Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-2009 PC Minutesi. ~ . ~~.~:s~ Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, May 26, 2.009 CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, May 26, 2009, in the City Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Chair Wehrenberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present: Chair Wehrenberg; Commissioners Schaub. and Brown; Jeri Ram; Community Development Director; Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager; Erica Fraser, Senior Planner; Jamie Lynn Rojo, Assistant Planner; and Debra LeClair, Recording Secretary. Absent: Vice Chair King, Cm. Swalwell ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA -NONE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS -The minutes of the May 12, 2009. ,meeting were continued to the next meeting because there was not a quorum of the Commission as Cm. Brown did not attend the May 12, 2009 meeting and Commissioners King and. Swalwell are absent from this meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -NONE CONSENT CALENDAR -NONE WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS -NONE PUBLIC HEARINGS - Chair Wehrenberg explained the public hearing procedure to the audience and the three. minute time limit for individuals who wish to speak regarding the project. 8.1 PA 09-005 Bright Horizons Day Care Center -Conditional Use Permit and Site Development Review. Jamie Lynn Rojo, Assistant Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the walkway from the off-site parking area is on Dublin Blvd. Ms. Rojo pointed out on the drawing the existing walkway that connects the off-site parking to the day care center and stated it is not on Dublin Blvd. Chair Wehrenberg asked if all the landscaping is existing landscaping. Ms. Rojo answered the landscaping will be new except for the landscaping fronting Dublin Blvd. ,, 109 Chair Wehrenberg asked if the surface for the playground structures will be a rubber. Ms. Rojo answered yes; the material is mentioned on the playground site plan and will be a material that is playground appropriate. Cm. Schaub stated he had no comments on the project and complemented Staff on a great Staff Report. Cm. Brown agreed and had no comment. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the consultant compared the decibel noise level for this project with other normal sounds such as an airplane flying over head or a dishwasher running. Jeff Baker, Acting Planning Manager, answered that the City's noise consultant prepared the noise analysis in regard to the General Plan policies for noise and measured it against equivalent levels that are allowed through the General Plan. He continued the noise levels of 60 decibels are generally considered similar to normal talking levels. Chair Wehrenberg .agreed and had found the same standards in her research. She wanted to ensure all are using the same standard when identifying decibel levels. Cm. Brown mentioned that the consultant had gone to a similar site to measure decibel levels. Chair Wehrenberg agreed.. Chair Wehrenberg opened the public hearing. Steven Geller, Applicant, Bright Horizons, introduced himself and stated that he was present to answer questions. Also in attendance were the construction manager and .the local operations manager in charge of the project. Chair Wehrenberg asked about the landscaping that is being added to the site and commented that it was very nice. Mr. Geller agreed and stated that working with the City they agreed. to add. the new landscaping. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there are Redwood trees adjacent to the concrete block wall. Mr. Geller answered yes. Cm. Schaub mentioned that he visited the Bright Horizons website for information regarding the Applicant and found that they have a large operation. Mr. Geller responded that the organization has approximately 600 centers throughout the country and in Europe. ;~t~y 3~; ~~~~ 110 Chair Wehrenberg asked if they currently operate in Dublin. Mr. Geller answered they do not operate in Dublin currently. Chair Wehrenberg asked what other local cities the Applicant operates in. Mr. Geller mentioned several cities in the Bay Area. James Wanberg, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. Mr. Wanberg was concerned with the sidewalk from the off-site parking area to the back of .the building and felt that Staff had contradicted herself by saying there would be a sidewalk going through to the back of the building and stated the off-site review shows no such pathway. He continued that someone would have to go out to the street, all the way around to the building. He stated he had read the entire Staff Report and felt the speaker did not know what she was talking about. Mr. Wanberg asked Chair Wehrenberg if she would like him to read from his letter because he did not think he could-get through it in the three minutes he was given to speak. Mr. Wanberg was admonished by Chair Wehrenberg to keep his remarks respectful and professional. Mr. Wanberg read from a letter that mentioned his meeting of May 18th with Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager; Jeri Ram, Community Development Director as well as two Dublin Police Officers. He stated that the Police Officers know him as "the Uzi man." He stated that they discussed his inability to control his anger and .his fuse. that has come to an end which he felt was obvious. He stated that he has made threats in the past to the ambulance crew behind his home and said, "he hopes he doesri t go postal if this day care center goes in." He stated that one of the Police Officers felt