Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-22-1999 PC MinutesA regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, June 22, 1999, in the Dublin Civic Center City Council Chambers. Chairperson Jennings called the meeting to order at 7:08. .ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners, Jennings, Johnson, Hughes, and Musser, Eddie Peabody Jr., Community Development Director; Dennis Carrington, Sr. Planner; Buzz Kalkowski, Code Enforcement Officer; and Gaylene Burkett, Recording Secretary. Rich Ambrose, City Manager was present for the first public hearing. Absent: Cm. Oravetz PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Cm. Jennings led the Commission, Staff, and those present in the pledge of allegiance to the flag. The minutes from the June 8, 1999 were approved as submitted. ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None WRITTEN COMMUNICATION - None PUBLIC HEARING - Mr. Peabody stated there was a letter to the Planning Commission from the school district and staff would draft a letter to respond to the school district letter. 8.1 1998-2003 Capital Improvement Program Update Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Mr. Ambrose, City Manager presented the staffreport. He stated that last year the Planning Commission determined that the projects in the 1998-2003 Capital Improvement Program were in conformity with the General Plan. He explained that every other year the City prepares a new 5-year Capital Improvement document; and the City is preparing an update to the document prepared last year. In accordance with the Government Code, the Planning Commission's role is to determine whether the Public Works Department is in conformance with the City's General Plan. The staff report in tonight's packet identifies the projects that were not in the Capital Improvement program last year. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions. Planning Commission 75 June 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Jennings asked if the Commission's job is to make sure that all of the issues in the Capital Improvement Program are within the General Plan guidelines. Mr. Ambrose stated yes, the Public Works projects that are to be built within the fiscal year. Cm. Jennings asked if the air conditioning for the Civic Center is one of the items under the Capital Improvement Program. Mr. Ambrose explained that there is a building replacement fund for all major building components which is not part of the Capital Improvement Program. Cm. Jennings commended staff on an excellent job in preparing the CIP update. She asked if there were any questions from the Commission, hearing none she closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Oravetz absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 99-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN FINDING THAT THE 1998-2003 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) UPDATE OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ADOPTED CITY OF DUBLIN GENERAL PLAN 8.2 Tri-Valley SPCA, Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review and Development Agreement to be continued to the July 27, 1999 Planning Commission meeting. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Musser, and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Oravetz absent, the Th-Valley SPCA was continued to the July 27, 1999 meeting. 8.3 PA 99-022 Loretta's Hair Salon/Massage Establishment Request for Conditional Use Permit to establish a Massage Establishment Message Establishment in a 1200 square foot existing tenant space at 7417 Amador Valley Boulevard. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Buzz Kalkowski presented the staff report. He gave a brief description of the project. He stated the project is located at 7417 Amador Valley Blvd. He stated this was an established business and explained how the massage establishment worked. He stated the CUP required a police permit and a masseurs permit. A public notice was sent out to the surrounding businesses and residents. He stated that the City departments of Building, Fire, Police, Zoning and Public Works reviewed the application and did not have any issues or concerns. The Police Department gave the establishment a verbal approval on their permit. He stated staff recommends approval of this project subject to the conditions attached to the staff report. Cm. Hughes asked if the Police Department requires a formal approval before the Commission can approve the project. Mr. Kalkowski said there are actually two permits issued; one is a CUP from the Planning Department and the other is masseurs permit from the Police Department. Planning Commission 76 June 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Mr. Peabody explained that the Commission needs to approve the use before the Police Department issues the actual permit. He stated that the applicant and staff have talked to the Police Department. Mr. Kalkowski stated that one of the conditions in the resolution is for the applicant to get permits from the Police Department. Cm. Jennings asked if the applicants wanted to address the Commission or if anyone had any further questions; hearing none she closed the public hearing. On motion by Cm. Hughes, seconded by Cm. Musser, and with a vote of 4-0-1, with Cm. Oravetz absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING PA 99-022 LORETTA'S ItAIR SALON CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN A 1200 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL TENANT SPACE LOCATED AT 7417 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD. 8.4 PA 99-014 Munchkin Daycare Request for Conditional Use Permit for a day care center in a single family home that will have a maximum of 30 Children. This project would expand the day care facility at this address from 14 to 30 children. Cm. Jennings asked for the staff report. Mr. Carrington presented the staff report and two letters to the Planning