Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-26-2011 PC MinutesPlanning Commission Minutes Tuesday, July 26, 2011 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin .Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, July 26, 2011, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Brown called the meeting to order at 7:03:11 PM . Present: Chair Brown; Vice Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners O'Keefe and Bhuthimethee; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Planning Manager; John Bakker, City Attorney; Marnie Waffle, Senior Planner; Norman Weisbrod, Planning Consultant; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Schaub ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - On a motion by Cm. Wehrenberg, seconded by Cm. O'Keefe the minutes of the July 12, 2011 meeting were approved. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - 8.1 PLPA-2011-00013/00014 Montessori Plus Day Care Center Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. Norman Weisbrod, Planning Consultant, presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. He stated that he spoke with Maria Chavez, a .resident at 11854 Silvergate Drive who was not able to attend the meeting. She is concerned with traffic, parking, security for the children, and noise. Cm. Wehrenberg asked Mr. Weisbrod to explain 60 dba which is the level of noise expected. Mr. Weisbrod explained that 60 dba is the level that the Noise Element of the General Plan states is an acceptable noise level in a residential neighborhood. He stated a study was done using information from another similar day care center. The study indicated the noise level would not exceed 60 dba. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what type of finish is on the building. ~~~~~~ 92 Mr. Weisbrod answered the building is finished in stucco and has been recently painted. He continued that the landscaping and the building are in good condition. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Rupa Norain and Ada Wong, .Applicants, spoke in favor of the project. They stated that they are currently located in a shopping center and propose to move to the new site. They stated that they will have up to 60 children which is the maximum number of children allowed by the state licensing board. They continued they serve families from San Ramon, Dublin and Pleasanton. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if they will have the same age range of children. Ms. Norain answered yes. Chair Brown asked if their current facility on San Ramon Rd. is comparable in size to the new location. Ms. Norain stated the new building is slightly larger. Chair Brown asked how the parking compares. Ms. Norain felt it is a better situation for parking. Ms. Wong continued .that in 1996 the City approved a CUP which required 6 loading and unloading parking spaces directly in front of the school with a 15 minute time restriction. She also stated that the drop off and pick up times are staggered. She continued at the new location it could be possible to send their staff out to meet the parents at the driveway to speed the process of drop off during the busiest times of day. Chair Brown asked, under California licensing, what are the requirements for supervising the children outside. Ms. Norain answered the ratio is 1-12 and they have sufficient staff. Cm. Wehrenberg stated, based on the Written Statement, 50% of the children will leave between11:45am and 12:30pm every day and asked if that will continue. Ms. Wong answered yes. She stated that most of the children are part-time and they only offer part time sessions in the morning. The rest of the children are full-time day care. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what the business is across the street on Dublin Green. Ms. Wong answered it is an insurance office and a 7/11 store. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked the architect how many trees will be removed. The architect answered three trees will be removed to make room for the play area. Cm. Bhuthimethee thought there were 4 trees being removed. - -~.~~ :.ya,rra<t~ 93 .a~t~y z~; zaz ~ The architect answered yes, three plus a small tree will be removed close to the new ramp. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked if the ramp will be built with a foundation or peers. The architect answered the ramp will be concrete with a foundation. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned about the closeness of the trees to the ramp. The architect answered that one of the .trees is close to the ramp and offered to do some tree protection and felt since it was a large tree it would be OK. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that if the ramp is installed close to the trees they would not survive, therefore, there would be six trees removed instead of three. She asked how many trees he is planning to install The architect answered they would install three big trees and two small trees, but. offered to plant more. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked what species the trees would be. The architect was unsure of the existing tree species. Ms. Norain stated they were planning to plant evergreen shrubs or trees. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that if the Applicant is removing 6 trees, they should install 6 trees of large canopy size. She stated the Commission would like to maintain the urban forest in Dublin. The architect stated they would consider a cedar tree or something similar. