Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - May 15, 1991 (64)4 1 Of 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 remodelan 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 y d.iscussi:on,.;(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 Pinewood 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. �r'��• "`' THOMAS A. PETERSON City Manager cc -1 CCCD91.6/TXTD.01C 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. :.acv •; ,,., ,: .� �- _ 8. Background data which outlines the history of Sunwest Tennis and Swim Club o .e. Twin Arbors Athletic Club). FUNDING: None required. ,lames B. Schroeder 06mmunity Development Director JBS/cg Attachments CCCD91.6/TYTD.OIC lft 1. The letter of approval which outlines the conditions with the approved site plan and approved square footage tc be added. CITY COUNCIL DAVID M. HINCHMAN. MaVor AMES W. PINKERTON. It. Mayor Pro Tempore PHILLIP A. PEHNINO JACK A. 51ECLOCK JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER April 9, 1991 CITY OF LODI CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LOBI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209)334-5634 FAX (2091333-6795 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 THOMAS A. PETERSON City Manager ALICE M REIMCHE'. City Clerk BOB MCNATT City Attorney 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. Planng Commission's approval 1s 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 Aucus;. 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 SewerYServl.ce (4 -finch} 680.00 . r:, s Sewer Connection 289652:50 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 pian 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, P= M B. SCMROEDER unity Development Director cc: Dennis Kaufman, General Manager Lodi athletic Club I .. .....� awn mw sw4u o�AVrNVAv-*AWW AUFSs 10 Al uwr ThcGM . ci Cv sE- LOW 93 WEKWff Fnw.33 29WSF. 23o SF ALL:, nm o YW yL--j El E rjTUF& gU= VW&L mm L^Pdxw.^P*4r- ta-TEN"s couprrs SCREM st..WPAPKNG Ac'mw L.� ^cnvm Lav" ss s[reAvc Furum LAWN MASTER SITE PLAN FINAL REVISED DESIGN pROPOJAL -- i TWIN ARBORS ATHLETIC CLUB n COCHRAN ROAD FACIIXIY APPROXIMATE FACILUT AREA SUfltARY TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 14.696 12.667 EXISTING AND NEW ORIGINAL MODIFIED ADDITIONAL ADDITIONAL EXISTING PROPOSED PROPOSED SQ FT SO FT SOFT LOUNGE 1,154 600 600 AEROBICS 1,400 1,250 WEIGHT ROOM 1,726 1,600 874 LOCKER ROOMS 864 2880 2,400 BABYSITTING 580 580 LOBBY/DESK 812 480 OFiCEJi.AUNDRY/ b 350;,., ,_ :: 730 437..... =: STORAGE HALLWAYS/ 400 1.600 1.552 EQUTPMENT/NIISC TOTAL 4,494 10,202 8,173 TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE 14.696 12.667 EXISTING AND NEW G, 2. Correspondence from Tim Matthias, Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc. outlining the results of two neighborhood meetings on March 26 and April 2, 1991. ( 1 . E7ED WE�L•LL o� t3.11'7"ilEiti April 4, 1991 C�k:«.'JRITY 3 DE'.EITr�JE;1T D %RTuE37 •................. Jim Schroeder, COM14UNrrY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR CITY OF LODI Call Box 3006 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 SUBJECT: TWIN ARBORS ATHLETIC CLUB COCHRAN ROAD FACILITY ADDITION AND REMODEL Dear Jim: INTERIORS 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. try wenn 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 rm arae:, conducted resulting in a consensus as to what the neighboring residents were - " • cont:ersied`withand whar, tbiey would -like ; to see` changed ; We, studied: these....: B°""` t 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 u-L�koas'. 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 Lodi. casr..mw' completed. The overall findings confirm the findings and conclusions of the fust traffic report. A copy of the report summary is enclosed. 209 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 pian 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 t&- - 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 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 COCHR.AN ROAD PROJECT NEIGHBORHOOD REVIEW 4!2!91 ■ Size of Overall Buildine Resident Request: Reduce overall size from approximately 15,000 to around 10,000 square feet ! Revised Plan: Reduced overall size to approximately 12,600 sL See attached Square Footage Summary . Orientation of Facilityon 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 730 and 8:00 am and 2:00 and 330 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 weieht room to 2,600 sf and aerobics room to 125Csf. Furthermore, no aerobics classes will be scheduled before 830 am or between the hours of 2:00 and 4:00 pm. Aerobics will continue to be offered at Hutchins Street facility. 0 Jim Schroeder �. COMMUNM DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR April 4, 1991 Page 3 Second Stor ry Lounge 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- '= 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: Existing 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 tb a scheduled classes not start until 8:30 am. Revise Plan: As requested above. ■ Evening Hours of Operation: Resident Request: Overriding concern seems to have been that the club has not controlled the existing 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 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 930 pm. After Hours Loitering in/around Parking Lot: Resident Request: 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. Revisal Plan: Will investigate chaining parking lot and will monitor complaints after new facility completed. West Edge of Parkine Ldf: Resident Request: Leave 10 foot setback, provide masonry sound wall and plant screen trees along length of parking lot. Revised Plan: Provides 10 foot setback up to beginning of future parking lot area where 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: Mow- club lot entrance to east. Recommend that Jim Schroeder COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR Apn1 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 930 pm. Maintenance of Existing Retention Pond at West Edge of Proaerty: 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. `�'"`"'COndtttoris Under Which Additional Parking will be Considered/Reauired: Resident Request: U and when 20 or more adjacent property owners request it, the planning department would review and determine_ Revised Plan: Agree to above. ACCEPTABLE USE PERMIT CONDITIONS 1. Building location/size, room sixes, 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. 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 x;>Tim,Matthets :V,�-l'resideat -- TM:mh f:2./9077.11 n MEETING ATTENDEES Meeting of March 26, 1991 NAME ADDRESS Sharon & Richard Marini 840 Tilden Drive Joan Aston 2003 Cochran Raod Karen Keagy 731 Peach Street Ann Carlin 2041 Cochran Road Mike Steward 803 Tilden Drive Bruce Schweigert 747 S. Mills Randy Koepplin 808 Evert Court Doug Wied 824 Tilden Dave Holmes 1080 Port Chelsea Cricle Ron & Joann Butler 832 Tilden Bruce Thomsen 2017 Cochran Diane Bruno -2005 Cochran Road Ron & Kari Hilder 808 Tilden Drive MEETING ATIENDEES Meetings of April 2, 1991 Bruce Thomsen 2017 Cochran Scott Dasko 712 Peach Doug Wied 824 Tilden Drive Charles Barnhardt 1900 S. Hutchins Wendy Shropshire 1900 S. Hutchins Barbara Berris 2138 W. Vine Lynn Holmes 1080 Port Cheslea Drive Jim Schroeder City of Lodi Joan Aston 2003 Cochran Road Ron & Joann Butler 832 Tilden Drive Mike and Patty Steward 803 Tilden Drive Sharon & Richard Marini 840 Tilden Drive Ron and Kari Hilder 808 Tilden Drive Addendum to the traffic study dated April 2, 1991. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. R 4.v 7rarg onation CormAants 775 Sunrise Avenue ; r. Suite 240 Roseville. CA 95661 916773-1900 FAX 916 773-2015 April 2, 1991 Mr. Dave Anderson President Spare Time, Inc. 7919 Folsom Boulevard Sacramento, CA 95825 Re: Twin Arbors Athletic Club Traffic Study DcarDava At the March 11 Planning Commission meeting in Lodi, the Commission raised two traffic issues which requited 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. Purpose In response to the Commission's request, Fehr & Peens 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 Fchr & Peers Associates. Fehr & Peers Estimate Shown From City's . In March Traffic ,Smet Segment Machine Counts RoWn-(EiM= 5) Difference Tilden Drive 400 340 -60 Cochran Road (west of Peach) 560 620 +60 Peach Street 550 590 +40 f�Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc 7ransporrawn CormArants Mr. Dave Anderson Spare 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 the study area 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 1/2 hour period. from 7:30 to 8:00 a.m. This presumably is the time when children walk or bike to school. Tice 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 Traffic - Table 6 in the attached packet shows that Saturday traffic volumes on all strut 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 are minimal and inconsequential. 