns the proponents stated at the March 11
meeting that the club would close by 10 P.M.; however it is obvious
now that this promise never materialized in written form. In
granting the use permit the Planning Commission granted the hours
that the proponents wished: 7 A. M. - 11 P.M., Mo; through August; 8
A.M. - I1 P.M., the remainder of the year.
How could these closing hours possibly fit into a R-1 zoned district?
The Noise Regulation Ordinance (No. 1449) of the City of Lodi,
enacted in 1989, states that, "The standards which shall be
considered in determining whether a violation of this section (public
nuisance noise) exists shall include, . . .whether the nature of the
noise is usual or unusual for the area and hour, (emphasis added).
Also considered in this section is the . .proximity of the noise
to residential sleeping facilities; the nature and the zoning of the
area within which the noise emanates, etc., (section 9.20.020).
In a later section (9.20.030) the noise ordinance establishes 10 P.M.
as the hour when noise can no longer be generated. What is the
purpose of a city-wide noise ordinance calling for a 10 P.M. standard
for noise elimination when the Planning Commission grants a use
permit to a facility, located in the heart of a residential area,
which allows for operation until 11 P.M.?
TRAFFIC SAFETY
Although my residence is not located on one of the streets which will
be adversely affected by this development, I have a great deal of
sympathy for the concerns of those neighbors.
The Council may, or may not be aware, that the final proposal by the
developers called for a 3 -way stop corner at Peach and Cochran
streets. The Planning Commission discussed this, however deferred to
the Council for action sometime this summer, and proceeded to approve
the permit anyway.
HISTORY OF POOR PLANNING
In March of 1991 the Council was confronted with another situation
related to the sister facility of Twin Arbors. The problem centered
around the lack of proper parking spaces for the Lodi Sports Center,
located on South Hutchins. One man who testified before the Council
called the parking problem the biggest snafu ever committed by the
city's Planning Commission.
Mayor Walter Katnich was especially disturbed by the developments
stating that "Word does get around that the said proprietors of the
club are having a good laugh. . . that it's the city's problem. . . .
I don't really appreciate the fact that they think they pulled a
fast one on us."
5
The reporter covering the meeting noted that when Mr. Schroeder was
asked to explain the snafu in planning he said that his department
and the Planning Commission had little previous experience on parking
requirements of such clubs when the proposal came before them.
"We had never dealt with a racquetball club before," he
said. "The assumption was that the people building the
racquetball club knew more than we did. Obviously,
none of us knew anything." ("Council stymied by club
parking woes", Lodi News -Sentinel, March 19, 1951).
There has been a long history of problems with these clubs. Over
the past 6 year. since Spare -Time has owned the Cochran Rd. facility
it has steadily deteriorated in appearance, function and use. They
now hope to renovate the facility and turn it into a profit-making
venture. There is no doubt in my mind that if successful in this
regard, that profit will come at the expense of the residential
neighborhood. We do not want the south Hutchins Street problems
transferred to Cochran Road.
We have a Zoning Ordinance, designed to establish districts within
the community where appropriate development can occur. There is
simply no way that a permit should be granted for a facility of this
nature to be built in the middle of a R-1 zoned area. To allow the
granting of this use permit would establish a very troubling
precedent.
Sincerely,
Bruce Schweigerdt, MA
747 South Mills
Lodi, CA 95242
6
CITY COUNCIL
DAVID M. HINCHMAN. Mayor
JAMES W. PINKERTON, Jr.
Mayor Pro Tempore
PHILLIP A. PENNING
JACK A. SIECLOCK
JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER
May 20, 1991
CITY OF LODI
Mr. Bruce Schweigerdt
747 South Mills Avenue
Lodi, CA 95242
Dear Mr. Schweigerdt:
CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. SOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910
(209) 334-5634
FAX (20913 314"S
RE: Appeal
Use Permit - U-90-30
Facilities Expansion and Remodel
Twin Arbors Athletic Club
2040 Cochran Road
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Manager
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
803 MCNATT
City Attorney
At its meeting of Wednesday, May 15, 1991 the Lodi City Council denied your
appeal of the Lodi.City Planning Commission's conditional approval of the
request of Tim Mattheis, Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc. on behalf of Twin
Arbors Athletic Club for a Use Permit to expand and remodel an existing
facility (i.e. Sunwest Tennis and Swim Club) at 2040 Cochran Road in an
area zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential.
