Month 1999.02 February.


Day 1999.02.16PC


PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
City of Vacaville
7:30 p.m. –  Council Chambers    February 16, 1999

CALL TO ORDER:
The regular meeting of the Vacaville Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Wilkins at 7:30 p.m.

A.    ROLL CALL:
Present:    Chairman Wilkins, Vice-Chairman Minkler, Commissioner Aldrich, Commissioner Drake, Commissioner Turpen, Commissioner Williams.
Absent:    Commissioner Dimmick.
Also Present:    Community Development Director Rowland, City Planner Emerson, Senior Planner Macaulay, Associate Planner Duffy.

C.    COMMUNICATIONS:
1.    Two letters from the Vacaville Unified School District regarding Item G.1, Old Rocky Estates.

D.    APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Commissioner Drake moved, Vice-Chairman Minkler seconded to approve the agenda and continue Items G.3 & 4, Blue Oak Units 1, 2 & 3.  Motion approved 6-0.

E.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1.    Commissioner Aldrich moved, Vice-Chairman Minkler seconded to approve the minutes of January 27, 1999.  Motion approved 6-0.
2.    Vice-Chairman Minkler moved, Commissioner Drake seconded to approve the minutes of February 2, 1999.  Motion approved 6-0.

F.    BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:
None.

G.    PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1.    OLD ROCKY ESTATES –  Trident Associates LLC, applicant
File No. 98-242
    1. Vesting Tentative Map
    2. Planned Development
    3. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Senior Planner Macaulay reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that the proposed subdivision consists of 62 new homes at the northwest corner of Browns Valley Road and Wrentham Drive. There are two areas in the development with different zoning and house plans.  The upper area includes 28 new home lots, with a minimum lot area of 10,000 sq. ft., on the northern 9.8 acre portion of the site.  The floor area of these homes would range from 2,452 sq. ft. to 2,863 sq. ft.  The lower area consists of 34 new home lots on 7.4 acres, with a minimum lot area of 6,000 sq. ft.  The floor area of these homes ranges from 1,747 sq. ft. to 2,370 sq. ft.  Access to the site would be from one new road connection each on Browns Valley Road and Wrentham Drive, with an interior roadway connecting the two portions of the site. The applicant is requesting to reduce the front setback to non-garage portions of certain homes in order to provide a greater rear setback.  Consideration of this item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of February 2, 1999.

Commissioner Williams asked for the rational for providing a landscaping screen, and what made this situation unique.  He felt that it would block the new homeowner’ s view of Old Rocky. Mr. Macaulay clarified that this is a manufactured slope and ground cover would help stabilize the slope.  Mr. Williams asked if another ground cover could be used other than trees to provide stabilization.  Mr. Macaulay noted that the intent is also to provide the privacy requested by adjoining residents, adding that it would not totally screen Old Rocky.  Mr. Williams felt that they would be setting a precedent, adding that other residential developments did not provide privacy for existing residents.  He also questioned how the requirement for maintenance of the privacy landscaping would be enforced.

Commissioner Turpen noted that a valid point had been raised, but the landscaping would be provided voluntarily by the developer to address adjoining residents’  concerns.

Mr. Macaulay reviewed where fences would be located and the area that new homeowners will have to maintain.  He noted that the CC&R’ s will provide a provision to make new homebuyers aware of the maintenance requirements.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
    Martin Martino, representing Trident Associates, thanked staff for their hard work on the project.  He reviewed the lots where they are requesting a reduction in the setbacks, and noted that the front yard reduction would add privacy in the rear yard.  He stated that at the neighborhood meetings, privacy had been a main concern to area residents.  The landscaping and the single story element on the back side of one of the house plans would help address these concerns.  Mr. Martino reviewed the V-ditch extension, adding that they will work with affected property owners regarding that issue.  He stated that they had met with the school district regarding school impacts and have entered into an agreement to provide 50% mitigation for the fees.  He noted that enforcement of landscaping will be included as part of the CC&R’ s.

    Commissioner Turpen stated that it is important to accurately disclose to new homebuyers that their children may not attend local schools.  He questioned why the developer would not choose to pay the full mitigation fee.

    Mr. Martino stated that under the law, they aren’ t required to pay any additional fees, but they have met with the school district to review the number of students anticipated for the elementary school, and the additional fees they will be paying will be adequate.

    Commissioner Turpen asked Leigh Coop from the Vacaville Unified School District to address the situation and what fees would be generated.

    Ms. Coop noted that the district could not guarantee that the students would go to the local school even if the full mitigation were paid, because they cannot transfer students who are currently enrolled there to another school.  Ms. Coop clarified that the state match system is pay as you go, so they will have to receive local funding.

    Commissioner Drake noted that developments should be considered on their own merits and should not be approved only if they provide a development agreement with the school district.
Tom Phillippi, Phillippi Engineering, noted that Old Rocky had been previously approved, and the grading for the new project is better and will have less impact on the neighbors.  He noted that the school situation is difficult and shares the concerns of the Commission, but hopefully they will be able to address the situation in a positive way.  He stressed the importance of working in cooperation with the school district, developers and the City.