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 wallong or biking to school between 730 and 8:00 am., and the majority walling 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. Fehr & Peers Associates, Inc. Transpo.wwn Consultants 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 4 Alan D- Telford, P.E. Associate -in -Charge T e 1 cc: Tim Manheis i 912-101 i i j 1 l Table 1 Pedestrian/Bicycle Observation Friday, March 22, 1991 Where Did They Come From And Where Are. ncXGoing .TQ_ East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay Peach - South Peach Peach - North to East on Tokay East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Peach - North to East on Tokay Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay West on Cochran - Peach - East on Toka)- Tokay - Peach - Tilden West on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Peach - West on Cochran East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay West on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay West on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay West on Cochran - Tilden East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay West on Cochran : Peach - East on Tokay East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Peach - Tilden Athletic Club - West on Cochran Peach - West on Cochran East on Cochrzn - Athletic Club Peach - East on Cochran Peach - Tilden East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay Peach - West on Cochran Peach - West on Cochran Peach -West on Cochran Peach - Tilden Peach -1 stopped 2nd house from Tokay - 3 Tilden Peach - Tilden Peach - East on Cochran Peach - East on Cochran Peach - 2nd house from Tokay Peach - 2 Tilden; 3 west on Cochran Peach - East on Cochran Peach - East on Tokay Peach - East on Cochran Are They All Number In Children T Grano_ (res or No) 7:06 am. 2 Yes 7:08 1 No 7:16 1(Bike) Yes 735 1 Yes 7:36 1 Yes 7:37 1(Bike) Yes 738 2 Yes 7:40 2 No 1.43 1(Bike) Yes 7:43 1 Yes 7:48 1 No 7:48 2 (Bike) Yes 7:50 2 (Bike) Yes 752 1(Bike) Yes 7:54 1(Bike) Yes 7:54 1(Bike) Yes 7:56 1(Bike) Yes 8:05 1(Bike) Yes 833 1 No 9:01 1 No 9:15 1 No 9:19 1(Bike) Yes 10.52 2 No 12:12 p.m. 2 (1 Bike) Yes 12:21 1 No 12:30 1(Bike) No 12:41 1 No 1:20 1(Bike) Yes 1.33 1(Bike) Yes 224 1(Bike) Yes 2:24 2 Yes 226 1 No 2:33 1 Yes 2:34 1 (Bike) Yes 2-35 1 Yes 236 4 Yes 2:37 1 (Bike) Yes 2:38 2 (1 Bike) lies 2:38 2 (1 Bike) Yes 2.39 1 Yes 2.41 5 (3 Bikes) Yes 2:43 2 (Bike) Yes 2:45 2 No 2:58 1(Bike) Yes Where Did They Come From And Where Are. ncXGoing .TQ_ East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay Peach - South Peach Peach - North to East on Tokay East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Peach - North to East on Tokay Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay West on Cochran - Peach - East on Toka)- Tokay - Peach - Tilden West on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Peach - West on Cochran East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay West on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay West on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay West on Cochran - Tilden East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay West on Cochran : Peach - East on Tokay East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Peach - Tilden Athletic Club - West on Cochran Peach - West on Cochran East on Cochrzn - Athletic Club Peach - East on Cochran Peach - Tilden East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay Peach - West on Cochran Peach - West on Cochran Peach -West on Cochran Peach - Tilden Peach -1 stopped 2nd house from Tokay - 3 Tilden Peach - Tilden Peach - East on Cochran Peach - East on Cochran Peach - 2nd house from Tokay Peach - 2 Tilden; 3 west on Cochran Peach - East on Cochran Peach - East on Tokay Peach - East on Cochran rN Table 1 (Continued) Pedestrian/Bicycle Observation Friday, March 22, 1991 Are They All Number In Children Tltl& 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 4:28 1 Yes 4:29 1(Bike) Yes 4:31 3 (1 Bike) Yes 431 1(Bike) Yes 433 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 534 1 No 5:55 1(Bike) Yes 6:11 3 (Bikes) No 6:24 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 Cochmn - To end of Cochran - West on Cochran - Tilden Trlden - East end of Cochran Peach - Cochran - Peach (selling Girl Scout Cookies) 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 Qub - Tilden Peach - West on Cochran Tilden - Athletic Club Peach - West on Cochran Peach - Tilden East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay Athletic Qub - Tilden Tilden - East end Cochran East end Cochran - Tilden Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran Peach - 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 When Did They Come From And L= group (Yes or No) Where Are Thev Going To 8:17 a.m. 2 No Peach - Tilden 8:59 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 1(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 --Tokay 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 - Tildcn 2 Mothers) 1219 1(Bike) • ' Yes Tilden - Peach - Tokay 1227 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 - A&.ledc 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 Oub 2:13 1(Bike) Yes Peach - West on Cochran 2:30 2 (Bikes) Yes East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay 2:34 1 No Athletic Club - Tdden 2:38 1 No Athletic pub - West on Cochran 2:46 1 No East on Cochran - Athletic Club 258 2 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 I 4:04 4:15 421 4:32 4:32 4:37 4:37 4:50 5.-04 5:06 5:12 5:19 5:24 533 5:34 5:48 5:51 5:52 Table 2 Continued Pedestrian/Bicycle Observation Saturday, March 34, 1991 Are They All Number In .roup Children (Yes or No) _ Where Did They Come From And Wbcre Arc' ]= Going To _ 2 (Bikes) Yes East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay 2 (Bikes) Yes Tokay - Peach - Tilden I Yes Tokay - Peach - Tilden I (Bike) Yes Tokay - Peach - Tilden 2 (Bikes) Yes Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay 1 No Athletic Club - Peach - Tokay 2 No Athletic Club - Tilden 1 Yes Peach - West on Cochran 2 (Bikes) Yes East on Cochran - Peach - Tokay 2 (Bikes) Yes Tokay - Peach - Athletic Club 2 (Bikes) Yes Athletic Club -1 West on Cochran; 1- Tilden 2 (Bikes) No Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran 1(Bike) Yes Tilden - Peach - Tokay 1(Bike) Yes Tokay - Peach - Tilden 2 (Bikes) Yes Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran 1(Bike) No Peach - Tilden I Yes Tokay - Peach - West on Cochran 1(Bike) Ye$ East on Tokay - Peach - Tolcty 0 J Table 3 Sourly Variation ITsar iic From TwinArborsAthletic Club CochrRoad Fridav Vehicles March Z? 1991 _ cer„rdu March 30. Vehicles 1991 ent of DU TlIi� Rn and Outl Pcmnt of Day 7-8 a.m. 4 1.5% 0 Q% 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 _U --4.5 ' 0 0.0 Total 267 100.0 256 100.0 J Table 4 Hourly Variation in Pedestrian and Bicycle .Traffic on Peach Street Friday. March 22, 1991 Saturday. March 30. 1991. IM Pedestrians Bides Tei &ofDay P.ed2striLU Bicycles loo �'q of Day 7-8 a.m. 11 11 22 23.20 0 0 0 0 8-9 1 0 1 1.0 2 1 3 4.2% 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 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 A S2 -0 0 —9 A A ---a Total 52 43 95 100.0% 26 46 72 100.0% Table 5 hourly Variation in Peach Street Traffic By Weekday Source: Lodi Department of Public Works No. Machine counter malfunctioned on Friday afternoon, so Friday's count was not accurate. 3/1801 3/19/91 3/20/91 3/21/91 Time Monday Tuesday Wednesday ThursdU T W qs of Day 12 MN -1 a.m. 1-2 1 0 4 0 1 0 2 0 8 0 0.3 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 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 48 - 33 15 44 36 146 139 6.4 6.0 1-2 2-3 40 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 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 11-12 8 __ 1 5 6 8 _Z 27 _13 1.2 — 0.6 Total 594 544 502 658 2,298 100.0 Source: Lodi Department of Public Works No. Machine counter malfunctioned on Friday afternoon, so Friday's count was not accurate. Table 6 Summary of Street Counts 24 -Hour Volumes Saturday Sunday Monday Tuesday 3116191 3/17191 3/18/9 1 219/91 Tilden Drive 400 234 410 420 Cochran Road (west of Peach) 530 330 529 533 Cochran Road (cast of Peach) 97 66 96 86 Peach Street 497 305 594 544 1 Counter malfunctioned. Estimate based on the three other street counts. Wednesday U2191 Thursday 3/21/91 Friday 3/22!91 7 -Day Avemee 405 464 493 404 546 632 801 557 113 111 151 103 502 658 7711 553 30 FIGURE 1 DAILY ARRIVAL AND DEPARTURE CHARACTERISTICS OF CLUB TRAFFIC 25 FRIDAY, MARCH 22,1991 23 21 • 20 20 W W 10 10 Z 10 p • a 7 . 7 6 0 a 7 7 6 4 S. 4 4 jJ2 1 0 7•0 A.M.. 8-0 A.M. 0.10 A.M. 10.11 A.M. it -12 A.M. 12-1 P.M. 1.2 P.M. 2.3 P.M. 3.4 P.M. 4•5 P.M. 6.8 P.M. 6.7 P.M. 7.8 P.M. 8.0 P.M. HOUR OF DAY ppehr b Poen Aaroclat". Ina Tranaporlatbn Conwhants FIGURE 2 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAFFIC ON PEACH STREET, COCHRAN, OR TILDEN 34 FRIDAY, MARCH 22,1991 32- 2302828 30- 28- 28 TOKAY 24 a t' 22 H N 20 W QOGk1RAf�[4 :. t� W 19 a 18 p 14 W CD 12 to z 8 6- 4- 42 2. 0 7 :15,30:45 8 :15:30:45 9 :150:45 10:15,30,45 11 :15:30 :45 12:15:30:45 1 :15 20:45 2 :1503S 3 :15:30:45 4 :15:30,45 5 :15:30:45 6 :15:30:45 7 TIME 0 ® TOTAL PEDESTRIANS PLUS 61CYCLISTS CHILDREN (WALKING WITH NO ADULT PRESENT) Tran &Peers onadtanAssoclates, 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 8.9 A.M. P.M. TIME OF DAY ■ VEHICLES ENTERING ® VEHICLES EXITING fp Fehr & Peers Associates; Inc. Transportation Consultants X.. 14 12 N Z 10 Q tr t— N W D 8 d LL O 6 W m x 4- 2 FIGURE 4 SATURDAY PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE TRAFFIC ON PEACH STREET, COCHRAN, OR TILDEN SATURDAY, MARCH 30, 199 1 x . . .. . . .=. .fir r'ti�i 8 :15 W :45 9 :15 :30 :45 10 :15 :30 :45 11 :15 :30 :45 12 :15 :30 AS 1 :15 :30 :4S 2 :15 730 AS 3 :15 2 AS 4 :15 :30 :45 5 :15 :30 AS A.M. P.M. `( TIME TOTAL PEDESTRIANS PLUS BICYCLISTS ��11 -i' CHILDREN (WALKING WITH NO ADULT PRESENT)ehr & Peers Associates, Inc. rensportaUon Consultants s NOTE: DOES NOT INCLUDE PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLISTS TO AND FROM ATHLETIC CLUB ,Ww'�„�....—..... ....._�._...._.....,.._...........,.�...�.ww..�....a...,,................W.>.w.....w......,....r.�u�.y.. ...�....,........, .._.,............,............... 4. Correspondence from Tim Mattheis, Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc. discussing the neighborhood meeting of February 21, 1941 with the first revised site plan and comments. f•v: it ` T�; `` RECEIVE® CTAP 0 March 7, 1991 COMMUNITY ycj j� DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 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 WC 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 plans 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 Mr. Jim Schroeder CITY 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. Ughting 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 club, 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. r� 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 wall surface against the basketball court to mitigate reflected sound. 