Commission that he received after packets were delivered. He stated that the Applicants, Jay and Sushma Krishna are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to increase the number of children to 30. They are currently operating the Day Care with 12 children. The facility would be the primary use within an existing single family residence in the Planned Development Zoning District with R-1 Single Family Residential as the underlying zoning with a 7,000 square foot lot size at 11586 Alegre Drive. The Planning Commission permitted the expansion of this facility from a Small Family Day Care for 6 children to a Large Family Day Care for 12 children on February 24, 1998. The applicants and two employees would operate the facility. The Krishna's have one child in the facility and the employees have three children, resulting in space for twenty-six additional children. The day care center would operate from 7:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. He determined that the noise of children would be relatively slight. He stated that the traffic impacts were studied, and if there were several people there at one time, it could create some problems. He stated that he observed the site and noticed that three cars were there at the same time, and there weren't any problems. He stated that the driveway has room for three cars and possibly six if the cars are tandem parked. He stated that the occupants would have ample parking in front of the center and on the street to meet the parking demands. The drop-off period would be changed from 7:15 to 9:00 to 7:00 to 9:30 and people would be limited to stay 10 minutes. He observed that the average stay was 3-4 minutes per person. The applicant has proposed an agreement that would be signed by each parent using the center to abide by the conditions. Staff feels parking and traffic would meet the needs of 20 children, not 30. He felt 30 kids would be 2 V: times the impact that is currently there. I4e stated that staffrecommends approval of 20 kids at this time, and to consider 30 kids in a year or so. Cm. Johnson stated that they could only park three cars in the driveway; six cars would block the sidewalk, which is against City policies. They can't park in the garage, because part of the garage is a playroom and the other part is used for storage. Mr. Carrington stated that was correct. Planning Commission 77 June 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Hughes asked how many employees would be there on a regular basis. Mr. Carrington stated two employees. There would be three employees for 30 children. Cm. Hughes asked the ages of the children. Mr. Carrington stated they are pre-school kids and some school age kids that would be there after school. Cm. Hughes asked if the ratio of one adult per ten children is correct. Mr. Carrington was not sure and the applicant could address that during her presentation. Cm. Johnson asked how this project applies to the ordinance under home business. Mr. Carrington stated it is a Conditional Use Permit and is not addressed by the home occupation section of the ordinance. He stated that the State of California has gone on record to encourage the provision of daycare and to treat it in the form of a small family daycare of six or fewer children. When it goes beyond 6 children it is then ok for jurisdictions to treat it as a conditional use. Cm. Jennings explained how the public hearing process is conducted. She asked for the people speaking before the Commission to state their name, address and whether they are in favor or opposed to the proposed project. She asked the audience to not be argumentative and to not speak among themselves. She asked if the applicant was available. Nandini Shridhar represented Mrs. Krishna of Munchkin Care. She stated that she didn't have many comments and thanked Mr. Carrington for doing such a great job of explaining all the details. She stated that the parking and mitigation plan they proposed addresses all of the concerns that the neighbors have. She asked the City to reconsider their position and approve their original request of 30 children. The project sponsor has several parents waiting to enroll their children into Munchkin Care. She has observed the parking and the driveway can accommodate six cars at a time. She stated there is a proposal to expand the driveway to the left, which will provide an additional, parking space. Munchkin Care currently has 14 children and 4 belong to the owner and the employees. Of the 16 additional children, 8 will be school age children. She stated that Mrs. Krishna is going to request that the parents of the school children to park on Amarillo Drive and not to come into the cul-de-sac. Staff has determined in the Negative Declaration that the proposed expansion would not have any impacts on traffic, safety or parking in the cul-de-sac. She concluded her presentation and asked if anyone had any questions. Cm. Jennings asked how many infants would there be. Ms. Shridhar stated there would be four infants. Cm. Jennings asked how many pre-school children were currently at Munchkin Care. Mrs. Krishna responded six children. Cm. Jennings asked what time the Nielsen Children arrive in the afternoon. Mrs. Krishna said it depends on the early bird, late bird schedule. There are kids who get out at I:00 and some that get out at 3:00. Cm. Jennings asked if most of the school age children are kindergartners. Mrs. Krishna responded from kindergarten to second grade. Cm. Jennings asked if they would increase the number of employees since there are four infants. Planning Commission 78 June 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Mrs. Krishna stated that would depend on the licensing requirements. The State has very stringent requirements for infants. They require 35 square feet of play space, and a separate room for the cribs. Cm. Jennings asked if there is a designated bedroom downstairs. Mrs. Krishna stated it is a single