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked about the finish of the retaining wall to be installed and asked if the fence will be on top of the wall. The architect answered a portion of the fence will be on top of a low retaining wall/high curb and then the rest of the fence on the concrete curb. Cm. Bhuthimethee commented that in some areas the wall is a few feet tall. The architect answered only when it wraps around to the main entrance on the south side. Cm. Bhuthimethee and the architect discussed the fence and its size and. make up. She asked if the concrete wall could match the. stucco finish of the building. The architect answered the building has wood siding on it as well. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt that some of the concrete wall in front doesn't complement the building. The architect agreed they could do a medium sand blast for a nicer finish. Cm. Bhuthimethee felt a colored concrete or stucco finish to match would be nice. She asked what color the fence is. ~ar;, . r~ ~~.;,a~ .~`~~ 26; ~£~~1 ~t~~ 94 The architect answered black. Cm. Bhuthimethee and the architect discussed the paint color and its ability to withstand weather. Cm. Wehrenberg stated there is landscaping in front of the fencing. Cm. Bhuthimethee was concerned about how it looks in the area where there is no landscaping and the wall is right on the sidewalk. She recommended setting the wall back a minimum of 3 feet. Jose Rivera, resident at 11889 Dublin Green Drive, spoke in opposition to the project on behalf of himself and 18 property owners in the neighborhood. They are concerned with traffic and felt that 60 additional cars and area residents driving in the vicinity will create hazardous conditions for drivers and children. He stated parking is very limited in the area with residents of the nearby apartment complex parking there. He felt that liquor sales at the 7/11 store and drinking in the parking lot could also create a safety hazard. He was unsure if there are restrictions regarding the distance between a school and liquor sales. He is also concerned with noise and felt the playground will be too close to nearby homes and would cause a problem. Cynthia Santos, resident at 7749 Woodren Court, spoke in opposition to the project. She was concerned about traffic and the drop off and pick up areas, with limited visibility in the area. She stated Dublin Green is overflow parking for the apartment complex, the 7/11 and employees of the adjacent office building. Cm. Bhuthimethee asked her to explain where the limited visibility is located on the site. Ms. Santos pointed out on the drawing the area of limited visibility. She continued that the roofline is very low and would also limit visibility at the driveway. Ms. Santos was concerned about the safety of the children in the play area on a major boulevard. She felt they were not specific regarding the types of renovations to be done and was concerned about lead poisoning because of the age of the building. She stated her main concerns are traffic and parking. Chair Brown asked if she knew of any accidents in the area because of the traffic. Ms. Santos answered yes; there have been numerous accidents in the area. She continued she did not feel this building is suited for a day care center. Terry Leoni, a former resident at 11890 Silvergate Drive, spoke in opposition to the project on behalf of her parents. She was concerned that there was no public outreach to inform the neighbors of this project and that Staff has recommended .approval without input from the neighbors.. She felt the site was too small for a day care center. She was concerned with the noise and felt that the .noise study that compared another day care center in another area does not compare to this site because they were not in a residential neighborhood. She felt there is limited visibility at the driveway and did not feel there were 24 parking spaces on the property. She encouraged the Commission to visit the site to see how small it is. She felt that cars would _~ 95 be coming in and out of the driveway all day bng and the congestion would be unimaginable. She mentioned the other agenda item that had a lot of information regarding the environmental impacts but similar information was not available on this item. She felt this was not an acceptable site for a day care center and that the pictures shown in the presentation did not show the impact to the neighborhood. Ms. Norain stated that not all 60 children will be in the playground at the same time. She stated they have a very structured schedule during the day time; one hour in the morning from 11-12 1/3 of the children are outside in 2 groups of 20-30, not all at the same time. She continued that during the afternoon there are only 10 children outside for approximately 30 minutes. She stated there are staggered drop off and pick up times. The parents drop off the children from 7:30am until 9:30am; there would. not be 60 cars arriving at the same time. The full-time parents drop off the children between 7:30am and 8:OOam and never stay longer than 5 minutes. She continued the parking lot will. be safely supervised with lots of parking. She continued that up to 10 parents carpool with 2-3 children and they encourage carpooling. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if the CA State license board looks at the proximity of the school to a liquor store or those types of businesses. Ms. Norain stated they contacted the state board before making the decision to purchase the building and they were OK with it. Cm. Wehrenberg asked if they have visited the site. Ms. Norain answered no; the licensing board requires approval before making a visit. Jeff Baker, Planning Manager mentioned that one of the Conditions of Approval is to obtain the permit and supply a copy to the City prior to opening for business. Chair Brown closed the public hearing. Cm. Wehrenberg stated that she lives in the area and is familiar with it. She agreed with Ms. Santos that the vegetation in the area is hazardous; the driveway is narrow and felt that improvements would need to be made in order to access the driveway. She asked if the City has evaluated the driveway at the site. Mr. Baker answered that the Public Works Department reviewed access to the site and the traffic situation. He stated it is an existing driveway; the playground and landscaping on the right side maintains visibility; the driveway provides clear visibility from the left side; but the right side is a bit more constrained because of the neighbor's backyard that is adjacent to it. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned there are two access points to the 7/11 with cars driving fast to access Silvergate Drive. She felt that drivers would have to make a right or U-turn at the Stop sign because it would be difficult to make a left turn onto Dublin Blvd from the site. She felt that would create an unsafe condition and thought that adding signage as Condition of Approval would be helpful. She is aware of the overflow parking from the apartments and felt that issue would need to be addressed with signage as well. ,~~r_ _.,~,~ara~~_._.--._~ ~ ,s '1t 96 Cm. Wehrenberg stated she had a problem making a couple of the findings for the Site Development Review. She was not sure it is physically suitable for the intensity with the traffic situation unless the City could address it with additional conditions on the project. Chair Brown asked if Cm. Wehrenberg's suggestion to add signage is applicable to the findings regarding intensity of the use. Cm: Wehrenberg felt that the City needs to address the issue and suggested continuing the item to address it or add a condition depending on the Commission vote. Mr. Baker asked if she meant a "right turn only" sign out of the Sivlergate driveway. Cm. Wehrenberg answered yes. Mr. Baker suggested the condition would state `work with city staff to have signage installed." Cm. Wehrenberg agreed and stated the area is a heavily used road which creates hazards. She also wanted to address the accidents that have occurred and asked if the Police reviewed the project and did not have a problem with the intensity. Mr. Baker answered both the Police and Public Works have reviewed the project and it is consistent with the office use as the building was intended and designed for. Cm. O'Keefe felt he could make the findings regarding parking, traffic and noise and was comfortable with staff's recommendation. He felt that the school would take into consideration the safety of the children in that their school's reputation depends on the quality of service being provided. He felt that if the Applicant is comfortable and Staff is comfortable with the land use then he is comfortable as well. He stated that he has driven the property, with his SUV, and felt that the driveway was narrow but sufficient for the use. Chair Brown asked if he wanted to add a condition. Cm. O'Keefe answered no. Cm. Bhuthimethee was most concerned with traffic and the driveway. She stated she would like to add a condition regarding the trees because she could not make the findings that the project complies with landscaping and fencing regulations which says that this would enhance the aesthetic appearance of the development and felt that it needs more enhancement. She felt that removing the trees would not enhance the building. She also felt that having the wall match the building and requiring a setback of the wall and fence from the sidewalk would provide more space for landscaping. Chair Brown asked which finding she was referring to. Cm. Bhuthimethee answered the landscaping considerations under the SDR. She recommended adding a condition which states: "setback the wall a minimum of 2 feet and provide evergreen shrub of a minimum 32" type along the entirety of the wall." ,.:r~ ~7 Cm. Bhuthimethee stated if the Applicant is removing 6 trees, they should replace them with 6 large canopy trees elsewhere on the site and they should work with Staff to determine the species of tree. Cm. Wehrenberg felt that adding shrubbery where the wall curves could create a visibility problem. A discussion followed regarding the traffic and direction of the traffic from the driveway. Mr. Baker stated that the Public Works Department reviewed the corner element for the "clear vision triangle" maintaining the visibility and he confirmed with the City Engineer that it does meet the City standards. He stated that both the landscaping and fence are outside the."clear vision triangle." Chair Brown asked the Commissioners if they agreed with Cm. Wehrenberg's recommendation to add signage regarding "right turn only" -the Commissioners agreed. Cm. Bhuthimethee recommended conditioning the Applicant to work with City Staff on the installation of 