5. The club hours will not permit outdoor recreational activity - swimming, tennis or basketball - before &00 am all year. Sincerely, WENELL MATTHEIS BOWE A Timothy-mattheis �. Vice -President TM:cb cc: Neighborhood Residents FM 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 expects 15-25 cars at the facility before 7:00 a.m. 2. Guarantee for us 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 the west edge of the property are not parr of the original use permit as so stated City records of the use permit and conditional letter make J r 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. Concein about noise in due pool area, specifically early morning swim meet activities �., As stated earlier in #1, the club will prohibit swimming w before 8:00 a.m. all months of the year. After the sun sets pool use is generally only lap -swimmer creating no appreciable ribise. 6. After (tours 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 arca. Employees are prohibited from using club facilities after hours. 7. Now much noise will be generated from the babysitting room? Isn't r00"%� 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 E 18 people in the room at one time. f B. How will the abandoned drainage ditch be maintained? Stated that it has beets usadeguate ut the past. The ditch will be cleared of weeds, shrubs and trees during �., construction. The water from rainfall will be diverted to the -` City's storm system. The area will be plowed under once a year and kept free of fall weeds and 'migrant shrubs. 9. Whey: club fust opened, many loud 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 before 8:00 a.m. 11. 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. 77u design of the building is inappropriate for the neighborhood, it slwuld look like a house at 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 nota house, and it is our professional opinion that it not- try ottry 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 N sound. 14. Has an alternative 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, hglitirtg and property 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 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. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING FOR DISCUSSION OF TWIN ARBORS ATHLETIC CLUB ADDITION AND REMODEL February 21, 1991 AGENDA 7:00 p.m. ■ Introduction of T -AA -C Representatives Format of Meeting ■ Overview presentation of proposed addition/remodel to Cochran Road Facility ■ DISCUSSION FORUM Presentations by neighborhood. residents 8:45 p.m. ■ Summary for forum discussion 9.00 P.M. ■ Adjourn i i/.I.OGII� - w MYGwf 1.1 LILAL Ex 1.11 LNC V/1=L • 1 11i M/w1U 1DI � - �scm I _ �Q�11�6101 —� ue I 1 siss 1 IEOEtlD m. INDOOMlt ' COM WOORt _ slasf.� ��.m10• ' y=Jlr �•� ' 1 IEL/OJE i1QST1q Z SiGf1Y )1tI0I-O � M�f1K0t� fU1�VlOilEFOm 1..~ _.� � • 1 mO.MgID 1 � � fO1iT r_ .j t �� M1QRaA0011p1 w .MIMM1g10 AOOIIIOM � •,._� � � �w MMS i IDQ C.ISOw� III �i1r1E PLANS FOR o.vl.�.le. 4- . ' 0OFmfWOrOadLtl018 awtmsnnw/ Twin Arbors Athletic Club Facilities Expansion - - -2040 GoChran Road - , u•ooaoREVISED PhAN . ram 5. Memorandum from the City Attorney dated March 7, 1991 discussing the Twin Arbors application. 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 recreational use . Wks 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 reasonable 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�ra 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 ho IT 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 could justify revocation of the use permit on a nuisance basis. Please let me know if there are further questions. B McN T City Attorney BM:vc cc: Planning Commission Members CDTWIMAR/TXTA.011' 6. The original Traffic and Parking Study for Twin Arbors Athletic Club dated March, 1991. i Traffic And Parking Study For Twin Arbors Athletic Club (Cochran Road Facility) Lodi, CA March, 1991 Table of Contents Section F. Introduction ............................................ ii. Traffic .............................................. A. Existing Conditions ................................... B. Impact of the Proposed Project ........................... C Impact of Additional Tmffic Volumes ....................... III. Parking ............................................... 8 Page I 2 3 4 6 List of Figures FIS'Eat 2 Daily Arrival and Departure Charactcrstics of Club Trffic ......... 7 2 Existing Ttrtnirg Volumes Du -in, Peal; Hour of Club (7.9 Fm)....... 8 3 Existing Turning Volumes During Peak Hour of Adjacent Street (6-7 p.aL)..................................... 9 4 Distribution of Club Traffic ............................... 10 5 Existing Daily Traffic Volumes on Street Segments ............ . . 11 6 Daily Ttaffic Volumes at Intersection Approaches ............... 12 7 Change in Existing Average Daily Traffic Due to Project .......... 13 & Change in Daily Traffic Volumes ]due to Project ................ 14 9 Change in PM Peak Hour Volumes Due to Project .............. 15 List of Tables Table Page I Pedestrian Observation .................................. 16 _i u rAUN I . Introduction Twin Arbors Athletic C:rb consists of two facilities: one located on Hutchins Street anal ,he other located on Cochran Road. A member of the athlc-c club can use either facility. The Hutchins club is known mora as an indoor club with activities such as racquetSail, weightlifting and aerobics. The Cochran c'.ub, located in a residential neighborhoui, is primarily an outdoor tennis/swirrAnina facility with high summer usage. Spare Time. Inc. is proposing to expand and remodel the facility on Cochran Road. Tl,c proposed expansion it cludes an upgrade of facilities, a new aerobics room, an expanded weight room. additional tennis courts, as well as other less significant improvers -nu. The proposal also includes the expansion of the facility's pa. -king for :rom 78 to 32 pwkirig spaces. Due to concerns of neighborhood residents living near'the Cochran club, :he Chy planning staff asked Spare Time, Inc. to hire a traffic consultanc to study the traffic and paring impacts of the propose expansion and to meet with the neighbors to hear their concerns. Sparc Time, Ire. commissioned Fehr &"Peers Associates to perform the uWTic,parkirg study. Spare Time, Inc. management and a renmsentative of Fv„hr & Peers Associates met with the local neighbors on February 21, 1991 to discuss their concerns about the proposed remodeling and expansion. About 16 residents attended the meeting. They raised sece.-al issues, including some related 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. t� t rv**S i II. Traffic This chapter discusses the currc:it traffic. condi-Ions in she unit:ediate viciniry of the project, estimates the amount of traffic tha: will be generated by the project, indicates tate resulting increase in traffic on the local surges, =.—irks or, the ac certsbility of those tr:fric inure sus. and finally reconrtr;ends me:s=s m minin_'ze the impacts of the increa� traffic. A . Existing Conditions The traffic study focused on potential traffic impacts of the project onto Coc:^mn road, Tilden Drive and Peach Street. All ttirec'of the reads are residential streets and almost exciusively serve only traffic generated by uses (homes and the existing club) within the neighborhood. Fehr & Peers Associates conducted traffic counts at the club driveways and at the intersections of Cochran/Peach and CochrawTilden 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 usage for that tL—e of the year. Figure 1 shows Lhe wt al tra:F,c :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 hours that the dub was open. The ciub traffic activity was highest from S to 6 p.m. (13 entered and 19 exited) and from 7 to 8 p.m. (18 entered, 14 exited), Figure 21 shows the intersection turn volumes frorn 7-8 a.m. 'Figure shows club traffic during the adjacent street peak hour (6-7 p.m.). We also identified which roads traffic used after exiting the club. As ri;ure A shows, 435-o used Peach Street. 25% used Tilden Drive, and 30% continued on Cochraa Road. This information was utilized to assign the increased traffic genie=zed by the proposed project. The raffic counts were factored to represent Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes. Figurt: shows the existing ADT volumes on ti.e study sweets. The ADT's range from 340 vehicles per day on Tilden Drive to 620 vehicles per day on Cochran Road bem-ccn Tilden Drive and Peach Street. Figure 6 shows daily turn volumes at the study intersection. We also noted the pedestrian and bicycle activity der.'ng the hours counted. Table 1 summarizes the pedestrian observations. On average, 3 pedestrians per hour were observed walking in the immediate area of Tildcn/Cochran/Peach. The data shown in the table is considered typical of a residential sect; however, it represents information taken on a non - school day. The technicians who performed the traffic founts reported that motorists on Cochran Road, Peach Street, and Tilden Drive travelied at a higher rate of speed than typically exp,,-eted in a residential neighborhood. They aLo noted that the vehicles accessing the club did not seem to drive any faster or slower than non -club vehicles. The technicians also reported that they obsery?d a couple or "close -calls" or near accidents dt:ring the day at the intersection of Cochran Road and Peach Street, At the mectino with the local neighborhood, several residcrts also mentiored that vehicles travelled at a high rate of speed through the area, and that they had seen several "close -calls" at tae Cochran/Peach i intersection. -3. We reviewed C`ty rewords to det:-rtnine the recent acciden: his -cry it, the study area. in the Dast five yc=, only one traffic accident was reported at the Cochran/Peach intersection. '=hat accident involved a vehicle travelling westbound or. Cochran: Road gettire hit broadside by a vehicle turning righE from Peach Scree. These movements were the same as 4cscribed as "close -calls" by the counting technicians. B . impact of the Proposed Project The mos: difficult task in cite study was to estirnaw the amount of traffic that the proposed project will generate. At fist. one may thing: drat the arrouar of square footage or number of courts would be the most reliable variable to estimate traffic from a club, bur available statistics indicate that membership is the most ac: urate variable. Fehr & Peers Associates obtained information at the;ohrson Ranch 'Racquet Club in Roscvi!ie which indicated that the club generated 0.88 vehicle trips per membersh:p. To verify the reliability of this rate fc: the proposed project, we performed a traffic count at both the Hutchins club and