that statement was a threat rather than a very serious warning of his inability to control himself. He continued that he hoped Mr. Foss and Ms. Ram saw the warning signs of the "crazy son-of-a-guri' beinglocated only 60 feet away from the site. He stated he was diagnosed with chronic depression, and medication has not made any difference in the way he feels. He stated he would stop reading his letter because it was a bit too nasty. Mr. Wanberg also read from a letter from his wife, Mrs. Jean Wanberg who was also concerned about traffic, parking and noise generated from the project. She felt that since she works at night her sleep will be interrupted and the day care center will lower the value of their home. Chair Wehrenberg asked to display the aerial photo of the site on the screen for reference. Jack Hudson, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. He was concerned about increased neighborhood traffic, parking and noise generated from the project. He felt there were other vacant buildings in Dublin that would be better suited for this type of business. He agreed there is a need for day care but felt it was not appropriate for this residential. area. Christine Block, resident, spoke in opposition to the project. She was concerned about the notice being sent only 10 days prior to the hearing and requested additional hearings in order to 111 give more residents an opportunity to respond. She stated she is opposed to the request for rezoning for financial and quality. of life reasons. She understood the need to help business owners but felt it was equally important to help the homeowners. She was also concerned about traffic impacting the neighborhood, parking and noise generated from the project. Chair Wehrenberg responded to clarify that the project is not a request to rezone the property. She continued that the zoning will remain the same; the request is for a Conditional Use Permit for an allowable use in the area. She explained the Conditional Use Permit process. Ronda Slack, resident, was opposed to the project. but did not wish to speak. Melissa Spann, Child Care Links, spoke regarding the need for .child care in Dublin. She stated there is a significant need for infant care in the City as well as before and after school care. Chair Wehrenberg asked Mr. Geller to return to the podium to answer questions. Chair Wehrenberg asked the Applicant what attracted them to the site and if they .had researched other sites in Dublin. Mr. Geller stated that he was non involved. in locating the site. He stated the broker that worked with Bright Horizons is in attendance and can answer questions. Bonnie Henry, Independent Real Estate Broker specializing in preschools, spoke regarding the project. Ms. Henry stated that the Tri-Valley area is extremely popular with many providers. She continued that there are few appropriate sites because of price and available land for playgrounds because the .licensing requires a larger outside playground than the building.. She stated it was difficult to find an affordable site and felt this site was appropriate. Chair Wehrenberg asked Mr. Geller to confirm the. number of children, ages and the application process for their students. She asked if he was aware of the Conditions of Approval. Monica Schmidt, Operations Manager spoke in support of the project and indicated she is aware of the Conditions of Approval. She stated that the school will offer full day care, and. part time care would be part week versus half day. Chair Wehrenberg asked what the hours for part time students would be. Ms. Schmidt answered that the students arrive at staggered times. She continued that at full capacity, which will take several years, the early morning drop off would be 10-15 families at between around 6:OOa.m. and 7:30a.m., the bulk of the students come between 7:OOa.m. and 8:30a.m., and then a small group would come later, but generally everyone would be at the school by 10:OOa.m. Chair Wehrenberg clarified there is a staggered drop off and program and that not all the students have the same schedule. Ms. Schmidt agreed. ;;~ 112 Chair Wehrenberg asked if the curriculum is organized so that there is play time, story time, nap time, and lunch time, etc. during the standard- hours of operation. Ms. Schmidt answered yes. Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Schmidt to restate the arrival times indicating how many children at what times, etc. Ms. Schmidt answered that once the school reaches full capacity, approximately 10-15 children would arrive at opening at 6:OOa.m. to 7:30a.m., and then from 7:30a.m. to approximately 9:OOa.m. the bulk of the children would be dropped off, and then from 9:OOa.m. to 10:00a.m. there could be approximately another 10-15 families. Chair Wehrenberg stated that the toddlers dori t last very long outside because they get distracted, tired, and hungry. Ms. Schmidt stated that the toddlers are outside for approximately 1/2 hour in the morning, and lh hour in the afternoon. She also stated that for preschool children there is a maximum of 1 hour in the morning and 1 hour in the afternoon. Chair Wehrenberg restated the Staff Report indicates the. times for the outdoor play areas are from 8:30a.m. to noon and 2:30p.m. to 6:OOp.m., Monday through Friday. She asked Ms. Schmidt if the school holds fundraisers or special events that would be at the school in the evenings and/or weekends. Ms. Schmidt answered the school does not do fundraisers. She stated that the extent of evening activities would be an open house for current families once per quarter and a public open house to attract new families once per year. Chair Wehrenberg asked what the hours would be for those events. Ms. Schmidt answered it would typically be directly after the center closes from 6:OOp.m. to 8:30p.m. in the evening. Cm. Brown asked if the average number of children on the playground would be approximately 41. Ms. Schmidt answered yes because the classrooms are staggered. Cm. Brown asked if the 114 is a maximum number of children. Ms. Schmidt answered yes. Chair Wehrenberg closed the public hearing. r' n is jtgr~2 1~R':r~ ~ ..,.. 