32 inch evergreen shrubs along the wall. Chair Brown agreed with Staff's finding that this project be found categorically exempt from CEQA. He stated that except for one finding in the SDR Item D, he could make all other findings. Mr. Baker asked Chair Brown if he cannot meet finding D in the SDR. Chair Brown answered he could not make the findings without the added signage. Mr. Baker asked if with signage the Commissioners could meet the findings. The Commissioners agreed. Cm. Wehrenberg felt there should be a condition added to include signage prohibiting the apartment dwellers from parking in the project parking lot. Mr. Baker stated that this would be a civil issue and the City could also work on a code enforcement case if there are abandoned vehicles that are parked there. Mr. Baker offered the following suggested language for the proposed conditions to be added: 1. signage to address the findings - `5~rork with City Staff to provide a `right turn only'sign at the driveway exit on Silvergate Drive." 2. Retaining wall shall have integral color and sand finish to match the building. 3. Retaining wall shall be setback a minimum of 2 feet from the back of the sidewalk. 4. Provide minimum 32" evergreen shrubs adjacent to the wall. 5. Plant 6 large canopy trees within the landscape area elsewhere on the site. ~ ~ _~~~~ 2~s ~~J1I 98 On a motion by Cm. O'Keefe and seconded by Cm. Bhuthimethee, on a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Schaub absent, and with the conditions added as stated by Jeff Baker, Planning Manager, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted: RESOLUTION NO. 11- 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FOR THE MONTESSORI PLUS DAY CARE CENTER LOCATED AT 11900 SILVERGATE DRIVE (APN 941-0103-011-01) PLPA-2011-00013/00014 Chair Brown called a recess at 8:00 PM. 8:11:57 PM called back to order. 8.2 Appeal of a Community Development Director .Determination regarding Section 8.76.040.M.2 (Small Tenant Space) and Interpretation regarding Section 8.40.030.G.6 (Retail Sales} as they relate to the proposed Sahara Market expansion at 6783/6777 Dublin Boulevard. Chair Brown asked if the Applicant is in attendance. Chair Brown opened the public hearing. Jay Fink, Appellant requested a continuance on the item so that it can be heard by the full Commission. Chair Brown stated the request for continuance must be approved by the Commission. Mr. Baker stated that it is at the discretion of the Commission whether they would like to continue the item or hear it tonight. He stated that the Commission could give the attendees the opportunity to speak tonight if they wish. He also stated that the code requires that the Commission hear an appeal within 45 days of the filing. He stated that in order to continue the 'rtem the Appellant must waive the 45 day requirement because the next meeting is after the expiration of the 45 day period. Chair Brown asked the Appellant if he would like to waive the 45 day requirement. Mr. Fink answered yes. Cm. Wehrenberg mentioned that when the item is on the agenda again the entire Commission may not be in attendance and that is a risk that the Appellant must accept. Mr. Fink conferred with his consultant and then agreed and requested the. continuance. „~~- ,~~rty~~,; ~C~#.f .,~~ 99 On a motion by Chair Brown the Planning Commission voted unanimously to continue the item to the meeting of August 9, 2011. RESOLUTION NO. 11-XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN AFFIRMING THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION REGARDING SECTION 8.76.040.M.2 (SMALL TENANT SPACE) AND INTERPRETATION REGARDING SECTION 8.40.030.G.6 (RETAIL SALES) AS THEY RELATE TO THE PROPOSED SAHARA MARKET EXPANSION 6783/6777 DUBLIN BOULEVARD (APN 941-0205-001-56) Mr. Baker mentioned that the speakers have the right to speak tonight if they want to or they may wait until the August 9th meeting. Chair Brown asked the speakers if they would like to speak now or wait for the August 9th meeting. Hamed Rasti spoke in favor of the project. He stated he is a client of Sahara Market and was surprised to learn of the issue. He felt that City Councils should support small businesses more than major food chains. He felt that Sahara Market brings revenue to the City as well as culture. He stated that it is difficult for the Middle Eastern communities to find the kinds of foods they like to eat. He felt that Sahara Market's food and service are both great. He was hoping that the City would make it easier on small businesses compared to large food chains. He continued based on reviewing the report and trying to understand the city code he hoped that the code would be applied to all businesses equally. He supports the expansion because of the employment opportunities and the increased tax revenue for the City. Chair Brown asked if anyone else would like to address the Commission on this item. Seeing none Chair Brown closed the public hearing. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS -NONE OTHER BUSINESS -NONE 10.1 Brief INFORMATION ONLY reports from the Planning Commission and/or Staff, including Committee Reports and Reports by the Planning Commission related to .meetings attended at City Expense (AB 1234). ADJOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 8:20:24 PM ~,~r .~ -4~, , ~ 100 Respectfully submitted, G.- ~. Alan Brown Chair Planning Commission ATTEST: f: ~;. Jeff Bat er Planning Manager 101