the Cochran club. According to Spare Time, Inc. managers ne. there are currently about 1,650 memberships ir. the Twin Arbors Athletic Club. During tt,is.urne of year, about 1,350 memberships titilize the Hutchins club, while 300 rnernbcrships 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 nip ends par club membership (a vehicle entering and exiting the club is considered two trip ends). As previously discussed, 131 vehicles entered/exited the Cochran club on Wednesday, March 6, 1991. This represents about 0.87 daily trips per elab 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 raze indicates a high degree of reliability. We used the rate of 0.85 daily vehicle rips per membership to estimate the amount of traffic that the proposed project will generate. The existing club membership during early March is 300. Sparc Time, Inc. management has indicated that the ultimate membership capacity of the rernodeled/expanded cl ;b is estimated to be IOW memberships, which is an increase of 700 memberships. At 0.85 trips per membership, ; 00 new memberships will generate 616 daily trips (308 in and 303 out). Information published by the Institute of Transportation Engincerst indicates that a racquet club generates about 10% of its daily mffic during the, p.m. peak hour. Therefore, of the 616 trip ends that the proposed project will generate in ac entire day, about 62 additional trip ends will occur during the p.m peak hour. Using the distribution pattern shown, earlier ir. Figure 4, daily =ffic volunnes 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 traffic on these road segments will increase by 44% to A, %. Traffic volumes on Cochran between Tilden Drive and Peach Strict will inereasu by 551'x, while Cochr3n Road adjacent to the project will increase by 155`"v. I! is important to note that the increases shown in Figure 7 represcnts increases in wiener traffic volumes. Spare I T612 (sener_tinn 4th Edi!inn, Instiaur of Transportation Engineers. Septemhar 19S7. .3. Time, Inc. mann.-Cment has indicated that summer membership at the Cochran club is about 500, which is double the winter membership. Thus the increase in traffic on the local streets will be less in the summer than in the winter. Fibare 8 shows the amount of daily came increase at the Cochran/Peach and Cochranfl—nden intersections. The resulting ADTs on Cochran Road Targe fttt:n 610 on the ze-Z.mcni •est of Tilde't Dr re to 1,020 on the segment adjacent to the club. T -be resulting ADT is S70 or Peach Street 2 '490 on Tilden Drive. C. Impact of Additional Traffic Volumes The intersections at Cochran/Peach and Cochrar,'Tilden will continue ro operate za LOS A wi!h the project. Cochran Road, Peach Street, and Tilden Drive are iesidcntial streets. According to the City of Lodi's design 6assificadons, Tilden Drive and Cochran Road (except fors shor. ,figment) are standard residential streets. Peach Scree: is a minor residential street because it !ticks curb, gutter, side -malk and has only a SO -foot right-of-way. Standard residential streets are desi;ned to carry b00 to 4,000 vehicles per day. With the additional traffic generated by the proposed project, Cochran Road will have an ADT of 1,020 �,. vehicles (highest segment), and T:Iden Drive will gave 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. no traffic volume r..nge for mind::esidcntial strects•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 "A4aximurn Traffic Volumes For Livable Streets"2 suggests traffic velurre thresholds for Level of Service ek on residential streets. Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to describe the quality of traffic operation on a road facility. It is denoted by lettcn ranging from A to F, with A being the best !evel of service and F being the wont. 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 service of a residential street depends on the w:Jth of the strcct and whether streetside parking is allowed. For a road having Peach Screet'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 Pub1i_hed in %V,-:turrht ! Novcmber-Mccmber, !.990. A 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 U the Cochratt/Feach intersection. Based on our analysis and obs --mations, it appears that a stop sign is needed at the Peach Street approach to the intersection. This will cleuly give right-of- way to Cochran Road traffic and should reduce die accident potential at the intersection. As far as the upgrading of Peach Street is concerned, if the City chooses to use its design standards as the h:asis a adeafor determWng if a street reeds to be upgraded, :.hen Peach';rreet needs •o be upl to a stindard residential sm—.et regardless of d:c proposed proj_ct. If instead the LOS A volumes are the basis ler determining if the road needs to be upgraded, then Peach Street probably does not need to be: widened since the projected volumes (870) oxcoed LOS A capacity (840) by only :0 vehicles." -5- 1001� III. Parking Me proposed project will also increase the present parkirg demand at the existing club. Faking utilizauor: surveys cornpi.ted in : eb:u ry, 1991 indicate that the m3anntun number of vehicles parked in the lot was 27. According to Spare Time, Inc. manage:n-ent and local residents, aaexing demand is substantially higher during *,e summer :romirs. �4ansgerneru and local residents agresd that the maximum parking demand during the sumtmer is about 50 vehicles, except during the City tennis tournament. Sparc Time, inn. provided Fehr & Pccrs Associates with statistics on rnarnbership and puldrtg. at three otherclubs. The foil -owing shows the parking demand and total anernberahips at each club: .Membership Parkin; Provided r'apacily Cold River 123 1,600 1 space per 12.5 memberships ;.atonias 162 2,500 1 space per 15.4 mambersFjps Johnson Raixh 156 1,750 1 spa.:e per 11 2 'mctnberships r-- Laguna Geek 188 2,500 i space per 133 memberships Total 634 8,350 1 space per 12.1 memberships As shown above. one parking space is required for a range between 11.2 and 15.4 memberships. The average is one space per 13.2 memberships. Using these ratios, the proposed project will require between 65 and 89 parking spaces. The proposed Fsoject will increase the number of parking spaces from it§ present 73 spaces to 82 spaces, which equates to 1 space per 122 trtmberships. Only tl:e 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 d�rnand someday exceeds the supply, Spare Time will expand the parking Iot in the vacant land in the northwest corner of the site. 30 2s CO 20 W J V S W 7 .� O 15 a W tY1 Z la i 8.9 A.M. 9.10 XM. 10.11 A.M. 11.12 A.M. t2.1 P.M. 1•Z r.m. z•a r.m- HOUR OF DAY Wis: Tieft outs taken on 1'tedns-&Y. MUch 6.1991. FIGURE 1 nAn v AQDttlAl AAIn nRRARTItRE R 1►,►QST OKAY .$r ' •..._ € . �. . p .. ... ,: .. i1tV.,1.1.Y:. Jam? Ail � �IiN�fIR ? -. aF#r t>} f x a c }. fx : 9�-�-►� J•i to � 4 if �.y. 18♦-__�SA. : s a ! s•: 5 Shf :{ i �. :12—'-'�". ..d#tE. r t .. '.._•`�:i,:` .. y'�•_:. Jam? Ail � �IiN�fIR ? -. aF#r t>} f x a c }. fx : 9�-�-►� J•i to � 4 if �.y. 18♦-__�SA. : s a ! s•: 5 Shf :{ i �. :12—'-'�". ..d#tE. r t ri }fy� 3i 5 s k> #ry't £ f f r1 r {E .1 � i •`( E# 5 � <if3 t f,•�i tc a- •fk {''-. it $9 .{{+ # xz atF—i�s>.�iYi •s i2'Lf � _F � i a � � s. � - ' r tF5 (> 5. F i ` ` � 3 �;si35 l 2 Y. 7 t t� St ."�• -} 5 iv is t t x F 3 rc E`^# i+ lft 2 S S Si 1 H {•' ; •. G fi L ` 1 Tf > T3.. . ? rri �f _ � }Y ? ..f r � 3- f F f 5 •3 ib 2 t y t °§ S WEST2YINi=rS7 EXISTING TURUIN5 VOLUMES t � (7-8 ��6�lPeerenl3sata�os,tna FIGURE 2 DURING PEAK HOUR OF CLUB _ i �'- '- m Fy h• crnn ° TOK•AY ST 7777777 en ^,(iL b �it�Yi:.1z3 t i . FIGURE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF CLUB TRAFFIC {=� Fthr a Pa+n Ami4xiraa, Inc. �' T"Wp"-ftc- U16 �ry1 pn ,rtrFxH i.JI [i!!1 �fltf ilivii Fri4',�f:'!i`�l {}ivi �Tf:�( f. $u i�T'7 !N iS! E� 1 r �}MUMall ARB A M$ ATH►-k7i�G��ls F� 4Ui�7 ^,(iL b �it�Yi:.1z3 t i . FIGURE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF CLUB TRAFFIC {=� Fthr a Pa+n Ami4xiraa, Inc. �' T"Wp"-ftc- U16 1407 TO SCALE' • • �'r 1" T'V4�IN'AIRROP ATHLT-TIP PP a � im w FrM t Poe�a A�yu.lawa, tna. EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES � bhr 9 Pobla FIGURE 5 CN STREET SEGMENTS e ki� FrM t Poe�a A�yu.lawa, tna. EXISTING DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES � bhr 9 Pobla FIGURE 5 CN STREET SEGMENTS WE&'TOKAY ST.;?.:,'p--'m:",':z.w.:.. :,. DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ��Febr4Poor.Aaexlo�e.,Inc. AT INTERSECTION APPROACHES N W >�7r r e. •;� 62 .137: � '�-'9Z• w core ;s • - t it. 'x i. • F FIGURE 6 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ��Febr4Poor.Aaexlo�e.,Inc. AT INTERSECTION APPROACHES - >�7r r e. } w core ;s • - t it. 'x i. • F FIGURE 6 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES ��Febr4Poor.Aaexlo�e.,Inc. AT INTERSECTION APPROACHES r►i CHANGE IN EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC DUE TO PROJECT Folm & Pow& Associates, Inc. 51 1i".ury,cen.�aw. FIGURE 7 am !1 t. I � CHANGE IN EXISTING AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC DUE TO PROJECT Folm & Pow& Associates, Inc. 51 1i".ury,cen.�aw. FIGURE 7 CHANGE IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUhrIES DUE TO PROJECT 11 p'. EST s. m cm 4:51 l 4 2 .7:4 . . .... Mi 221 (139) 29 COCHRAN RD In26442} ►i CHANGE IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUhrIES DUE TO PROJECT 11 p'. FIGURE 8 s. m cm 4:51 l 4 .7:4 . . .... Mi 221 (139) CHANGE IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUhrIES DUE TO PROJECT 11 A flowe Asoccisles. I=. fp FIGURE 8 m cm 4:51 l .7:4 . . .... W A T V EST?,-;: IN XX-EXISIII.r, • PROJECT VULUVIES (M-PROJEC) ONLY VOLur.Es EFRC41 CLUB EXPANSION) CHANGE IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUhrIES DUE TO PROJECT 11 A flowe Asoccisles. I=. fp FIGURE 8 .__ �3.: r •16. " Table 1 .-.. Pedestrian Observation Are They All Number in Children ;Where Did They Coc:1e From Ard Tme CmtJ12 (Yes or Nn) — ',%'here Are Trcv Going To 8:44 a.m. 1 No Peach St. - East cn Cc--hrin 9:04 2 No Tilden - Alaletie Cl,:b 10:27 1 Yes Cochran - 3 houses East on Cochran 10:38 2 Vo P=s-cn - West on Ccelzan 11:02 2 (-Bike) No TWen - Athletic Gub 11:48 1(Bike) Yes Tilden - Athletic Club 11:53 1(Bike) Yes Peach - East on Cochran 11:57 3 (Bike) No Athledc Club - Tilden 12:18 p.m. 1 Yes Peach - West on Cochran 12:31 2 Yes Cochran - 3 houses West on Cochran 1:07 2 \'o Peach - Tokay 1:08 1 No West end of Cochran - Peach - W. okay 1:52 2 No W. Tokay - 3rd house on Peach . 