story home. Cm. Jennings is concerned with the children only being outside at 3:00. Mrs. Krishna said they are required to provide a schedule to the State and the children would be let out from 3:00 to 5:00. Ia the morning they would stagger the kids playing outside. Cm. Jennings asked if snacks or meals are provided for the kids. Mrs. Krishna said she considered signing up for the food and nutrition program, but there are a variety of children from different backgrounds. She said the parents provide the snacks and the lunch. Cm. Jennings asked how would they enforce that the parent's cars do not pile up. Mrs. Krishna stated that they are not living in the home, and there are two parking spaces in the garage. Two of her employees have small children, and they will park in the garage. She stated that she is the only person who is licensed to open and close the center and she will park on Amarillo or Hansen Drive. She said that they have never had more than three parents there at the same time. Cm. Musser asked what the State guidelines are on the amount of space per child. Mrs. Krishna stated 35 square feet inside and 75 square feet outside. For the infants the crib space is different than the play space. Cm. Musser asked the square footage of the house. Mrs. Krishna responded approximately 1,800 square feet. Cm. Hughes asked how many instructors are required per child. Mrs. Krishna stated that for the ages of 0-2, it is one instructor per four infants; for pre-school kids ages 2-5 it is one instructor per 12 kids, ages 6 and up it is one instructor to 14 children. Cm. Hughes stated that they would need at least three to four instructors. Mrs. Krishna stated that if they were to hire more staffmembers, they would not be allowed to park on Alegre Drive. Cm. Johnson asked if the children from Nielsen are dropped offat her facility before school. Mrs. Krishna said yes. She escorts them to and from school. Cm. Johnson stated he was not fond of the employees parking on Amarillo because the parking spaces are generally for the people who live in the area. Employees should park at the daycare property and then they would not annoy the residents. That will limit the number of parking spaces for parents dropping off or picking up. The driveway is not long enough for six cars and it would block the sidewalk and may put Mrs. Krishna in a position of liability. Planning Commission 79 June 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Hughes asked if the municipal code prohibits tandem parking in Dublin. Mr. Carrington stated the Zoning Ordinance does not allow tandem parking to meet parking requirements. Mr. Peabody stated that the Lube & Latte project had a form of tandem parking but the project was not approved. There is some flexibility on parking standards for unusual circumstances. Cm. Hughes asked if there are any unusual circumstances that would allow tandem parking for this project. Mr. Carrington stated no; there has to be one parking space for each employee, which would be three or four spaces. Cm. Hughes stated if they are going to have 30 children, they will need four employees which will exceed the number of parking spaces. Mr. Carrington stated that there are only three parking spaces in the driveway without tandem parking. There are two parking spaces in the garage. Cm. Jennings asked if they planned on widening the driveway. Mrs. Shridhar said the parking would be on the existing driveway. They planned on paving an area to the left of the driveway for one car to park. Mr. Carrington stated that the parking ordinance does not allow parking in the side yard setback. Mr. Peabody stated side yard parking is only allowed for recreational vehicles. Mrs. Shridhar asked ifa car could park there temporarily. Mr. Carrington responded no. Recreational vehicles are the only vehicles allowed to park there. Mr. Peabody stated the reason vehicles are not allowed to park in the side yard is because a vehicle would not allow fire access to the side of the house. Cm. Hughes asked if the garage was a two-car garage. Mrs. Shridhar stated it is a three-car garage. Part of the garage has been converted to a playroom but it still allows parking for two cars. She felt staff has had a chance to come out and observe the site. She has proposed penalties if the parents park incorrectly. Cm. Jennings asked how the parking would be enfomed for the parents. Mrs. Shridhar said that they would not wait for the neighbors to complain to impose a penalty. The employees would walk the kids to the cars or install a camera to monitor the parking arrangement outside. Mr. Fukamaki, 11524 Streambed Place, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He said that staff should look at the traffic impacts for Neilsen Elementary School. He felt with the small traffic impacts the City should look at how they take care of their citizens and their day care needs. All communities need quality day care. Mary Miller, 11600 Alegre Drive, said she has raised kids and had a day care. She felt this facility was not a home daycare. They are moving out and leaving a business behind. This is a tiny street. Although the day care does not infringe on her, the neighborhood should not have a business. She wants to keep the neighborhood quiet and stated that she is opposed to the project. Planning Commission 80 June 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Sue Krishna stated for the record that she has been residing at 11586 Alegre Drive for ten years and started Munchkin Care a few years ago. She has pursued course work in early childhood development and loves working with children. She is happy to offer this important service and believes that 30 children is still keeping the business small. She asked for the community's support for this project. Edward Perea, 11550 Alegre Drive stated that he is opposed to the project. He stated there are 12 homes on Alegre Drive. He is concerned about the property values of the homes and