Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 06-19-1995~• . Regular Meeting -June 19, 1995, A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Monday, June 19, 1995, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 by Commissioner Zika. ROLL CALL ********** Present: Commissioners Geist, Jennings, Johnson, Lockhart and Zika; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Jeri Ram, Associate Planner; Sharon Young, Planning Intern, and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. ********** PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Zika led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. ********** ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA The minutes of the May 15, 1995, meeting were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None PUBLIC HEARING ********** ********** ********** SUBJECT 8.1 PA 95-012 - Marg-ett Arts and Crafts Fairs -Conditional Use Permit approval request to allow the operation of two separate arts and crafts fairs at the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center. located at 7117-7333 Regional Street on JulXl3- 16, and December 7-10, 1995. Commissioner Zika asked for the staff report. Sharon Young, Planning Intern, presented the staff report. She gave a brief outline for the project. She mentioned potential problems, and indicated that Staff recommended approval. She asked for questions from the Commissioners. Cm. Johnson asked if, in the past, the participants have always stayed the night in RV's in the parking lot. Regular Meeting 54 June 19, 1995 {6-19pc} L_ J Ms. Young answered that yes they had, and the number and location was subject to review and approval by the Dublin Plaza Shopping Center Merchants Association and the review and approval by the Dublin Planning Department approximately 2 weeks prior to the event. Cm. Zika asked if the Applicant was present and if she had any problems with the Conditions of Approval. Marietta. Lewis, the Applicant, was present and answered no she did not have problems with the Conditions of Approval, and they had never had problems with her artists because she was very strict with them. Cm. Lockhart had a question on Condition #11, which stated Police Services indicated they should have private security, did she plan to have security? Ms. Lewis answered that security was supplied by the shopping center until about midnight. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing and asked for questions or discussion by the Commissioners. Cm. Lockhart thought they had been real good in the past and had never had a problem. On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Geist, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 95-019 APPROVING PA 95-012 MARG-ETT ARTS AND CRAFT FAIIt CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW TWO SEPARATE, FOUR-DAY ARTS AND CRAFTS FAIItS WITHIN THEDUBLIN PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT 7177-7333 REGIONAL STREET ******** SUBJECT 8.2 PA 95-017 A Creative Playschool -Conditional Use Permit for a day care center in a single family home that will have a maximum student attendance of 30 children, aces 2 through 5 years. The Center will overate Monda, t~ hrough Friday from 7:00 A.M. to 6:30 P.M. Jeri Ram, Associate Planner presented the staff report. She outlined the Playschool guidelines and hours of operation. She stated that Staff recommended 3 Conditions of Approval for the project relating to noise and child safety. She stated that there had been complaints from citizens concerning traffic along Brighton and Amador Valley Boulevard in the morning hours. She stated a traffic study had been done and that the intersection had not warranted additional traffic lights or stop signs. She pointed out that the Legislature of the State of California had adopted laws to encourage childcare facilities in residential neighborhoods. Ms. Ram stated that Staff had recommended the Planning Commission adopt the draft Resolutions approving the Negative Declaration and the Conditional Use Permit. Cm. Johnson asked how many residences were being used as daycare facilities in residential neighborhoods. Regular Meeting 55 June 19, 1995 {6-19pc} • Ms. Ram referred to a report and stated that there were approximately 22, although centers in churches and schools were grouped into this number. They also vary in size to 0-6, 7-12 and more than 12. Cm. Zika stated that those were only the licensed ones. Cm. Geist asked if there were any as large as this one. Mr. Ram stated that yes there were, and there was one other on that street, My Space to Grow, which was licensed for 25 - 30. She stated that there were maybe 3-4 more, although there were some quite a bit larger, mostly in schools or churches. Cm. Johnson asked if there had ever been any complaints. Ms. Ram stated that in the immediate area there were quite a few day care centers, and within the last 2 years, the Code Compliance Officer had not received any complaints on those centers. Cm. Zika asked if there were any complaints regarding traffic at the other daycares. Ms. Ram stated no, not in that general area; however, at a center in another area there had been one complaint about dropping off and picking up children and that the Code Compliance officer tried to