113 Cm. Schaub stated the Planning Commission has approved many day cares and some have had extremely emotional meetings, but after a month's time every one has come back and reported that their fears were unfounded. He did not think noise would be very significant, but traffic is a concern. He stated that there would be approximately 30 cars per every lh hour between 7:30a.m. to 9:OOa.m. He suggested putting a sign on Clark Avenue south that would prohibit right turns between certain hours of the day with a fine imposed. He stated this type of sign worked very well in his own neighborhood. He continued the sign has completely.. eliminated the traffic that went through his neighborhood. He also suggested that the school ensure that the parents abide by the traffic rules. He felt that the neighborhood's concerns regarding traffic are valid. Cm. Schaub continued that the project is completely appropriate and the Commission was able to make the strict and specific findings, therefore, he is in support of the project. Cm. Brown had no comment and agreed with Cm. Schaub's suggestion regarding prohibiting right turns at certain times of the day. Cm. Schaub stated that the tr. affic mitigation used in his neighborhood was successful in eliminated the problem. There was a discussion regarding the flow of traffic from Dublin Blvd., Clark Avenue and the nearby neighborhoods. Jeri Ram, Community Development Director, stated that, though the. suggestion is well intentioned, there are no Public Works Staff. here to provide input as to whether this traffic mitigation would have other inputs. She suggested having the school handout information asking parents not to go through the neighborhood; it should be approved by Staff and then if there is a problem later refer that problem to the City's Traffic Safety Committee.. She felt there could be repercussions that have not been considered in regards to circulation. She stated the Commission could put a Condition of Approval on the project to inform parents th at the circulation route to the school is on Dublin Blvd. not through the neighborhood. Cm. Schaub agreed. He continued that the Commission has made decisions on day care centers for 5 years and those decisions are done well and the Commission .thinks things through and they are not something that is done quickly but a lot of time and effort is put. into the decision. Chair Wehrenberg agreed and stated that day care centers bring out passion with the neighbors but the Commission tries to work through it. She stated that she toured the site, noticed the homes on Maple St. and the traffic there. She thought the restriping and restructuring of the parking lot will help with traffic flow in the area. She also noted that day cares do not reduce property values and that the Conditional Use Permit is only approved for this Applicant. She felt the project is an appropriate use for the area and compatible, she likes the landscaping. Mr. Baker stated that the Conditional Use Permit would run with the land and if the business ceases operation the CUP would remain valid for one year. ~,~~ ~ 114 On a motion by Cm. Schaub and seconded by Cm. Brown, on a vote of 3-0, with Cm. Swalwell and Cm. King absent, with the addition to the Condition Use Permit to read: "the Applicant shall provide customers with circulation information to avoid the use of southbound Clark Avenue to access the site and concerns regarding circulation shall be referred to the Traffic Safety Committee" The Planning Commission approved: RESOLUTION N0.09- 22 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A DAY CARE CENTER AT 7035 DUBLIN BOULEVARD AND TO ALLOW OFF-SITE PARKING AT 7051 DUBLIN BOULEVARD (APN 941-0210-025-02) PA 09-005 RESOLUTION N0.09- 23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN APPROVING A SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW TO MODIFY AN EXISTING PARKING LOT TO ACCOMMODATE AN OUTDOOR PLAY AREA AND MAKE ASSOCIATED SITE AND EXTERIOR BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS RELATED TO THE OPERATION OF A DAY CARE CENTER AT 7035 DUBLIN BOULEVARD (APN 941-0210-025-02) PA 09-005 Mr. Baker indicated to the attendees that there is a 10 calendar day appeal period in which the Planning Commission s decision can be appealed to the City Council. Chair Wehrenberg called a short recess. 