2:05 1 No East on Cochran - Peach - East on Tokay 2.07 1 No East on Cochran - Peach - Fast on Tokay 2:41 2 No Tilden - Peach - East on Tokay 3:00 1 No West on Tokay - Peach - Athletic Club 3:11 1 Yes Tekay - Pah - West on Cochran 327 2 (Bike) r Yes Tilden - Athletic Club 3:36 2 Yes East on Cochran - At1'lctic Club 4:20 4 (2 Bike) Yes. Athletic Club - Tilden - (2 Walker) 4:28 2 No Peach - Tilden 4:54 1 Yes Tilden - Ath:ede Club 5:05 1 No Peach - Tilden 5:42 1 Yes Athletic Club - Tilden 5:42 1 No Peach - West on Cochran 6:00 2 NO Fast on Cochran - Athletic Club 6:33 2 No Athletic Club - West on Cochran •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. HIN-,HMAN, Mayor JAMES W PINKERTON. Jr Mayor Pro Tempore PHILLIP A. PENNINO JACK A. SIECLOCK JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER January 22, 1991 CITY OF LODI CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 9S241-1910 (2091334-5634 FAX(209)333-6795 Mr. Tim-Mattheis c/o Wenell, Mattheis, Bowe, Inc. 222 West Lockeford Street, Suite 9 Lodi, CA 95240 THOMAS A. PETERSON Ciri Manager ALICE M. REIMCHf City Clerk 808 MtNATT City Attorney Dear Tim: 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 ieptic 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, JA ES B. SCHRO DER ommunity Development Director cc: Lodi Athletic Club r —. C00A." .o.o - -cma �h%ONM= fw e. w TWN ARBORS ATHLETIC CLUB Twin Arbors Athletic Club i r r A •s Facilities Expansion 2040 Cochran Road U•90-30 page t of 2 1•t4-91 e � •/1wE w VICAi1; y V.,r�2 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 i .... ...... Uai!!Ztt Ad&933 ............ r .. ....T-914° ......... 17-,pS' to ...a 2SO00 e;i:;t ot Lcw-3r �-*cra=ento " , - ....... :t ..... .............. .... . .......... . ................ . ................... . .............. . ... .......... ....... . ....... ................................ . ...... . .................................. ......... L.-Sd C-xrzt of .••------•-••---•-- ........... . "Ic Ad&eS3 — ------ ------ - ----- Acceded CrdL--r—Mc* 8w ESMSZaSH T• IS Pim "n :-3- -At a 21EQUEST. . ...... ......... — — - -------- . ....... . . ........ . . ........ ....... . .. ............... .......................... ...... ..... of Ace'licc ... ............ 77* . ................... ..... .............. .............. . ...... P.& -men Bat Xc:im . ........... ..................................... . ................. ................... ........ . ........... 1 23-71 eats '*cL C-.=is*iott/Boc;i cc! A21-a-stm-elit: "m sica -mca . .................. ...... kv ........... -zip �.rsi 1 _ � .a ..:t -t'� :. ....• - -ai:=.=�. :3 t_:ai1 dmf_ -w7. �.:a as :�;,i.;loa of :hs 1. 732 'srarviar:a, Cnr ._ 7 Lt.i ^-: a i.o Lir :.a et:.cr:t:ca xi h t!n ?':e :en j this asa, t`::t : rs t_s-u:?._:cs d :his us•z w :t. o nalaarte� is 4:1 ioi:vrs: ":�afsa:es :3 :rsir.ed :s myth. -19 `23ii:l:rq hr= ::s.asanabls of =lain cr `-cm 3ealt3, sOYtar oe sbl:c rrsUra, or .'s ans'rbtly Jr Ci:3c3.77 :1 :±a :rL::! ,o -31 :3:TL•r! lrah LS CC=fcT-mhla enic— -eat Cf ::da a ',st� - Ea _s ;e: -`=.Y to i : eo, es r:ch _ei;_:.csioed e. -3a is 2afLta1 by a ?Ima±ssy t-ccs:ssim cc3cci at cue a -C r==41*t part ci this aPrc- d —0 xrmit --a1 s�all :on .d :s z :c:ca.:-ecast•—t:� aaL't.ad as =eYla.?.:rrc�a:::gac!?-s ,'::ttur'3i aitaat.oa shall ti Mao :mss:_ ---:t _,� yc:.r.:ca ::. m said ::ct?'.sem a:wil ha fir,: c'pr_ 76d !)v Iia ?1�oiay au - . xat, Cc��sierz x .:r, s -:i z ij sst�snt. 3- -'==.t-'==.t:t 3a zaa Lbe *=Q Sala t4* e3a.i:t:ea t5at said permit net be trcnsfo rcd rlthta a 94•dar ?sr'.od aftor N.» �ercvcl. 4. Ami3rc•ral o_ e-viinage plan and pa_rnent oz�e.+a to the Degar�ent Of Public :or:; _ 5: c=cac=ser.: _ .moi_; 3_: to je obtained f_cm the ^ .,ewetent of 5, Z=7=77--' _av:; =:sign of !:0 X23=c'3 7" 1 ? C= _7 of .*..cd-, . o= r_ `c ra'. N ..lam .11 Ae?L-CA1,L.i -•U• .•'_i •.�. '. 1: .. :.=: i'f ..L�.'i:i' �^.�7-.: ..�` . nn .;hz= :e=d) . :o earabl:ah =M-as ar,i ca trio South 3::..'a o Ccca=an 2esd. :!=cm 1775' co 2500' =a=t oy L=we= Sacramento .1 --ad, Souter of LoSi, in an I -?.A =--ne. C." ^�`'. The Planning De:arr•n2nt int=Cdnced a ^. res ort into tae record. :cdi, =Prcmmenued approval subject to the inprovemen: . sf Cochz-an Road to county standards. wccab-C i-'ct=ic'`ticn Dist= = __c-=erdi..g constrscticn of a c_cicne sanc: ct a -nin'_m=n height C.; to be lccated tet:veen the Tiis-=ict'3 right -of -:gray -or canal and .t:% - reposed development. STA?': PeeC3rnlent of ?ubZic :�e -%. s. r_c=mcending dedication of t 5' of frcn:age for the widening to 45' of Cochran Road and the i.=rovement of that road to the standards of the pity of Lodi. . ?I�^zinc Devart-en_, reecm:nending conditional approval. ^e:3cn'J 3=c%3 i.'2 =av- - 3= lica:_t:: 'Z ni3 Z:i••.bCrd. =?_r3:342n=_n S t d* --.s .1: - .'�.3°l^_?.^.:^.�S• C2=q1,. c'tin3r Or �'S3 _ -`�1• 3.':3 it 3'°��� �.�=e1.. rasidenc Th2y „1a-23 =':e cethts: The -?ntt:3 g=Cund$ W21a 2 ?C 1 3 �3::G�o� : �' �='.'.C3 : l Q , J .� i� : 1`1•� �_- !� ._l 7. -1A-- -�.- ,-. •.1 V �---`LTJ v:�`• 1 ''• �...'�`.: '':G C:CSS :CLSS.C:7 %ND FL`iDINGS: Comm izyiculrrs :4cCcmb and WaiZhc:ar spokc =.ie i33ue and in their cemnent3 the following _indinga wer_ made: There is a definite need fcr this type of development. The access .:was a cause of seine cencein. (The applicant stated that. he would .not object to a s' dedication o: frontage for the widening of the 'access). Further finding was that a 6' fcnc: is all that is necessary rather than the 10' fence suggested by the Woodbridge 11irrigatien District. '.MTICN: Moved. seconded (Gunderson -Donald) and carried by a unanimcur :roll call vote to approve the permit subject to the following: j1. approval of drainage plan and payment of feee to the Department 1 of Public Works. 2. Znc: cae �=aent Perm its are to be obtained from the • _^.epartment of ?clic Works. 3- aFproval cf t -he division of lard. 4. c__car.cn and imrioveaen t to ha standards c! chr City of Lodi. _or the widenincl Cochran P.cal. 01 th-3 Lce31 :Zaalt_h hist ----------------- ------ -•c-�---,....,R►.�....,5.-_. t,. - -� r • . - � :.rte•" <r.; is •- ..7: �: _ ;sem_,......_...---....-----•- -•-- ... r Application No. 11% "' 7 S Data Eece3•�ed ! ?3 / rstuzn� 3 Cc=rent3 .rade : areon r1gya been nude WithOkc cc:=?late information ! as to intent of aaplicant and thrare_ore Should be taXenith 3cM�ticns degree of cau43 tion +n fats=�rctat:ca thereof. P: 1:='s• ary of site features are as f711CW3: Z. ZOA'3 =CVS —sx as per Ord. 672 (by a, L-nproverent to be constructed by pe-mit_ee at tim© O: cro^ert_f develocment: Yes___ NO---- B. Zit:-iatsd f__ fcr fut::=9 improvement by Ccunty : agcrax�nt3 1=^.qth Of frontage I } x a am:=ed widening ( ) x $ /Sq.ft. a C. Engineered plan for road improvements and storm facilities within " to be submitted for P.W.D. 3pprcv3l: Yea .to D.rescacz..ent Lermit: les iso — _. Cc-gin}a: { I MCAD 3i i'.'-C?:.71'L=�.CC==�- ^i^_'3 cer I A. Ced__it'_cn of =isht O= Wav% Ya3 3. C. .==ntage 1.anctmh: .�� �/.s f^ �C • F and: 'Z s — D. Civiaion of '_ a .to _ E. /l.~7--ZL- c:s'�'�� A3% [ir.s•t%!%:C,C/'1J/1:r7 !i.%/•:G�' iy y7Gf .. �se /�/`�,i� C.M. �- iJ;gICL''�+-�=':r_'s {tel- r ; �. Encrcachaent 7e -"'!O -t : lieses D B. :tomer o_' approachea psr frontage: /° �— �i lino) cft- C. :;a,xisit= widt'� of accsas (:•xasu:ed at . a . c --,=b or other physical barriar to vehicular traffic acrCs3 fzzntacl:: :'23 __. ..--•---...__� ..� -... -� .- .�.�.-tom.. ..._.�-•�;r--_ _. _. . Public WL-r.','s Cera=t=snt C`Ec:: 'P 3t (Can't) a .: :: Page 2 3i=G 3i3e : l�bn!• =,F is } _. . •I \ • • cc:—ents : i^ /�M i r •l ! i ••yr r+� b 7y >t?'r `.r 1 r iii . !/ =/'f l =i /�,: ^tcr i t �i 1j � �- 'q � /w � i.. `[ 1/.1��� •. •) G.ly!_✓--'1•-L'_--_ IV. T%--L?.-IC X-EQUI.72»"-.E:=TS (b-! 1 asvhalt ccnc=ete for traffic delineation: Yes B. Of: 3113 tra=_ic datail and parking plan* C. Ccc=ent3: V. ?LCOD CcriM. L .mCuI3F.:0XTS (by 45 ) A. 'fe==iaal d_ainaca fac423•t• available: les ,.3. 7r17 -e O:! wrai abla �3C2=3`32 o z3=aa:a1 drainage cha. nel: ees NO .N'� Cadicat?ca o+ =4 h-. of :,ray: 7a3 NO L d l --vel _ i -q : ar�i= -ar 0r3 662: YasNo 3Ub43C= tZ Yea_ e3 1 _ ^.?al: *:33 ' :Sam__ , a. aeproxiaate trust Lust, fee per Ord. R2 • Ord. 1559 Ll-.-.� = $. 7COD .oa B. Additional facilities: Yet. r No C. Engineered drainage plot ?Lan to ba ..u'mittE:d for P.N:D. approval: Yes c/ No D. Ponding and percolation s!►stam: Ye:: `� No E. Ccmmenta : "o.4 +Irk JI - 101t211 W - RA3 .77 L IFT r.2 C X11 _.� I .%4061AMOA-6 wsawqpv� a 77777r� R% IZ f:. 16 - mc lup , y. :.f_t:� T. 5 C Z I P S r C THE L�sO R=F-Ra£D TO 1:4 TH15 ='�-2T I3. SITu�T=D BE THE STAT_ t CALILANDI.�, C:."IT'/ CF SAN v'CAQ':I`:, a4D IS CEfiCRl3£O AS FCILI;wi: . � ^T=�_ C:;c :I4) CF SE _T10t1 -T---m-T---m ( I?), ,� i'C:ci1'.`l CF :ti. >:C2"�_AST rtea^ a ) BAST, :-C-,.%T ,1:.3L 3 a -Q T v;�:l5;l:? iH /'t = C 3) :: V.Z'. i•:r .Z:.:lvE �+ 7 `� AND CESCV32-0 AS FCL_;:ds: � A?c=Z SECTICN� . CO?'!'E?lCImG AT A PC14T Cts THE SCUTH LI:!£ OF SAID Q.' _ 340 F£ WEST OF THE SCt'+'H£AST. CCRtiER OF SAID Ct::AZT=2 S£CTICN; TH'c�iC£ Z. NC2Tt1 0° 02' 30" =1=5T 325.30 F` --T TO T'i£ CENTER L3l:E Gi: GOC:+RPOINT OF ROAD; THENCE NORTH 23° 12' j0" WEST, :43y.40-F'cTIE O ISOUTHuO* 02' BcGI:+tll,4G CF THE HEREINAFTER DESCPLBE6 T;tAC , TM-yL'E j0" EAST T18.v0 FEE:; T`JcllCE ,4OlZTM 39* 12' 3�0" WEST 210 F_.T: TN£HC£ CF bJl ?T TC THe''L•,�TT.R _'CTICti _ c '0 32' 30" Ei:ST, A OIST. Ai1C= �- ,15 AJN:. - CF SOJ�r+ _ TIC;I LINZ, A EAST) .%V:,%v, T?i:'`+ �-- A ^I5T::sC: n;: ';2: w FE -T- T-ME'.4C_ mca 4 ?v '.� :? v=�� `_ �iC� S 7'. :2' ?�+. /� _moi / N .;al .J-�,.i il.•{ •.3. :. r+..