Laserfiche WebLink
MINUTES <br />PLANNING COMMISSION <br />7/11/84 <br />Page 4 <br />This matter was continued to 8/8/84 at the request of the applicant. <br />UP-84-24, Hopyard Preschool <br />Application of Hopyard Preschool for a conditional use permit to enlarge an <br />existing preschool from 60 to 120 children located at 1251 Hopyard Road. Zoning <br />for the property is R-1-6500 (Single-family Residential) District. A negative <br />declaration of environmental impacts will also be considered. <br />Z-84-152, Hopyard Preschool <br />Application of Hopyard Preschool for design review approval for an approximately <br />2,200 sq. ft. classroom structure and related facilities for a preschool operation <br />located at 1251 Hopyard Road. Zoning for the property is R-1-6500 (Single-family <br />Residential) District. <br />Mr. Harris stated that the staff recommends approval of the conditional use <br />permit but not the design at this time. The solution to the rather plain <br />unit might be to screen it more than shown by the applicant. Plans were just <br />received prior to the meeting this evening and staff has not had time to totally <br />review the revisions. Mr. Harris pointed out that in 1978, a condition of <br />the conditional use permit for the property was that a 40' landscaped setback <br />on the north side of the school be adopted. There is now a 6'-8' high fence <br />setback 10' in this area. Staff believes that the fence was probably put up <br />by the present operator of the school in violation of the use permit. The <br />plans currently before the Commission would perpetuate this situation. <br />Commissioner Getty asked who required the 40' setback initially. Mr. Harris <br />indicated he wasn't sure but it was supported by the Commission. It was probably <br />put in to buffer preschool children from the surrounding residential neighborhood. <br />Commissioner Innes asked if there has ever been any complaints on the use. <br />Staff indicated that there have been no complaints filed. <br />The public hearing was opened. <br />Dave Stow, Group Architects, Alameda, presented his drawings showing the proposed <br />screening. He presented photographs depicting the existing conditions as well <br />as an artist's rendering depicting the proposal. They propose to amend the <br />existing landscaping, review the proposed fence location, look at the style <br />of the existing preschool.The playground area is screened by an existing fence. <br />The design will mitigate visual impacts. <br />Commissioner Innes then discussed the landscaping and fencing with with the <br />architect. <br />Commissioner Getty asked the disposition of the existing play area. Mr. Stow <br />stated that the amount of play area is governed by the State of California <br />and is adequate to accommodate the number of children proposed. <br />Vice Chairman Wilson asked how many trees and landscaping would be lost with <br />the proposed modification. Mr. Stow reviewed the photographs with the Commission. <br />Commissioner Innes inquired about the construction of the modules and whether <br />or not they were premanufactured with flat roofs. Mr. Stow said they are. <br />-4- <br />_r <br />