work with the neighbors to resolve the issues. Cm. Zika stated that Condition # 18 concerning the two parking spaces, and the half bath in the garage were concerns of his and that in the past, the Planning Department had removed the cars, and turned the space into a play area. If that happened with this project, he wanted it to come back before the Commission for approval. Cm. Lockhart asked if the neighbors were notified of this preschool and was there going to be any signage. Ms. Ram stated yes, neighbors were notified and the signs would be limited to the normal residential project signs. Jan Zupetz, the Applicant, gave a presentation to the Commission. She outlined her and her daughters qualifications and philosophy on child care centers. She stated that she had been in the area for 21 years and wanted to provide qualified daycare for the area. She said that they were not applying for a garage conversion, and planned to keep the garage for parking cars. She stated that there is noise already on Amador Valley Boulevard and felt that the center would not add additional noise in the area. She indicated that the outside will remain residential in character. Robert Zupetz, the Applicants' husband spoke. He said they first considered a bath in the garage closet, but decided not to do it, and would still keep the garage a garage. He stated that they would make another parking space in the front for an additional parking space. Cm. Zika asked if it was going to be a residence as well as a day care. Regular Meeting 56 June 19, 1995 {6-19pc} i • The Applicant stated no, the State would not allow it and Community Care Licensing is very strict, and they were not just a baby sitting service, but a qualified daycare center. The property is vacant now and they had just owned it for a couple of months. Cm. Johnson asked if the baths were going to be made handicapped accessible. Mr. Zupetz answered they are working with the City to see what they would have to do. Cm. Jennings asked about parent conferences, when will they be held and where would they park. Ms. Zupetz answered she would set up appointments after school, and they would save one parking space for parent conferences. Cm. Jennings asked if the center would take drop-ins. Ms. Zupetz answered she would not be taking drop-ins. Cm. Geist asked if the size of their staff was based on the number of children in the center. Ms. Zupetz answered yes, Community Care Licensing has a ratio of 12:1 with a qualified teacher, or you can have an aide and a teacher with 15 children. Cm. Lockhart asked if they had a State license now. Ms. Zupetz stated they were waiting to get approval first from the City before they could go forward. Cm. Lockhart asked if they bought the property with this purpose in mind. Ms. Zupetz answered yes. Don Krekorian, 6842 Brighton, lived next door to the proposed preschool. He stated he had spoke with Ms. Ram on the project.. He stated Ms. Ram was very helpful in explaining the various policies and issues for this project. Mr. Krekorian stated he was opposed to the project for the following reasons: 1) Traffic, the intersection at Brighton and Amador Valley Boulevard is one of the busiest intersections in the City. It is heavily traveled with the three local schools in the area, and traffic is constant because of the various programs offered at these three schools. Because of this heavy traffic, cars can be backed up to approximately 10 houses. (He presented photos of the traffic); 2) Safety, he gave an example of a little boy being hit on the busy street on June 15; 3) Noise, he stated he worked from his home in the back bedroom, and presented pictures showing where his office was in his home. He asked who would monitor the 10 children in the backyard; and, 4) Property value, he purposely did not purchase a house next to a school and did not want to live near one. Mr. Krekorian offered more photos and a letter to Mr. Tong with signatures from many neighbors who opposed the project. Cm. Jennings asked what age child was hit. Mr. Krekorian answered a 4th grader. Regular Meeting 5~ June 19, 1995 {6-19pc} • • Cm. Jennings asked the Applicants if there were any plans to heighten the fence The Applicants stated if the CC and R's allowed, it she would do it. Cm. Jennings asked if once the pool was removed, would there be enough room to plant shrubs. Ms. Zupetz stated that there would be enough room. Mr. Krekorian stated he thought that there could only be an 6 foot fence in the City of Dublin. Cm. Zika stated that you could get a variance for an 8 foot fence, and asked what bedroom Mr. Krekorian worked in. Mr. Krekorian stated bedroom # 1 on the drawing. Greg Blake, 7192 Newcastle Lane, opposed the project at that particular location. He stated that there was too much traffic in the area already and that he thought it would be a dangerous situation. He stated his wife worked nights and slept during the days, and would be affected by the daycare center in that location. Allen Ownes, 6802 Amador Valley Blvd., stated that there was a daycare right across the street from him and he had witnessed the traffic effect with a smaller number of kids. He stated that there was a lot going on at one time during certain periods of the day. He felt that 12 kids, as in