8.2 ZOA 09-001 Zoning Ordinance Amendments -Amendment to the Sign Regulations and Permit Procedures Chapters (Chapter 8.84 and Chapter 8.96) of the Zoning Ordinance to w uF=~~ 115 be effective for aone-year period, and amendments to the Site .Development Review Chapter (Chapter 8.104) of the Dublin Zoning Ordinance. Erica Fraser, Senior Planner presented the project as outlined in the Staff Report. Cm. Schaub asked Ms. Fraser to clarify the time frame for the amendment. Ms. Fraser answered that the amendment is for one year and will be revisited after one year and the City Council will decide if they want to allow the amendment to remain in effect for an additional period. Cm. Schaub asked if the City Council will make the decision to look at the amendment after one year. Ms. Fraser stated that the Planning Commission is recommending that the change be for one year and then the Council will decide if the amendment should continue at that point. Mr. Baker responded that at Council's request Staff brought forward a series of options to amend the Zoning Ordinance. One of those was a recommendation for a two year temporary period, but the Council only wanted a one year period. Ms. Fraser stated that if the amendment became permanent it would have to come to the Commission for change. Chair Wehrenberg asked about the waiting period between banners. Ms. Fraser explained the current and proposed waiting period for banners. Ms. Fraser continued that the current Zoning Ordinance specifies the height and length of the banner. Cm. Schaub stated that the Zoning Ordinance specifies the size of the banner but not how high it is on the building. Ms. Fraser answered yes. Cm. Brown asked if all banners are considered promotional banners. Ms. Fraser answered that banners are only allowed for certain reasons such as sales or special events which are included in the temporary modification. She continued that there are other banners allowed but those are not included in the temporary modifications. Cm. Schaub asked if the current sign regulations are keeping businesses from thriving in Dublin. Ms. Fraser stated that some people feel the current regulations are hampering their business but that has been an on-going complaint. a~~~~ stay ~~; zr~~~~~ 116 Ms. Ram stated that this change was done at the request of the Chamber of Commerce. She continued that the Economic Development Committee asked her to meet with a gentleman who owns a banner business and he indicated that his, clients have requested some changes to .the Ordinance. Cm. Brown felt that information gave this change more clarity. Cm. Schaub felt the City was attempting to have a business environment that is inviting to people and not cluttered by many banners. He understands that something should be done to help businesses in this economic environment but felt there should be a limit to how high the banner should be allowed. He was not concerned about the square footage of the banner but how high it is on the building relative to other buildings and businesses and that it would not interfere with other signage. Chair Wehrenberg agreed that height is a valid point. Mr. Baker responded that the Ordinance could be modified to require the banner to be on the building and not cover other signs, etc. Chair Wehrenberg asked if there was a question regarding the banner would the Community Development Director evaluate the situation and make a decision. Mr. Baker answered that it would be reviewed at the counter by the Planner and if there was a question regarding the standards it would be referred to the Community Development Director for a decision. Ms. Fraser stated that currently there are no location requirements, but there are height and length requirements for banners. Cm. Brown asked if Staff requires a business to show where the banner will be located at their business when they apply for a permit. Ms. Fraser answered no; the business owner only needs to complete the application form. Mr. Baker stated the Commission could recommend some standards for placement of the banner at the business. Cm. Schaub felt that if the current Ordinance is enough then nothing has to be changed, but if Staff feels there needs to be a change then this is the time to make it. Chair Wehrenberg asked if the City finds a banner to be obtrusive can the next banner at that business be denied. Ms. Fraser answered that since there is no location regulation in the Zoning Ordinance, talking with the Applicant usually takes care of any problem. 117 There was a discussion regarding the height of banners and where they should be placed on the building. Ms. Fraser referred to Exhibit A to Attachment 1, Page 7, under Temporary Promotional Signs which states "A banner sign shall not be larger than 60 square feet in size" suggested adding: "...and shall not extend above the roofline." Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report regarding Site Development Review for Commercial accessory structures. Cm. Schaub felt the wording should be changed to include "any street" instead of "from the street." He felt it was too vague. Mr. Baker stated that the code defines what a street is to mean any of the streets around the structure. Ms. Fraser stated that the Ordinance could be changed to include "any street." Cm. Schaub asked if structures over 120 square feet would be noticed if they cannot be seen from the street. He was concerned about large structures being constructed without noticing the adjacent neighbors. He felt that if the structure is in the public realm it should be noticed. Ms. Fraser stated that there are only a few cases where there would be a residential area .close enough to a commercial structure that the project would need to be noticed. Cm. Schaub felt the Ordinance should state it should be "visible from any street or from a residence." He wanted to ensure that homeowners were notified of a change in their area. Ms. Fraser suggested keeping the requirement under 120 square feet, then rewording the Ordinance to read: "...or of any size that are not visible from any street or any property zoned R-1, R-2, or similar PD." Cm. Schaub agreed and stated that the project would not have to be brought to the Planning Commission as long as it is noticed. Ms. Ram commented that if Staff feels a project would be controversial Staff has the option to forward the project to the Planning Commission. She continued that the previous Ordinance allowed the Community Development Director to approve items and move things along more quickly. She felt this Ordinance has slowed down the process. Ms. Fraser agreed with Ms. Ram regarding forwarding the level of .review to the Planning Commission if the project is controversial or the Staff did not feel comfortable approving it. She mentioned two projects that could have been reviewed and approved at Staff level but were brought to the Planning Commission for approval because they were more sensitive. Mr. Baker stated that the Planning Commission has the option of going back to allowing the /Cyypp"~ommunity Development Director to approve an accessory structure under an SDR W~~$$~~((aiver or `l.'