�� � �.J �_ _ Z Tom- r• _R NE -.moi - C 121:i .:� :� ASS-., vi:J „_fit. LI 1 i i . i 55153 1;;346-1 PAGE 3 • I_C 1p. 41 THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE CCLNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, $TATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL CNE: BEING A PORTICN CF THE NORTHEAST QL'AATER OF SECTION TEN (IG), TOWNSHIP - THREE (3) 4CRTM, RANGE SIX (6) EAST, MOUNT Olga LO BASE AND MERIDIAN, AND BEGINNING FOR THE SAME AT A POINT IN THE SOUT4 LINE CF SAI^ QUAPTEP SECTICN 100 F:ET NEST OF THE SOUTHEAST COR`+ER ^F SAID ;t!ARTER SSCTION AND RUNNING W;ST ALONG SAID QUARTER SECTION LINE 740 FEET; TkENCE NORTH A-40 PARALL°L TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID QUARTEP SECTtCN $17 FEET; THENCE _AST AND PARALLEL TO THE SCUT". LINE ;F SAID OL'ART:R SECTION 740 :__T7; THENCE SOUTH 825 FEET TO THE POINT OF 5EGI4.4: PARCEL TWO: . A PORTICH OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION TEN CIO), Tf.VNSHIP T40EC- (3) NORTH, RANGE SIX (6) EAST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN, AND COMMENCING FOR THE SAME AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH L:NE OF SAID QUARTER SECTION 340 FEET HEST OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID QUARTER SECTIC.V AND RL!NNING THENCE NEST ALONG -SAID QUARTER SECT ISN LIME 740 FEEEi; T"ENCE NCRTH PARALLEL WITH THE NEST LINE OF SAID QUARTER S:CTIRV, 525 F==T;. THENC= EAST AND PARALLEL WITH TH-; SOUTH LINE CF SATO ':DARTER SEC':CN, 740 FEET; TtEN C= SOUTH PARALL=L WITH THE EAST LIVE C_- SAID jU.idT=Z SECT:CN 825 Fz-=T TO THE POINT OF BZG:NNI\G. EXCEPT THE WEST 2 ACRES THEREOF. ALSO EXCEPT TH_AEFRCM A PCRTICN OF THE NCRT4EAST CF SECTICN T'�N C:0), TC','hSH' P THREE (3) NORTH, RANGE SIX (7) E1.3-, .-t:NT AND CESC2I3E0 AS FOLLCWS: CCM!dENCING AT .A POINT CH THE S.^.UTH LINE OF SAI ^ -i 1 • • $, CTI CH 3v:. F=ET :.ES' CF TH" SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID 1!4 SS.':_r: TME'1C: NORTH 0' 02' 3v" w£ST 3:5.00 FE T TO THE CENTER LINE OF C:^' -IRAN AGAR; T4EmCS NCCTH" 39' 12' 30" WEST 63x.40• -FA=T TC THE TCUE. POINT OF SE-WNNING OF T'+E t+ERSINAFTER DESCRIBED TRACT; THENCE SOUTH. 00 32' 30" EAST 213.00 FFE'T; THENCE SOUTH 89% 12' 3)" EAST 237.00 FEET; T7+c'4CE NORTH 00 02' 3:." WEST 218.00 FEET TO THE CENTER LINE OF SA11+ CCCHRAN ROAD; -THENCE ALONG. SAID CENTER LINE OF COCHRAN ROAD, NORTH $90 12' 30" HEST 200.00 FEET.- TO THE TRUE POINT OF ^E„1r•NING. "EXHIBIT A" SS/S8 1-0 171346 PAGE 4 . Minutes of September 13, 1971 Mr. Eoward Wallace requested a Use Permit to establish a rest home for USE PERMIT I the care of six non -ambulator•,; crib children at 829 South Garfield REST Fi0iC-: Street in an area zoned R-1%0, Medium Density Multiple-Family•Resi- .1. .�ALLACE dential. 820:.7t^"H The following person was present and spoke in favor of granting the GARFI D Use Permit: 1. Mr. Howard Wallace, 25185 North Watkins Road, Acampo, California. He stated that he and his wife presently care for three such T__4 children_ at their county address and that they were moving to the CM City. Ee said the aptlication to care for six children was to M cover any rossible future expansion. It was roved by Commissioner Katzakian, seconded by Commissioner Altnow and unanimously passed that the above Use Permit of Fir. Howard Wallace be a ---roved with the urovision that the operation of the home and any necessary ioprovements to the structure conform to all of the requirements of the various state and local agencies concerned with the welfare o: the children. SAN j0..�Z.I:11 z.r-RRAL•S The Planning Ccmmission was in receipt of the referral by the San USE PERc:IT Joag4in County Board of Zoning Adjustment of the request of Mr. John CLUB Cavell for a Use Permit to establish a tennis and swim club on the __..T. south side of Cochran Road from 1775 to 2500 feet east of Lower J. ..Ar -. Sacramento Rcad in an area zoned I -PA, Interim -Protected Agriculture. CCC=?=' '=CAD The Planning :)i.^ector introduced the request and stated that the City had recommended denial of a Use Permit on the adjacent property be- cause the area lacked terminal storm drainage. However, the County had ap_croved he trevious request. The Director stated that Fr. Capell had offered some possible solutions to the storm drainage problem which were being investigated by the Public Works Department. The following :ersons were present and spoke on this matter: 1. Mr. John. Capell, 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 provably seek annexation to the City. 2. Mr. Dennis She herd, 126 South Crescent Avenue, Lodi. He stated that he represented S. & H. Recreation. Developers (i.e., Sun -West Swim and Rac;uet Club) and described the proposed facility which would be oriented toward family recreation. 3. Mr. Neil Porterfield, 8C0 South Mills Avenue, Lodi. He stated that he lived across the canal from the proposed club and favored the arrroval of .he Use Permit. Minutes of September lj, 1972 Mr. 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 Co=fission recommend to the San Joaquin County Board of Zoning adjustment that the above Use Permit request of .s. John Capell be anDroved with the following conditions: 1. installation of curb, gutter, sidewalk and street lights along the entire Cochran Road frontage; and �. provision of a- cul-de-sac :urn -around where Cochran Road dead -ends into the Woodbridge Irrigation District Canal. ADJOURNIJ0YT As there was no further business to be brought 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 Director - Secretary l ' ge l , GENTLEMEN: Enclosed is application U -72-a0 for your review, comments, and recommendations. A brief summary of the application is as follows: Proposal: ESTABLISH TrMNIS MUD S,:7:4 CLUB Land Area: Sanitation: Water Source; Drainage: Parking Area: Observations: Please return your continents 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 -�'71 they can be included in the Planning Staff's report. Thank you. San Joaquin County Planning Department ..0 .. ......... ........... p C p .. ..... CAP 7,6:,L OF Ae?LIC.Z.3T .......................................... c/o Dc= -4s roherd ....................... .......... ........................................... . . ... ...... .... ... . ....... cre-sell*.� k6dress .............................. LoSai., .... CaL-�f-Orm.1a.- ....................?.L() -:z . ...... 369.-.52.47 ..................... -;4 eC 11 , of Cochran... LOCA-I!GN . ................ ........................... o n t c Ou':h . - .... 1 .......C...._....... . ................ . . . ... ...... ...... I . .. . . ................. ... ..... 1775' co 2500' i--az;t of I.owcr Sacramonto ... . . ....... ............... ........................... . ... I ................ i� ...... ......... - ...............---•----------------- ----- r - sou:.: •: �oad, sou. 0= Lodi ...... .... .... .................................................................. I ............................................................. ................. - .... ......... ... ............. ..................................................................................................................................................................... ............ . . ...... .................................................................................................. I ................. : .......................... ............ I ��p icarvt .................................................................. ................. ....... Legal ol :);operty ................. ........................ I.xillng Add:ess ........................................ ........... . . ....... . . . ... . ..................... ....................................... ....... ... o O.t ... L - 6 Page ........ . 6 ....... ..................... Ordircnce 81",; Zoning ........... 1 -?A ....... Accepted under scc-.-*rn ...... ... . . ........................... at !-:ST,:--!3ILIS-: 1-7NN 11-S AND -�-OB REQUEST: .................................................. ..... .... ...... ... .... . . ..... ---------------------------------------------------- ............ . . .. ............................................ . . . . . . . ..... ....... . . . . ............................... ........... . .. ...................................................................... ....... ....................... ....... . ............... ............. ....... . ... .............. ....................... I ..................... ....... ..... ... ...: ........ ..... ... ... ... .. ..... ....................... ......... ..... I (We) ceperjury that the foregoing is .--.:-*-,, nor penalty ol true cnc cor:czt. Signature of Appllccnt .... ........... / ........................ . ................... .......... 7---- A A 5t... ............... .. . ..... Authorized Representative Son Joaquin County ' �*-arnum ;ng DeDarert 1350 East Fazelton Avenue, Stockton, Cali:c: nia 95205 BY ............... �n...WOS-F Planning. ... Aide II ............... Date...., q-16-71 .. ........ ............... Public Hearing Fee S25.00 Receipt ...... XTIC3 . ................................................... ....... by 'L* -e .......................... I ............................ I ................. on ................... Reaso... for Action ................................................................................ ........................................................................... . . . . ............. ........................................... ............. ... ................................. ........................................... ..... ... ... -.. . ..................................................... .... I .................. ....... ............... . ..... ....... . ........... ....... ... ......... ..... .. I ... ... . o subiect to the operationol standards Ii -.ted on Iho reverso side ............................................................................................................... . ................ Di;cctor-Secretary .............................. ............... Date Hoed G! Supervisors action LIPIO-I cPPOOI 'rO--I the decision oi the Planning Comrnission/B=6 of Adi,uL;-.mer.t: Board.............................................................................................. decision by Resolution dated ................................. ... . r AGENDA - BOARD OF ZONING ADJUST''' -T, S. j. COUN:T7 Sept. ln, 1971, Thursday, 7:30 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING FOR USE PERMIT NO. U -72-j0 of JOM CAPELL, c/o DenniF Shevherd, to establish tennis and swim 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. �SI;IUTES I.n BRIEF a S. J. CO. BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTIMIT - Sept. 16, 1971.... 