the increase in traffic. With Nielsen School close by the parents use their cul-de-sac as a turn around. When people are tired or rushed they will speed and there was an incident in the past with one of the neighbor girls almost getting hit by a car from a parent dropping off. He stated that parking six cars in the driveway would block the sidewalk and his driveway has been obstructed on three different occasions. He does not have a problem with the noise right now, but increasing to 30 children will make a significant change in noise. Having a daycare faciIity next door will have a negative impact if he wanted to sell his home. This daycare is a business in a residential area and feels the use should not be allowed. Curtis Susiki, 7641 Arbor Creek Circle, supported the expansion of the day care facility. He felt there is a demand for quality childcare. It is difficult trying to find high quality childcare providers and feels that ifa loving person wants to provide daycare, the community should appauld their effort. He would recommend Mrs. Krishna to anyone looking for childcare. He urged the Planning Commission to approve this project. Danny Kilburn, 4459 Downing Court, Pleasanton, supported the project. His son goes to the center and felt that he has become a well-rounded 4-year-old. He stated that Mrs. Krishna has taken excellent care of his son and has learned a lot from her. He felt traffic or parking problems may or may not occur, and it would be a shame to deny this project on something that may or may not happen. Toni Zuanich 11599 Alegre Drive is opposed to the increase. He agreed that it is an important service to the community and supported their previous increase from 6-12 children. He felt it is now apparent that there is a day care on his street. The traffic and parking will be a problem for the street. Tammy Santos, 6608 Pioneer Lane, Dublin, works for Munchkin Care. She has been able to work and receive free childcare for her children. The expansion will allow her to have a better salary and benefits for her children. She would like to see the expansion be approved. Maddi Misheloff, 11613 Alegre Drive wanted to know what would happen to the property once it is vacated. Julian Misre, 11598 Alegre Drive, was opposed to the project due to increased parking and traffic safety of the children in the neighborhood. Kristen DeLaGardie, 89 San Marco Place in San Ramon, worked for the daycare. She stated that she is a young mother able to pursue her studies while receiving free daycare. She asked for approval of the project. Sally Leonard, Childcare Links, at 1576 Catalina Court, Livermore, offered statistics to the Commission. She stated that all the parents would not be arriving at once. There is a dire need for childcare in the entire valley but can't say if this is an appropriate place or an inappropriate place. She stated that the staffing would meet licensing regulations. Cm. Hughes stated his math indicates the need of 4 instructors for the daycare. Mrs. Leonard stated the licensing regulation allows l-4 instructors for children under 2, 1-12 instructors for children ages 2- 5, and 1-14 instructors for school age children. Cm. Hughes stated 3 instructors for 30 children are the absolute maximum allowed from the State of California. Planning Commission 8l June 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Mrs. Leonard said if they had more than 30 children, it would require more instructors. The center has the option on how the age groups are going to work. Cm. Hughes asked what happens when an instructor is escorting the kids to Nielsen School. Mrs. Leonard stated it depends on how many children are left in the home. The licensing ratio would still need to be maintained in the home when an instructor is gone. Cm. Hughes was concerned with the statement the applicant made that she will be gone twice a day to escort the kids to and from school. Mrs. Leonard stated that issue will have to be addressed by Mrs. Krishna. Mrs. Krishna could take pre-school kids with her while escorting the school age kids. Cm. Hughes stated that it might be more of an issue with the community. Everyone in this room believes this is a well-run daycare center; everyone in the room is concerned with the well being of the children and he also has that concern. Mrs. Leonard stated that is also the concern of the agency she works for. Cm. Hughes stated that one of the concerns is the parking issue. Ifa fourth instructor is needed, there are only three legal parking spaces. He is concerned with the parking issue as well as a safety issue with the kids. Mrs. Leonard stated it was a valid point. Cm. Hughes stated if they have a maximum of 30 kids, one instructor could not leave without having another instructor there. Mrs. Leonard stated that there would not be 30 kids left in the facility when the instructor is escorting the school age kids. There may have to be some pre-school kids who have to walk with the instructor to drop off the other children. Cm. Jennings asked the requirements of ECE units for anyone other than the director of the daycare. Mrs. Leonard stated that they would require a minimum of 6 early childhood education units as long as the instructor has 12 ECE units or working towards those units. They must have a childhood development class, a curriculum class and child family in the community, which is knowing what the community resources are for families. Someone may act as a teacher if they have 6 units and enrolled in college working towards the 12 units. Jay Krishna, 11586 Alegre Drive stated they have lived in their home for over 10 years. He stated that they are aware of traffic issues due to the Neilsen School. They have thought long and hard on ways to support the business without impacting their own personal investment. He stated the expansion would result in eight additional school age children. They proposed a traffic mitigation plan based on the concerns of the neighbors and