$riA~~T49 '. P 4f fi£s~~ JVF.~~.f: 4i~ „.- ~i; - `~; 118 through SDR if the project is a large accessory structure on a commercial property adjacent to a residence and did not seem appropriate for the Community Development Director to approve. It would then require Site Development .Review which would include noticing of all the neighbors within 300 feet of the project: Cm. Schaub felt that residents within 300 feet of a visible structure deserve to be noticed. Mr. Baker asked if the Planning Commission agreed with Staff's recommendation or if they want to modify the level of review for an accessory structure over 120 square feet is adjacent to a residence. The Planning Commission agreed with Staff's recommendation to include the words "...or of any size that are not visible from any street or any property zoned R-1, R-2, or similar PD" to the Ordinance regarding accessory structures. Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report; discussing Single Family Residential Accessory Structures. Ms. Fraser recommended not requiring permits for accessory structures under 120 square -feet for single family residences. She continued that if someone wanted an accessory structure that did not meet the requirements the project would have to go before the Planning Commission for review and approval. The Commission supported the change. Ms. Fraser continued with Additions to Principal Structure in the Commercial/Industrial Zoning District. The Commission asked for the words "any street" to be added to the Ordinance. Cm. Schaub asked if this type of SDR would be noticed. Ms. Fraser answered yes as part of the process. Ms. Fraser continued with the Staff Report; discussing Facade Modifications. Cm. Schaub stated that with facade modifications approved at Staff level the Planning Commission would receive a notice and can choose to attend a hearing or get involved in some way or not. Ms. Fraser answered yes, but indicated there would be no actual hearing. She continued that the notice contains information regarding when Staff would accept comments on the project and contact information. She stated that anyone interested may come to City Hall and view the plans and ask questions regarding the project. If someone has a concern Staff will try to work with them regarding their concern. If the project became controversial it would be referred to the Planning Commission. __ 119 Cm. Schaub felt that most of the facade modifications are to existing SDR's that were approved before, and in that case Staff would have to abide by the approved SDR. He asked if the Community Development Director could modify the existing, approved SDR. Ms. Fraser stated pursuant to the Ordinance, Staff can approve modifications and hopefully changes occur to update and enhance the look of the building. She continued that even though Staff has the authority to approve the color change if Staff did not feel comfortable with the change, instead of denying the project, it would be referred to the Planning Commission which makes the process easier. The purpose of this Ordinance is to make the process easier and to encourage property owners to improve their property. Cm. Schaub stated that he felt that Staff and the City Council appreciates the Planning Commissions ability to help make good decisions and public policy: He stated that the Planning Commission has rarely denied a project and felt the whole process that they worked hard on is working well, and has helped the City Council not to have to get involved. He felt the system is working well and the City looks very nice. On a motion by Cm. Brown and seconded by Cm. Schaub, on a vote of 3-0, Cm. Swalwell and Cm. King absent, the Planning Commission approved, with modifications: "...or of any size that are not visible from any street or any property zoned R-1, R-2, or similar PD." RESOLUTION N0.09 - 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.84, SIGN REGULATIONS AND CHAPTER 8.96, PERMIT PROCEDURES OF TITLE 8 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE FOR A ONE YEAR PERIOD ZOA 09-001 RESOLUTION N0.09 - 25 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 8.104, SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW, OF TITLE 8 (ZONING ORDINANCE) OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE ZOA 09-001 _ 120 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). Mr. Baker reminded the Commission of the Study Session scheduled for June 3, 2009 at 6:30pm in the Library Community Room regarding the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Opportunities and Constraints. Chair Wehrenberg indicated she would not be able to attend. ADTOURNMENT -The meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~,, ~, ~~ .„ Doreen Wehrenberg~~~~~,- -- Chair Planning Com~is,~ion ATTEST: ,~ Jeff Baku Acting Planning Manager G: \MINUTES\2009\PLANNING COMMISSION\5.26.09.doc 1~'lanning Commission St2ay 26, 2009 ~gular Meeting 121