8. John F. Cavell (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, 1971 Mr. Donald roster Acting Planning Disectcr :pan Joaquin County 1,350 East Hazelton ,avenue Stockton, California Dear Don: Re: Use Permit Application NO- U-72-50 - ih-. John F. Capell 'Mr. Dennis R. Shepherd. at its meeting of Monday, 3eptcmber 13, 1971 the Lodi City Plar_ring Conmis-ion recommended the approval of the request of i..r. Jolui i . Cai:ell, c/o ;• . Dennis R. Shepherd for a Use Permit to establish a tennis and swim club on. the south aide of Cochran Road from 1775 feet to 2500 feet east of Lower Sacramonto 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, utter, 3idowalks and street lights a3 well as a cul-de-sac turn- around where Cochran Road dead -endo into the Woodbridge Irri- gation District Canal. It should be noted that the City has no terminal storm drain- age facilities, available to the subject property. 3o:rover, our Public Wcrha Department is -presently investi;attirg alter- nate means of providing this utility service. Sincerely, JXVS3 3. X!MOMM Planning Director J33 :1x cc: 14r. John c. Cavell Itr. Dennis 3. Shepherd Public Ubens Director August 15, 1971 Lodi City Manager �. 221 W. Pine Street Lodi, Calif. 95240 Attn : Mr. Hank Glaves Dear Hank; I recently purchased- 25 AC. in the county, south of Cochran Road, between Co=zaunity Ho .pita -rd the W.I.D.C. Canal. We are Interested in developi:� o, 5 AC. parcels immediately. One would be a retirement home complex and the other a swim & racquet club. The gro�:th of Lodi_n the southwest direction clearly shows our land is in the middle of the IcGical growth pattern that Lodi is taking. All city utilizes c -.::,o available to us except storm drainage. We recuest that the city staff initiate a study regard- ing the foilowing three proposals which -.-o,-,Id 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 specifications. We drain or pump the drainage grater into the City's pond west of the canal, south of Tokay. The ::ate- ould hence be pumped into the i,'.I.D.C. per present agreement. 3. We build a pond to city specifications. The pump on the Woods property would be reduced capacity to divide its present capacity between it and a second pump, which we would insta?I adjacent to our property at 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 Cit7. Naburally all expense of the above proposals would be born by us. We vrould hope you can give immediate attention to this matter. r Yours truly, 4) o it C.^ pellf /j2L I.. 'Tido Drive i/ Lodl, JC: j=3 V] A=ril IC, 1972 w� C TO: Plasming Co. --mission M": Planning Director s*g„*;,'^:: Revised Conditions - Sun west Swim and Tennis Club. after a further review of the plans for the promosec Sun ;lest -Sw.-L= mud Tennis Club, the St= -`f reco»Denms a~_proval with the fo?lokinG conaitians: 1. That. the development be subject to st nL_ c City c: l0i:_ : ec:.i. eoents for offsite _4=rroverents (excluding .,torr,' dr. --.mare :.:L:.itar sewer u?:ich by Cit; Com_ ci I actio: may be temporary) ; 2. T -h t Cocnr a:r. 3oai be established as a c..5 -foot centerec en the present centerline; j. That, a cul-de-sac tUrn-aroundbe 3e<'icated and 4nzroved Qicre Cochran Road deaaends at the doo bridl-e irrigation �-,-zstrict ;anal to the r-=proval of the ;-u lic :ior'rs Department; 4. :Rad: c twenty -foot ercnt yarl be maintained the entire length of the :rontage o:.:,oc"srzn iso .c; �. 24at the iezirn cs all of-atrect ;,arr_ing fFiciiltie 'De In conformance to adopted Cit. -Ta-re-in.- .:ta nds^_: rs; p. 7nat the l:ancl ca pin:; be installed tc the arpr ovr, :f thl e � 1L;2.ic -0orkz Department; and 7. That an xutocated al -rink -ler s:.-ste= be '_riot13Ei to the a-provi of the ?ubiic c'cres ✓epartmeat. A-72-35 Sun West Swim Club i i AF•FLICATION NO. A-72-35 THIS SPACZ FOR OFFICE USE 014LY Filing Fee ) PLANNING CO1*iISSION Received By ) CITY OF LODI Receipt No. ) Date Application No. APPLICATION ` Received By j for Date VARIANCE J` ---------------) n/rev Name of Owner_ .; 11.11-SAddress ( /Pi)�e1 +— Phone ' ---i'-- -r ------ s.. ........ai .... A.id ".eca �1.�t�.i'i)•� Rd - • L � i Between 661 h 4 and f��C Street Legal Description - Acreage (Attach separate sheet if necessary) Ate. / tc r 1 -- Present Use: �f /j,'i C.�l�w�ra�— A, . -Sal lPnn; a C�k�,Zone: Cite the regulation from which a variance is sought 5•c-!' -7' J ' C �l r J ruci uc �* ' i.;J <L6( n Describe the / nature ^- and/�degree of variance sought 12" su c P �7 t/2p,�.p 7�%/'<� ir'ri+► Jd ree- / 4 C=am /4 /�7.a/i�ct/)i 4, /h'S_t'or-/c AL1,tieed 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 sha7.1 have the power to allow such adjustments from the provisions contained herein as will 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: r 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 L In ordtt that the Planning Commission may make the determinations described above is necessary that the following statements be completed: 11 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 Lel gnatur pplicant IMPORTANT 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 �•�" f Applicant notified of Commission action: Date By: t April 251, 1572 :sun. -test tennis and grim Club c/o Nr. Terry ► iazzs 4 south I-loasant Avenue Lon, California Gentlemen: :2e: Variance - :zeiuce cunt and frow 2:? fe::t to 7. feet. :t its meeting of ;:onday, Aril 24, 1372 the I,odi City Manning Commizaioa approved the request of the ;;un '-;eut senniz ani ;;tai= Club by Mr. '.Perry Auzza for a 1.% tance to reduce the required front yard from 23 feet to a ria. of ?, feet to permit the erection of a u'-foot-hiGh fence adjacent to a required cul-de-suc at the east end of Cochran oad in an area zoned N-1, 3i: rlo : amily iesiJential. In as: s^ -roving your request the Planning com-:i:wion deter- iniad that a ";toning Hrtirdahip" existed because the City of Lodi had required the cul-de-sac which encroached into the Cochran Road .front yard setback area. If the cul -se - sac had !.ot been required, a Variance wo•.Id -tot be necessary. sincerely, :'la::^ing Director 33::: kr cc: X.r. :tennis :;hechord Jr. Anthuny Ahn Y WD ft7WER K tnTo*2�! Livpi fm [, StR f • .� . • ///{�]�f�. r-�s���r� `J`y,: .�+/�C J^V, •X-��J�/J 1�/� 1 � • -•�- .J`..�� � : � •'.7'y /�.4 _• '��.r�.��J-/V. �i �:����1�•��1�•�Y"/.„"�.•� �� -- � -�i3 •C.I'. �•�•'�!/�/ tel. I-, " � .�•� -r . �j THIS SPACE FOR OFFICE USE O."LY Filing Fee 5 ----- ) Re—'_ved By Receipt No. ) Date ) r Xhn U-72-29 APFLICATION NO. PLAiFNING COVINISSION CITY OF LODI Application No. ) APPLICATION Received By ) ) for Date USE PERMIT -------------------------------------- Name of Applicant_ , ;.. • , 1' _ Address: ; �- / ��% ;/ - j - Telephone No.---..,. Between Street artd Legal Description - Acreage (attach separate sheet if necessary) : i"i, '�: •:.'= _. ��� Vic' _ •� �.7c./� % .l "J..._ �•i' Present Use Zone tr Describe the use proposed: 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 improvelaent such as 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. 1. Please describe what devices and techniques will be employed to minimize noise, smoke, cuss. fumes, vibration, odors and hazards. If applicant does not own the property in question, please have the follow- ing "Consent of Owner" signed 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 as requested in this application for a Use Permit. Date Signature of Owner Phone �-(Flailing address of Owner Signature of/ Applicant II�ORTANT --� / 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'— Applicant notified of Commission action: Date: BY: 1^ April 10, 1979 Mr. Tandy Snider '.Managing Partner Sun West Swi-- b P.acquet Club 2040 Cochran Road Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mr. Snider: RE: P-1-1E:aliENT TO USE PERMIT At its meeting of Monday, April 19, 1979 the Lodi City Planning C Commission amended the Use Permit for the Sun West .`b:im and Racquet Club 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. n, This condition is in addition to those established by the Planning Cormi.ssion 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 Sweigerdc, 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. Rieigerdt's concerns have been rectified and no further review will be necessary If we can be of any assistance to you, please feel Free to call Upon us. Sincerely, JAMES B. SCHROEDER Community Development Director JBS:bjb cc: ':r. Bruce Schweigerdt City Manager City Attorney I-, C November 16, 1978 Mr. Pandy Snider ,Managing Partner Sun West Swim b Racquat Club 2040 Cochran Road Lodi, CA 95240 Dear Mr. Snider: RE: AM=MEHT TO USE PERMIT At its meeting of Monday, November 13, 1973 the Lodi City Planning Commission amended the Use Permit for the Sem West Swim and Racquet Club to include the condition that the loudspeaker system not be used after 9.00 P.M. This additional condition Rraw 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 'a 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, JAMES B. SCHROEDER Community DevelopmentDDirector JBS:bjb cc: Mr. Bruce Schweigerdt City Manager C May 15, 1991 Lodi City Council 305 West Pine Street Lodi. CA 95240 r J . : ci Com• - "1 RE: Use Permit - U-90-30 n Facilities Expansion and Remodel Twin Arbors Athletic Club 2040 Cochran Road -77 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 delaved 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 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 ooint-- follows, and I would suggest that the Council consider each concern separately in order to facilitate comment, discussion. and an cr oftrIv 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 -r - -- .. . .. 