the day care across the street, were enough, and that 30 kids at the proposed daycare would be too much. He felt that people would be stopping traffic to try to wait for people to pull out while waiting to drop off their kids. He stated at a previous City Council meeting there was discussion on raising the speed limit on Amador Valley Boulevard, and residents were feeling the need to organize and draw the line on traffic issues. He stated that he understood that the Applicants had bought the place for solely using it for this business, and he felt that was presumptuous without the proper approval first. The residents were there first as homeowners, and although there was a need for daycare, there are real issues, such as property values, traffic concerns and safety issues that needs to be weighed against the need for a daycare at this location. Leonard DeStefano, 6825 Amador Valley Boulevard, was opposed to the project, and he felt when he approached Mr. Zupetz as a new neighbor, he was not honest on his intentions on what he was going to do with the property. A couple days later, he received a notice in the mail for the proposed daycare. Mr. DeStefano stated he worked nights and purposely bought a house away from a school so that he could sleep days. He stated that when he first bought his home, the homeowners were told that Amador Valley Boulevard would end at Stagecoach and that was not true. He told of one neighbor who was building bunkbeds and would put one out for sale, and soon the City came by and told him he could not run a business out of his home and Mr. DeStefano felt the daycare was no different. It was a business out of the home. He stated that traffic was a large issue, and cars could be left outside idling, unattended, which could cause toxic fumes in the air. He asked the Commission to soul search, and would they be comfortable with this type of business next to them. The only option that he could think of would be for the Applicant to lease or purchase a space in a commercial area or a large school. Regular Meeting 58 June 19, 1995 {6-19pc} • • James Key, 6848 Brighton Drive, shared the concerns of the previous speakers. His concerns were for the safety for the children. His home would be directly impacted by the drop-off of students. He felt that when the home would be empty, there would be the potential for crime. He felt it would be a prime target with commercial equipment in the residence. He strongly felt it would negatively impact the property values and he would not have chosen to live in that home had their been such a business like a daycare at that time. Angeline Fountain, 6980 Doreen Court, was opposed to the project. She stated that she is often in the area and had seen some of the parents dropping off their kids at Fredricksen School, and although traffic was an issue, the children would be subject to loud noise, profanity, fast cars and she felt it would not be a good environment for the children mentally, and they would be emotionally abused in this situation. Betsy Key, 6848 Brighton Drive, was opposed to the project. She agreed with the previous speakers, and questioned the traffic survey of the area, Her main concern was for the safety of the children. From the other daycare center at 6801 Amador Valley Boulevard, she has seen one adult with a trail of children walking down that busy street, and she shudders at two year olds walking down that street and felt that could happen with the proposed daycare also. Dawn Bowen, co-Applicant, stated she would never allow the children out on the corner or walking down the street. She felt that home centers had a bad reputation, and she would be running a quality daycare and the children could hardly speak at that age, and that the noise level would not be a problem. Ms. Zupetz welcomed the neighbors to approach her directly if there was a noise problem. Ms. Bowen stated that the center would be quiet for approximately 3 hours from 12 -3 while children were eating and taking a nap. Mr. Zupetz addressed the issues of the noise and he felt that it would not disturb sleep and that the street was already busy and noisy. He stated that they were not doing anything with the garage, and he never represented any thing to anybody. Cm. Zika stated that the Commission takes everybody at face value. Mr. Zupetz stated that they were willing to place an 8-foot fence with shrubs along the fence line to lessen the noise to the neighbors. Mr. Carrington stated the Commission had the option to permit up to a 12-foot fence. Cm. Jennings asked the Applicants if they had purchased the property with the contingency that they get a CUP approval. Was that in the contract? Ms. Zupetz stated no. They looked at many properties and talked with the other daycare centers in the area, and felt this was the perfect location and that there was a need. Cm. Jennings asked if they knew how long it took for the other daycare's to reach their maximum number of children. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting 59 June 19, 1995 {6-19pc} • Ms. Zupetz stated she did not know. Mr. Zupetz stated that they talked with My Space to Grow and there was a garage conversion at that site. Ms. Bowen stated there was a need for quality daycare and she wanted to do what was best for children. Cm. Geist asked Staff how big My Space to Grow was. Ms. Ram stated 20 or 25. Ms. Ram clarified that 6801 Amador Valley Boulevard was Matilda's daycare with 12 children and was a different center than My Space to Grow. Randy Zugnoni, 6854 Brighton Drive, was opposed to the project, and although the noise would not affect him, he stated that they had no control over the parents dropping off kids during the day and where they would park. He felt with two busy streets, there would be too many uncontrolled situations. Ms. Zupetz stated that they could state in a parent hand book that parents be concerned over parking and drop-off issues. Cm. Zika stated that no matter what action the Planning Commission took, it could be appealed. Ms. Ram stated that any decision taken by the Commission could be appealed within 10 days. Cm. Johnson asked Staff about traffic issues, and why they did not indicate that there would be a traffic issue. Mr. Thompson, Director of Public Works, addressed the traffic issues. He stated that the traffic study done in January gave the number of 800-1100 every hour and 30 more would not effect traffic that much more. Cm. Jennings asked what streets were included in that count. Mr. Thompson stated that was a count for all three streets approaching that intersection. Cm. Jennings stated most concerns were for parking and dropping kids off, could there be other options, like have someone out there to get the children signed in and out and then escort the children into the facility. Mr. Zupetz stated that there was more than one parking space in front of the. property. Mr. Thompson stated you could fit two parking spaces if you parked in front of the driveway. But there were two more on the Brighton side. Regular Meeting 60 June 19, 1995 {6-19pc} Mr. Krekorian asked that the Planning Commission take a look and survey other daycare facilities in town, and note that most people drop their kids off before 8:00 because they have to be at work by 8:00. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Cm. Lockhart stated he had been involved in dropping off kids at daycare facilities, and parking was a problem. Cm. Zika stated he was concerned over dropping off kids, and felt there was too much traffic in that area. He felt that there were no mitigating factors that address traffic concerns. Cm. Lockhart stated although there was a need for daycare in the area, he felt that this was not a good location. Cm. Johnson asked Staff if there were any daycare that had closed in the City within the last year. Mr. Carrington stated that he did not know of any. Cm. Jennings stated she was more concerned about traffic, and less with the noise level. She said she was impressed with the opposition against the daycare. She tended to agree with the traffic concerns, and was concerned that the Applicants purchased the home first without the proper approvals. Cm. Geist asked the Applicants if they did not have a license now, how long would it take to get one. The Applicant stated they would have to get the facility ready, have every stick of furniture in place, fill the pool, and Community Care Licensing does not come out until the very end, and it takes approximately 2-3 months Cm. Zika asked if as individuals, they were properly licensed. The Applicants stated yes. Cm. Johnson asked what could be done to help with the traffic situation. Mr. Thompson stated there was one stop sign on Brighton and one at Penn. Cm. Johnson stated he had received two tickets for going 30 mph and felt the area was regularly patrolled. Mr. Thompson stated that putting in a stop sign when the warrants were not met causes accidents because people tend to run those stop signs. Cm. Johnson asked if there would be a pick up lane in front of the house. Regular Meeting 61 June 19, 1995 {6-19pc} Mr. Thompson stated there was only enough room for a bike lane, and traffic lane, but not a drop-off and pick-up lane. The Planning Commission had a discussion on the traffic issues. Mr. Thompson stated that the center could direct parents to drop kids off on Brighton and not on Amador Valley Boulevard. Cm. Zika stated that he dropped his grandchild off in a cul-de-sac and people park two or three deep and that's with no traffic. A motion was made by Cm. Jennings to approve the project. Motion died for lack of a 2nd. On motion by Cm. Geist, seconded by Cm. Lockhart, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously denied PA 95-017 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE CENTER IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT WILL HAVE A MAXIMUM STUDENT ATTENDANCE OF 30 CHILDREN, AGES 2 THROUGH 5 YEARS. Cm. Zika stated the Applicant had 10 days to appeal to City Council. Cm. Zika declared a 5 minute recess. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS SUBJECT 9.1 1995-1996 Update to the 1994-1999 Capital Improvement Program Rich Ambrose, City Manager, explained the Capital Improvement Program to the new Planning Commissioners, he outlined the new capital improvement projects to the Planning Commission and focused on the new projects, but would answer any other questions the Planning Commissioners may have. He stated there may be a need to expand the Police Services area when new staff are hired when Eastern Dublin takes off. That would be the only Public Works related project. In respect to community improvements, the sidewalk safety is a maintenance program, which has historically been done since 1982. In the Parks and Recreations renovation area, the Dublin Sports Ground renovation which had been identified in last years' program, and that they have done some work on that project. There are also three maintenance projects: the swim center deck repair, Shannon center floor cover replacement that must be done for safety purposes, and a graffiti related item which refers to the Shannon center window replacement. Cm. Zika stated that the redecking at the swim center was done in 1990 and did it have to be done again. Does the contractor have any liability. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting 62 June 19, 1995 {6-19pc} • Mr. Ambrose stated that it was no longer under warranty, and it was due to the soil expansion and problems they have with the soil there. There was a large amount of money spent on the pool and at Heritage Center, and as they get older, they require more maintenance. Mr. Ambrose stated that in the unfunded section, there was one new project, the Valley High School community gymnasium project. The Parks and Community Services Commission identified that as a high priority item, and it would enhance recreational facilities on school district property and was in keeping with the General Plan Policy. Mr. Ambrose stated that the Street Program was the largest portion of the Capitol Improvement Program. There is a street maintenance program, Dublin Boulevard widening project, Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Study, Street Light Acquisition Program, Doughtery Road Improvements, Alamo Channel Bike Path, Dublin Boulevard Improvements (Clark Avenue to Sierra Court), Traffic Signal Coordination Project, Dublin Boulevard Improvements to Silvergate and Traffic Signals on Village Parkway have been deferred, and the last item was the Eastern Dublin Arterial Plan Lines. Cm. Zika asked in the Parks area it states insufficient funding within the CIP timeframe, and May Park has been on the list for 8 years. Mr. Ambrose stated that priorities change and most monies received are obtained through development and Park in-lieu fees. Cm. Zika asked if the Commission would need a consensus vote. Mr. Ambrose stated that he would need a vote from the Planning Commission indicating that the Capital Improvement Program was in conformance with the General Plan, with the exception of the Dublin Boulevard/Sierra Court/Clark Avenue project, which they could recommend the request of the City Councils consideration to initiate a General Plan Amendment for that segment of Dublin Boulevard, which would come back through the Planning Commission. On motion by Cm. Jennings, seconded by Cm. Lockhart ,and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted the 1995-1996 Update to the 1994-1999 Capital Improvement Program Section 9.2 PA 95-021 Conformity of location, purpose and extent of disposition of real property owned by the Alameda County Surplus Property Authority with the Dublin General Plan. This report is required by the Government Code. Section 65402(b), whenever a county wishes to dispose of land. Alameda County has determined this land to be surplus and will dispose of it for residential develo ment purposes consistent with the Dublin General Plan. Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner presented the staff report. He stated that Staff recommended approval of the draft Resolution and Exhibit B. Cm. Jennings asked if attachment 3 was just a portion by the creek. Mr. Carrington stated yes, west of Tassajara Creek, south of transit spine, east of neighborhood commercial land, north of Dublin Boulevard. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Regular Meeting 63 June 19, 1995 {6-19pc} • Cm. Jennings asked if there was a cost incurred. Cm. Zika stated that the cost is already in the Plan. On motion by Cm. Lockhart, seconded by Cm. Jennings, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No. 95-20 APPROVING PA 95-21 CONFORMITY OF LOCATION, PURPOSE AND EXTENT OF DISPOSITION OF REAL PROPERTY OWNED BY THE ALAMEDA COUNTY SURPLUS PROPERTY AUTHORITY WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN. THIS REPORT IS REQUIRED BY THE GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 65402(B), WHENEVER A COUNTY WISHES TO DISPOSE OF LAND. ALAMEDA COUNTY HAS DETERMINED THIS LAND TO BE SURPLUS AND WILL DISPOSE OF IT FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES CONSISTENT WITH THE DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN OTHER BUSINESS Cm. Zika asked what color the Petco building was going to be. Mr. Carrington said they were going to leave it the color that you see. Cm. Jennings asked about all the colors they saw at the meetings. Mr. Carrington stated that was for the signs, but the trim would be as shown on the color layout that was presented to the Commission. Cm. Zika stated that was your basic ugly building. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ********** Respectfully submitted, r lanning C mmissio airperson ATTEST: ~~~"""' Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting 64 June 19, 1995 {6-19pc}