In a related matter the City Council, made the following finding (1) that
the existing facilities at 2040 Cochran Road are a conforming use in an
R-1, Single -Family Residential zone and (2) that the exercise equipment and
related facilities constitute an accessory use.
Sincerely,
A S B. SCHROED
puty City Clerk
cc: Tim Mattheis
Twin Arbors Athletic Club
City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
DAVID M. HINCHMAN, Mayor
JAMES W. PINKERTON. Jr.
Mayor Pro Tempore
PHILLIP A. PENNINO
JACK A. SIECLOCK
JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER
May 20, 1991
Dr. Ronald R. Hilder
808 Tilden Drive
Lodi, CA 95242
Dear Dr. Hilder:
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE STREET
P.O. BOX 3006
LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241.1910
(209) 134.5634
FAX (209) 333-6795
RE: Appeal
Use Permit - U-90-30
Facilities Expansion and Remodel
Twin Arbors Athletic Club
2040 Cochran Road
THOMAS A. PETERSON
City Manager
ALICE M. REIMCHE
City Clerk
808 McNATT
City Attorney
At its meeting of Wednesday, May 15, 1991 the Lodi City Council denied your
appeal of the Lodi City Planning Commission's conditional approval of the
request of Tim Mattheis, Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc. on behalf of Twin
Arbors Athletic Club for a Use Permit to expand and remodel an existing
facility (i.e. Sunwest Tennis and Swim Club) at 2040 Cochran Road in an
area zoned R-1, Single -Family Residential.
In a related matter the City Council, made the following finding (1) that
the existing facilities at 2040 Cochran Road are a conforming use in an
R-1, Single -Family. Residential zone and (2) that the exercise equipment and
related facilities constitute an accessory use.
Sincerely,
J ES B. SCHROE
eputy City Clerk
cc: Tim Mattheis
Twin Arbors Athletic Club
City Clerk
DECLARATION OF MAILING
On May 2, 1991 in the City of Lodi, San Joaquin County, California, I
deposited in the United States mail, envelopes with first-class postage
prepaid thereon, containing a copy of the Notice attached hereto, marked
Exhibit "A"; said envelopes were addressed as is more particularly shown
on Exhibit "B" attached hereto.
There is a regular daily communication by mail between the City of Lodi,
California, and the places to which said envelopes were addressed.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 2, 1991, at Lodi, California.
Alice M. Refmche
City Clerk
m er .i err1n
Deputy City Clerk
DEC/O1
TXTA.FRM
F.*
CITY 0F LOQIFDate:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
15, 1991
CARNEGIE FORUM
305 Nest Pine Street, Lodi 0 p.m.
F
mation regarding this Public Hearing
ontact:
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
Telephone: 333-6702
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
May 15, 1991
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a
public hearing to consider the following matter:
a) To consider the appeals received from Bruce Schweigerdt, 747
South Mills Avenue, Lodi and Ron Hilder 808 Tilden Drive, Lodi
regarding the Planning Commission's conditional approval of the
request of Wenneli, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc.; -on behalf of Twin
Arbors Athletics Club for a Use Permit to expand and remodel an
existing sports club at 2040 Cochran Road
All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this
matter. Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior
to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said
hearing.
If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in
this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West
Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing.
By Order Of the Lodi City Council:
Acfice M. Ffeimche
''City Clerk
Dated: May 15, 1991
Ap roved aC�.! form:
Bobby W. McNatt
City Attorney
a
'-- —
®OWNERS
NAME
,
� I �
Iff
e
-
lm
�r
i iii