Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-21-1992 : ; • ~ Reqular Meeting - September 21, 1992 ~ A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on September 21, 1992, in the Dublin Civic Center Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.m. by Commissioner Zika. * * * * ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barnes, Burnham, North, Rafanelli and Zika; Laurence L. Tong, Planning Director; Dennis Carrington, Senior Planner; Brenda Gillarde, Planning Consultant; Carol R. Cirelli, Associate Planner; Libby Silver, City Attorney; and Gail Adams, 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 None * * * * MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETTNG The minutes for the July 6 and August 17 1992 meetings were approved. * * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None * * * * Regular Meeting PCM-1992-109 September 21, 1992 [9-21min] : ; ~ ~ • PUBLIC HEARINGS SUBJECT: PA 92-027 My Space to Grow Daycare Conditional Use Permit request to allow the establishment of a day care as the primary use within an existinq sinqle family residence located at 7197 Amador Valley Boulevard Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Carol Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission. She indicated that concerns had been brought to Staff's attention regarding potentially excessive children sounds in the backyard area. She explained that there would be only six children in the backyard playing at any one time and would be infant to toddler age range. As a result, sound impacts would not be significant. The Applicant has indicated that every effort would be made to cooperate with the residents and that there would be no outside activity before 9:00 a.m. Staff was recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Cm. North asked how many adults would be supervising the 25 children that were allowed under this permit. Ms. Cirelli indicated there would be three employees and one director. Cm. North was concerned that there was not enough parking available for the employees. Ms. Cirelli explained that the Public Works Department had reviewed the site and felt there was sufficient area in front of the facility for parking. Keishay Izzard, representing Edy O'Guinn, Applicant, indicated that State law required 35 square feet of inside space per child which would allow for a maximum of 20 children, instead of the 25 proposed. She gave a detailed description of the daycare center and indicated that they had worked diligently for several months to create a much needed daycare facility. She felt there would not be any traffic or noise problems and would work together with the neighbors. Beverly Johnson, 7602 Dover Court, had concerns regarding the hours of operation, property values and noise. She indicated that the backyard fence backed up to her property and the yard seemed very small for 20 children. Frank Soares, 7000 Dover Court, concurred with Ms. Johnson's concerns. He indicated that a previous owner of the property had used the home for a daycare for only four children. He understood there was a need for daycare centers since he had children of his own; however, the property's backyard was only 30 feet from his master bedroom and he had put a major investment into his home. He was concerned with the magnitude of the daycare center and did not want to see the home used primarily as a daycare facility. He stated there may be difficulties when trying to sell his home. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-110 September 21, 1992 [9-21min] ' • ~ Cm. Zika asked Mr. Soares if he had made complaints to the City about ~ the previous daycare provider. Mr. Soares indicated no. Ms. Alleghany indicated that she had three children and it was difficult to find quality daycare. She has had Ms. O'Guinn as her daycare provider and has been very happy with the operation. It is a well taken care of center and Dublin is in need of quality daycare. Cm. North had concerns with having six children outside at one time. He was aware of the need for daycare; however this property seemed small for such a use. Cm. Barnes indicated there were already several residences in Dublin that were used primarily as daycare centers. She felt that child care belonged within a residential area. The atmosphere was appropriate and the size of the home seemed sufficient. Cm. Burnham had concerns with the location and the noise complaints and asked what type of enforcement could be followed. Ms. Cirelli indicated that the Zoning Investigator is required to look into all complaints, i.e., noise, traffic, etc. If the use is not in compliance, the Zoning Investigator would take enforcement actions. Mr. Tong indicated that there were procedures to revoke the use permit within the Zoning Ordinance. A public hearing would be required. Cm. Burnham asked how would the parking and public complaints be monitored. Mr. Tong explained that the Zoning Investigator would periodically check the site and review all complaints. He explained the Conditional Use Permit process and indicated the Planning Commission was allowed to deny, approve or give reasonable restrictions on the use. Cm. Burnham asked if Staff had reviewed the property values in connection with daycare facilities. Ms. Cirelli indicated that Staff did not feel that researching property values was relevant to the application. Staff did, however, review other residential daycare centers within the City and there have been no zoning complaints from the adjacent neighbors. Two of the three centers researched had a maximum of 34 children and the other had 12 children. Cm. Zika commented that the use permit should be amended to allow 20 children instead of 25. Cm. North asked the Applicant why the largest section of the home was used for an office. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-111 September 21, 1992 [9-21min] : . ~ ~ ~ Ms. Izzard explained the State licensing regulations and indicated ° that the center was not allowed to be open on the weekends. She indicated that it has been decided to use the larger room for an office to accommodate four adults. It was used as an office and break area as well as receiving visitors from the front of the house. Staff could see everyone that was coming to and going from the center and it was safer since the children were kept farther back from the front of the house. Cm. Zika commented that maybe the Conditional Use Permit could be limited to a 1-2 year time frame. Cm. North asked how much would it cost the Applicant to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Cirelli indicated that the fee was $130. There would be no additional traffic impact fees. Cm. Zika asked if the use permit was granted for one year could the fee for a new Conditional Use Permit be waived. Mr. Tong indicated it would depend on the structure of the approval. A new application would require a$130 fee payment. Staff could review the use permit after a year or so and if there were no complaints a renewal could be set up. Mr. Tong referred to Condition #15 and indicated that this condition could read "...use permit shall be valid for one year. At the end of one year, the Zoning Investigator would review and determine if the use is in compliance with the conditions of approval and could extend the use permit indefinitely..." The Commission concurred with Staff's recommended revisions to Condition #15. Cm. Barnes commented that there was a definite need for quality daycare facilities. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. On motion from Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92-047 ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 92-027 MY SPACE TO GROW DRYCARE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION NO. 92-048 ~ APPROVING PA 92-027 MY SPACE TO GROW DAYCRRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF A DAYCARE FACILITY (COMMUNITY FACILITY) IN AN R-1-B-E, SINGLE FAMILY RE5IDENTIAL DISTRICT AT 7197 AMADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SUBJECT: PA 92-034 Taco Bell Restaurant Conditional Use Permit, Site Development Review and Siqn Program approval for the Regular Meeting PCM-1992-112 September 21, 1992 [9-21min] . • ~ ~ construction of a new 1,989 square foot Taco Bell ' Restaurant, with a drive-thru window, and associated on-site parking and circulation modifications located at 7123 Villaqe Parkway Cm. Zika opened the public hearing and asked for the staff report. Ms. Carol Cirelli presented the staff report to the Commission and indicated Staff was recommending approval of the application with conditions of approval relating to potential traffic impacts along Village Parkway and Taco Bell trash found in the v-ditch channel along the eastern property line and on adjacent southern properties. Cm. North asked if the adjacent property owners had been notified about this project. Ms. Cirelli indicated that notices were sent to property owners within a 300 foot radius of the project site. Cm. Burnham asked if there was an "escape" exit for the drive-thru and if there was a City policy requiring an except route for this type of project. Ms. Cirelli indicated that because the site is limited, an escape route is not possible. She could not think of any existing City policies or Zoning Ordinance provision requiring escape routes for drive-thrus. Mr. Tong explained that it was the City's policy to have escape routes wherever possible. However, the configuration of this site would not accommodate this type of exit. Cm. Burnham was concerned about delivery trucks conflicting with the parking areas. Cm. North questioned if the 52 parking spaces was the figure for both Taco Bell and Hunan Restaurant. Ms. Cirelli indicated yes. Mr. Ed Owen, Applicant, commented that delivery trucks arrived at specific hours; usually three deliveries per week. He felt there would not be any conflicts with traffic or noise. He referred to a condition requiring that the drive-thru be shut down if the level of service was too high. He requested that the level of service be reviewed by Taco Bell and the City's Engineering Department before automatically shutting down the drive-thru. He apologized for the litter concerns and indicated that the manager was required to clean up the surrounding one block area every hour. He would make sure this is being done. He indicated that the hours of operation were currently 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. on the weekdays and closed at 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. He would like to be able to change the operation to 24 hours. Cm. Burnham had concerns reqarding the v-ditch fencing requirement. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-113 September 21, 1992 [9-21min] : ~ ~ Ms. Cirelli referred to page 24, Condition #12 and page 12, Exhibit A of the staff report. Mr. Owen explained that the fence would be a chain link membrane, like a flat fence. Cm. Burnham felt that curbing would be more appropriate. This would prevent debris from going into the v-ditch and would leave the ditch open for maintenance. Ms. Cirelli indicated that Staff considered other methods of preventing trash from entering the v-ditch. Fencing along the sides of the property would help because the debris would be visible on the fence and the Applicant would want to maintain a clean site for patrons. The v-ditch drained to the bay and Staff had concerns regarding pollutants reaching the bay. Mr. Owen indicated that there should not be a trash problem. The manaqer is required to maintain a one mile radius around the restaurant. Richard Kolberg, representative for BP Oil Company, had concerns with the vehicles being parked on the property and using the driveway and indicated their company was liable for anyone on their site. They had been negotiating with Taco Bell regarding an easement and was concerned with the proposed drive-thru plans without an easement. The proposed new driveway would create a blind area for customers turning right on Village Parkway. Also, the Applicant indicated that the required chain link fence is too high and it would be difficult to see the BP Oil freestanding sign. He distributed pictures to the Planning Commission to show that open fencing without redwood slats would be more appropriate. Cm. Barnes asked how long the Taco Bell Restaurant has been operating. Mr. Owen indicated the restaurant started operations in 1975. The Planning Commission and Staff discussed the sign regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Cirelli explained that the proposed fence would be 30 feet back from the sidewalk and should not create any visibility problems. Craig Hardy, project manager for Taco Bell, explained that the ingress/egress easement was addressed 2-3 years ago. The project was designed with a new building and new drive through to eliminate the need for an ingress/egress easement. The new drive-thru should eliminate any concerns with parking on the BP Oil site. Approximately 50~ of their business would be using the drive-thru. Cm. Zika closed the public hearing. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-114 September 21, 1992 [9-21min] . ~ ~ Cm. Burnham referred to Condition #12 and indicated that he preferred ~ curbing which would keep the cars away from the v-ditch. He did not want to see the v-ditch covered up. Cm. North had concerns with the redwood slat fencing creating potential visibility problems. Cm. Zika felt that the fence would not create visibility problems. On motion from Cm. Barnes, seconded by Cm. Rafanelli, and with a vote of 5-0, the Planning Commission adopted RESOLUTION NO. 92-049 A RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) AND APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 92-034 TACO BELL RESTAURANT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/ SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. 92-050 ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR PA 92-034 TACO BELL RESTAURANT CONDITIONAL USE PERMITI SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW RESOLUTION NO. 92-051 APPROVING PA 92-034 TACO BELL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ALLOW A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW AT THE TACO BELL RESTAURANT FACILITY LOCATED AT 7123 VILLAGE PARKWAY RESOLUTION NO. 92-052 APPROVING PA 92-034 TACO BELL SITE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING WITH A DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW, MODIFICATIONS TO THE PARKING LOT CONFIGURATION AND SIGN PROGRAM AT 7123 VILLAGE PARKWAY SUBJECT: PA 87-031 Eastern Dublin General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report and related project implementation includinq Amendment to the Sphere of Influence, and Annexation to the City of Dublin and the Dublin San Ramon Services District (DSRSD) Cm. Zika opened the public hearing. The Planning Commission discussed the public hearing schedule for this project and indicated that the meeting dates needed to be changed. After additional discussion, the Commission decided to change the schedule as follows: September 23rd, 29th; October lst, 5th, 6th, 8th, 13th, 14th and 22nd. Cm. Zika announced to the public that they should limit their cornments to 5 minutes. The Commission would be reviewing the EIR by each chapter. Mr. Tong suggested that the meetings start at 7:00 p.m. and Staff would reissue the meeting schedule. The Commission concurred. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-115 September 21, 1992 [9-21min] ` ' ~ ~ Ms. Brenda Gillarde presented the staff report to the Commission. She ~ indicated that at this time Staff was reviewing the adequacy of the Draft EIR, not the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. These documents would be reviewed at later meetings. The Draft EIR was available for review only at the City offices and could be checked out at the library. Ms. Gillarde gave a brief history of the project. She indicated that Steve Hammond from WRT would be describing the project and EIR. Mike Aronson, WRT's traffic consultant, would discuss the traffic impacts and mitigations. The Commission needed to consider the adequacy of the EIR and she requested that everyone's comments be specific in order for Staff to reference them properly. Ms. Gillarde reviewed the separate stages of the processing of the project. Stage I included the background work for the project; Stage II included development of the land use concept; Stage III was the preparation of the Draft EIR, General Plan Amendment, and Specific Plan. Staff was now in Stage IV - the public hearing meetings and Stage V would be for deliberation. Steve Hammond, WRT, gave an overview of the project. He described the site from the wall maps; outlining the General P1an Amendment and Specific Plan areas as well as Dublin's Sphere of Influence boundaries. He presented a slide show which pictured the area from various angles. He indicated that the project was environmentally sensitive; a number of special status species inhabit the area. Most of the project was within the Specific Plan area with a Town Center. There were three small centers with mixed uses. The commercial/office uses were proposed for the freeway frontage areas. He talked about the open space system and traffic disbursement. Cm. North asked where the I-580/680 flyover was proposed to be constructed. Mike Aronson, WRT's traffic consultant, pointed to the area on the wall map where he believed Caltrans was proposing the flyover. Mr. Aronson described the various traffic impacts and alternatives proposed within the EIR. He indicated that this project was a very "long-range" proposal with the year 2010 as its mid-range build out time frame. The EIR addressed cumulative impacts from all projects being reviewed in the Tri-Valley area, such as Dougherty Valley and North Livermore. There were various circulation improvements that were taken into account when analyzing the traffic impacts. He described the transit system design and indicated the EIR addressed the impacts of various modes of transportation, such as vehicle, bicycle and public transit. Mr. Aronson indicated that it was important to look at the traffic congestion on a regional basis and the EIR recommended that all of the affected cities in the Tri-Valley area cooperate with each other to come up with a regional congestion management plan. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-116 September 21, 1992 [9-21min] ~ • ~ Thomas Lindenmeyer, EBRPD, indicated that he had concerns with the ' project; however, would like to make written and oral comments at a later date. Connie Eccles, P. O. Box 1065, Pleasanton, had concerns with the impact on the Livermore airport. She indicated there was a large amount of airport supporters and hoped the recommended protection zone developed by the Airport Protection Commission would be supported by the Eastern Dublin plans. Marjorie LaBar had concerns with the fast paced public hearing schedule and would prefer to see only two meetings a week. The public needed more time for state their comments and felt that the EIR comment period should be extended to the end of October. Ms. LaBar had concerns with the traffic improvements and asked who was going to pay for these improvements. Carolyn Morgan had concerns with the limited response time for public comment. The general public needed more time and felt the meetings were stacked too close together. Ms. Morgan had concerns with the water and sewage limitations as well as traffic congestion. The EIR shows the level of service to be at "E" and "F" which would virtually be gridlock. She referred to page 3.1-2 which showed Doolan Road to have 600 vehicles per day. This was not possible and had to be an error. Mr. Aronson indicated that the level of service could be brought down to "D" with additional lane improvements. Highway 580 could not be widened, however, at the Hacienda Drive area. There were regional. solutions and alternatives that are being looked into by various transportation agencies. Cm. North asked who would pay for the traffic improvements. Mr. Aronson explained that development would pay its fair share of improvements. Mr. Hammond stated that the project showed a mid-range buildout at the year 2010; ultimate buildout is estimated at 2020 or beyond. There was a good possibility that this buildout might not happen. Donna Ogelvie objected to the time schedule that had been set up for the public hearings. It was too ambitious and preferred a 60-90 day time frame. She had concerns with the air quality and hoped there would be consideration for our children's future. Cm. Zika commented that he was under the impression that Livermore had requested LAFCO to have a specific deadline for both Livermore and Dublin to present their proposals for the Doolan Canyon area Cm. Zika continued the public hearing to September 23, 1992 at 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting PCM-1992-117 September 21, 1992 [9-21min] ~ ~ ~ . , ~ The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~ ~ 'annin ommiss' n Chairperson Laurence L. Tong Planning Director Regular Meeting PCM-1992-118 September 21, 1992 [9-21min]