10 due to neighbor concerns as to r_he 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 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 Anterprise 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 prior to the March memo: We the undersigned are concerned that Twin Hrbors 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 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 zonpd R-1 single-family. The property owners in those single- family homes should be the singularly -most important consideration of your action. (29 signatures repreaentinq 17 neighboring households) In his memo Mr. McNatt cites the relevant section of the Zoning Ordinance (17.09.030-5), but ends his reference by railing 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 neiphborhoodt 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 .is a private tennis and swim club. The 8/16/71 application for s r_ounty use permit. and ( the subsequent hearing clearly document this intent -it: ttie original developers. When the facility was annexed by the city in April, 197-7, it existed as a private tennis and swim club. Over the years the club as 2 14 evolved (illegally) into a "tennis, swim, and ticness ctub !emonasis added. Use Permit Aoolication, i27/11/91). There is nothinq in the records to show that .3 use permit was sought by the owners prior to i` expanding the club's operation to a "fitness center." In ract, 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.-90 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 wnen 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 Zonino 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 hignly questionable that fitness services are currently an accessory use in light of the fact that the applicants themselves have included the designation asra "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 ror calculating the parking spaces required for the oro)ect he 4oresaw this usage: Pool. 20 spaces; Tennis Courts, 276 soaces; 1_xerc2se services. 31 spaces. Clearly the proponents are seeking to develoo 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. ,ale at - other transaction involving the . . . disposition of any . . . service ror profit or livelihood. including orfice buildings. offices. ►-ecreational or amusement enterprises." Clearly, this proposed commercial facility, which will employ 10 - 12 persuns during peak usage hours. if allowed to exist within a R-1 zoned area, render-; meaningless the Zoning Orcli nance of the :I tv. If I understand the Zoning Ordinance correctly, realizing the nature T J of this proposal, the appropriate zoned district for thta project is that or' P -D (Planned Develooment) 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 for a use permit. the oroponents are recuired to file for .an Environmental Assessment. this was clone. however city staff determined that the project was categor-icaliv exempt from a formal assessment. It is my view that this exemotion was aranted erroneously. The California Environmental Quality Act does provide for cateaorlcal exemptions. however this project does not meet the criteria for exemption. When it addresses existing facilities (article !0. section 15301-e) the allowance for exemption only apoiles ir- the addition to the existing facility is no more than 50 percent or .he floor area of the structure before the addition, or 2.500 SOL.Lare feet. whichever is less: or 10,000 square feet or less :r tna area :n which the project is located is not envir-onrfientally sensiti e. The Use Permit Application which accompanied the request Cot - environmental assessment is clear in stating that the plan calix =o.• a continued present use, . with remodel of 4.500 sf :)+=luohouse with 10,300 sf of additional . facilities." These numbers simply do not allow for an exemption, and one should not have been tjeciarea. 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 tiled 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 tre 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:Q0 a.m. for the months of June. July and August and 8:00 a.m. the remainder of the year. the iF.sult of neighbor concerns. l At the February 21. 1991 meeting between the proponents and neighbors Mr. Matthels clearly stated that "The club hours will not permit outdoor recreational activity •- swimming, tennis or basketball - 4 ti be fore 8:00 am all vear . ' This statement was also i ssuea in and submitted to the Planning Commission as such (letter of ?+, addressed to Jim Schroeder). The matter of closing hours has also venerated much confusion. Because of neighbor concerns the proponents stated at the March 11 meeting that the club would close by li.} P.M.: however it is obvious now that this promise never materialiZeo in written form. In granting the use permit the Planning Commission granted the hours that the oroponents wished: 7 A.M. - li P.M.. May through August: ii A.M. - 11 P.M., the remainder of the vear. How could these closing hours possibly ;►t into a R-1 zoned distract' 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 ioublic nuisance noise) exists shall include. .whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual *or the area .arid hour. (emphasis aooed) . Also considered in this section is the .oroximity of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; the nature and the zoning or the area within which the noise emanates, etc.. (section 9.2'O.J2111)). In a later section (9.20-030) the noise ordinance establishes :t.) P.M. as the hour when noise can no longer be i.enerated. :That ;s -"- purpose of a city-wide noise ordinance calling for' a P) P.N. •standar) for noise elimination when the Planning Commission grants +-tse permit to a facility, located in the heart of a resicenti 1 ( which allows for operation until 11 P.M. TRAFFIC SAFETY Although my residence is not located on one of the streets which wt11 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 1981 the Council was confronted with another situation related to the sister facility of Twin Arbors. The problem centered around the lack o -f- proper parking spaces for the Lodi Sports Center. located on South Hutchins. One man who testaE►ed before the Council called the parking problem the biggest ;nafij -aver committed by the city's Planninq Commission. Mavor Walter katnich was especially d1 ,tLce-oec► t,v the developments stating that "Word does get around that the said proprietors of the club are having a good laugh. . . that it's the citv's problem. . . . I don't really appreciate the fact that thev think they nulled a fast one on us." C J The reporter Covering the meet:na noted that when Mr. Schroeder was asked to explain the snafu zn olannlno he said that his deoartrnent and the Planning Commissicn had little previous experience on parking requirements of such clubs wren 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 .110. Obviously. none of us knew anvthino." t-rouncil stymied by club parking woes-, Lodi News -Sentinel. March 19. 1981). There has been a lona history of problerns with these clubs. Over the past o years since Spare -Time has owned the Cochran Rd. Fac -lite it has steadily deteriorated in appearance. 4unction and use. Thev now hope to renovate the facility and turn it into a profit-making venture. There is no doubt in my mind gnat if successful in tilts 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 ar -his nature to be built in the middle of a R-1 zoned area. To allow the granting of this use permit would establish' a veru trouoltnq precedent. Sincerely, Bruce Schweigerdt, MA 747 South Mills Lodi, CA 95242 6 TO: Office of Planning and Research FW K: City of Lodi 1400 Tenth Street P.O. Box 3006 Sacramento, CA 95814 Lodi, CA 95241-1910 X County Clerk County of San Joaquin Project Title TWIN ARBORS.ATHLETIC CLUB COCHRAN ROAD FACILITY (formerly Sunwest) Project Location - Spec is 2040 Cochran Road APN 027-310-08 Project Location - City Project Location - County Lodi San Joaquin Description of Nature, 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 parrying Out Project Lodi Athletic Club - 1900 South Hutchins Street, Lodi; CA 95240 Exempt Status: (Cbeck e Ministerial (See.•21080(b)(1); 15268); Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c)). X Categorically exempt (Sec. 21084; 15300) seasons why project is ext: Section 15301 Class 1 (2)(A1 & (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. Cantaat Person Area Code Telephone Extension James B. Schroeder, Comunity Development Director (209) 333-6711 I2 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-?eceived for ling: QG Community Development Director Revised March 1986 281 May 15, 1991 Lodi City Council 305 West Pine Street is Lodi, CA 95240 RE: Use Permit - U-90-30 T Facilities Expansion and Remodel �-<t m Twin Arbors Athletic Club Q n 73 2040 Cochran Road - E! -v ;n n�n y Appeal m " 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 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 o4- 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 prior 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 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 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 zoned area, renders meaningless the Zoning Ordinar.:, of the city. If I understand the Zoning Ordinance correctly, realizing the nature 3 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 nut 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., Me; through August; 8 A.M. - 11 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 it 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 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 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." Q 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, 1981). There has been a long history of problems with these clubs. Over the past 6 years 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. PENNINO JACK A. SIECLOCK JOHN R. (Randy) SNIDER May 20, 1991 CITY OF LOD I Mr. Bruce Schweigerdt 747 South Mills Avenue Lodi, CA 95242 Dear Mr. Schweigerdt: CITY HALL, 221 WEST PINE STREET P.O. BOX 3006 LODI, CALIFORNIA 95241-1910 (209) 334-5634 FAX 1209) 333.6M 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 BOB 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 B. SCHROED PUSty 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) 334-5634 FAX (:09) 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. Reimche City Clerk ni er errin Deputy City Clerk DEC/01 TXTA.FRM CITY OF LO Q iNOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING [Date: May 15, 1991 CARNEGIE FORUM 305 West Pine Street, Lodi me: 7:30 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 Wennell, 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: -A. Alice M Re(mche "City Clerk Dated: May 15, 1991 Ap roved aW form: Bobby W. McNatt City Attorney Mff r,/Mri`i r �� • .���c��_rtltll/.I�� -,K,4 c �� 1 OWNERS NAME MAILING ADDRESS L /l / r , ♦ /. � //lam i _ or � � � � /rte' • All � • . .• � /ate .. ,W ►.. - w