adequately address any traffic or parking problems. He stated that they will remain residents of Dublin and will always be available to address any concerns that may arise in relation to Munchkin Care. He stated this has been an expensive proposal and asked for approval. Accessing the main entrance of the home can solve the issue about the side entrance concerns. He has discussed the issue of resale values with an experienced agent and indicated that there have not been any impacts on other properties in Dublin near daycare facilities. They will meet any childcare licensing requirements and can change the playroom in the garage back into a parking space. Cm. Jennings asked if anyone else wished to speak, hearing none she closed the public hearing. She asked Mr. Krishna if he received a letter from the Silvergate Highlands Home Owners Association about their CC&R's. Mr. Krishna responded yes. They have looked atthe CC&R's and they are in compliance. Planning Commission 82 June 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Hughes was impressed with what the Krishna's have done. The issue of daycare in Dublin has sometimes been a very volatile issue. As a credit to the neighbors and the Krishna's, it was nice to see everyone get along and express their views in a friendly manner. He stated that he has always voted in favor of daycare centers. He felt that having a daycare in any thing other than a residential neighborhood is not appropriate. The statement that a daycare is a business is correct, and a business is entitled to make a profit and to expand to continue to be successful. The issue of property values carries no weight with him. He stated that property values are not impacted in this community by daycare centers. The Planning Commission is here to represent the entire community and this is a community issue. The Commission has to weigh the interest of the applicant with the interest of the neighbors and with the interest of the community. He had a grave concern on the parking issue. He felt the center should have at least 3 instructors, and realistically they should have 4 instructors. Under the municipal code, they can't consider tandem parking. He felt that the parking at the center will have a negative impact on the community and it is not fair to the neighbors. There have been a lot of comments on traffic and it is in an area that is already congested. The issue with the noise of the children should not be considered as the typical noise; the sound of children to most people is a pleasant thing. This daycare is a little different than most daycares in the community because it is in a quiet cul-de-sac and weighing all the interests he voted against the project. Cm. Musser stated he was a strong supporter of daycares and agreed there is a dire need for childcare in the community. He was impressed that the opponents of the project agreed this was a quality daycare. The issue here is not the quality of the daycare, but the location and he had a problem supporting this project at this location. He felt there is existing traffic and parking problems with Neilsen Elementary School. Many people buy a house on a cul-de-sac to get away from the noise and traffic. Children playing is not a bad noise. With traffic being a issue, and the increased number of children does create a problem. There is not enough parking on the end of the cul-de-sac and felt that 6 cars in the driveway are in violation of the parking requirements. He visited the site and the existing residents already took up some of the parking. The tandem parking will not work and would block the sidewalk. The design of the court compounds the problem with traffic and parking. He felt that property values were not an issue. The number of instructors is also a problem. He stated that he could not support the project as it stands. Cm. Johnson agreed with Cm. Hughes and Cm. Musser and can't support the project because of the location. On motion by Cm. Musser denying the project, seconded by Cm. Johnson, and with a vote of 4-0-1 with Cm. Oravetz absent, the Planning Commission unanimously adopted RESOLUTION NO. 99 - 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING PA 99-014 MUNCHKIN-CARE DAY CARE CENTER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST IN A PD (PLANNED DEVELOPMENT), SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 11586 ALEGRE DRIVE NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS Mr. Peabody stated there was an issue brought to the attention of the City Council regarding sign ordinance changes. As a result, direction was given to form a committee, with a member of the Planning Commission, a member of the City Council and 5 other people to come up with options on automobile dealers, and businesses that have used banners and promotional signs. Vice Mayor Lockhart has been appointed by the City Council and asked for a Planning Commission volunteer to sit on this committee. Cm. Hughes volunteered for the committee. Mr. Peabody asked if he could commit during the day and if every two weeks would meet with his schedule. Planning Commission 83 June 22, 1999 Regular Meeting Cm. Hughes stated yes and that his mornings are light. Cm. Johnson asked if other Planning Commissioners could make comments on the issue. Mr. Peabody stated yes. Cm. Johnson stated he has been there a couple of times and new talent would be great. He commented that the City Council will not enforce the ordinance. Mr. Peabody said staff has accomplished a great deal in the areas where the City Council has directed staff to be forceful. The City is down to a few enforcement issues that need to be addressed. Cm. Johnson stated the big problem was the tax base the dealerships provide for the City. Mr. Peabody went over the upcoming schedule. ADJOURNMENT Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ATTEST: Planning Commission Chairperson Community Development Director Planning Commission 84 June 22, 1999 Regular Meeting