    Vice-Chairman Minkler noted concern about the City being a party to the enforcement of the landscaping.  Mr. Phillippi noted that protection of the slopes is important in the area, and they will be supplementing the existing landscaping.

    Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
    Commissioner Turpen suggested postponing action on this item so that school issues can adequately be addressed.  He felt that it would be an appropriate time to reconsider impact fees in general, noting that residents in this subdivision will benefit from open space in the area without having to pay for it.  He stated that this could be waived if there are other community benefits provided.  He questioned how the new homebuyers will be notified about the schools, adding concern about misrepresentation of the school in the area.  Mr. Turpen also encouraged the school district to look at the possibility of being able to guarantee that children will go to the neighborhood school if a developer pays the full mitigation cost.  Commissioner Turpen made a motion to deny the project.  Motion died for lack of a second.

    Commissioner Drake noted that he shared concerns regarding school fees, but would not hold this development hostage while these issues are discussed.

    Commissioner Williams felt that this is a good project, but it could be better.  He stated that even though this project was previously approved, it should be considered as a new project.  He noted concern about the traffic circulation and the need for a traffic light at Browns Valley and Wrentham.  He stressed that the City should not wait until traffic accidents warrant the need for a traffic signal.  He felt that the unique situation of the school in the area adds traffic, and they need to consider the cumulative impacts and install a traffic signal now.  Mr. Williams stated that he understands the need for privacy, but didn’ t think the City should be a party to the enforcement of landscape maintenance.  He noted concern about the stub at Ballindine Drive, adding that they have an obligation to improve the situation, and the need to provide an access to the open space.  He suggested that the developer install a 7-10 foot strip to provide access to the open space.  City Engineer Baird clarified that there is an existing 20 foot easement in the area that provides access between the park and Ballindine that will be maintained.

    Vice-Chairman Minkler asked for clarification of the three car garages and the options available to the homebuyers.

    Mike Temps, Architect for the project reviewed the homes that would be on the smaller lots and the garage options that are available.  He noted that there is also a side entry garage available on one of the plans.

    Commissioner Turpen asked that a condition of approval be added that the home buyers be given a copy of the two letters from the school district to make them aware of the current school fee situation.

    Commissioner Williams felt that Condition #59 sufficiently addressed the requirement to disclose the school situation to new homebuyers.

    Commissioner Turpen stated that he would prefer to err on the side of providing too much information and they should not prevent new homebuyers from receiving this disclosure.

    City Engineer Baird clarified that a traffic signal at that location will be acted upon by state warrants, adding that installing a signal too soon could create other traffic concerns.

    Chairman Wilkins stated that the traffic signal should not be the burden of the developer, but the City as a whole.

COMMISSION ACTION:

Commissioner Aldrich moved, Commissioner Williams seconded that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the proposed Vesting Tentative Map and Planned Development for the Old Rocky Estates subdivision, deleting Conditions 10 & 11.  Motion approved 5-1 (Turpen, no).

Vice-Chairman Minkler stated that he shares concern about the school impacts, and encouraged the developer to do all that is possible to mitigate for the loss of fees.

Chairman Wilkins called a 10 minutes recess and resumed the meeting at 10:00 p.m.

2.    VINEYARD HILLS ESTATES –  BD Properties, applicant
File No. 98-197
    1. Tentative Map
    2. Planned Development
c.    Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Associate Planner Duffy reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a proposal to construct an 18-lot custom home subdivision on a 23.6-acre site, located between Vine Street and Markham Avenue.  Access to the new subdivision would be from a single roadway connecting to Vine Street, approximately 500 feet south of Alta Mira Drive.  The minimum lot size proposed in the subdivision is 20,000 sq. ft.  House plans for each lot will be considered in the future on a case-by-case basis, with design review.

    Commissioner Drake asked if there are provisions for improvements to Vine Street.  City Engineer Baird clarified that fees are being collected from homebuyers to address the condition of the road.  He reviewed the requirements for the Blue Oak subdivision that will realign Vine Street to intersect with Depot Street.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
    George Conner, BD Properties, thanked staff for their hard work on the project.  He also thanked the residents who attended the neighborhood meeting.  He had a few areas of concern, one of which is the requirement for perimeter fencing of each lot.  He requested that Condition #9B be removed, adding that most residents were in favor of open style fencing.  He also noted concern with Condition #43 requiring a 50 foot right-of-way dedication.  He stated that 42 street was previously approved and also allowed the provision to install a sidewalk on only one side of the feet. Mr. Conner stated that this would provide a more rural effect as well as cut down on the costs of construction.  Regarding Condition #47, he asked if Lot 12 could be pumped instead of being gravity sewered to the cul-de-sac.

    Commissioner Williams wanted to make sure that the driveways will not create a negative aesthetic impact.  Associate Planner Duffy noted that driveway cuts would be reviewed through a design review when the individual house plans are submitted.  Ms. Duffy also clarified the requirement for perimeter fencing, noting that each of the existing residents will be contacted regarding the replacement of the existing fencing.

    Chairman Wilkins suggested that the words “ as well as each lot”  be stricken from the condition that addresses perimeter fencing.

    Commissioner Turpen stated that they should not eliminate a homebuyer’ s option of not having a fence.

    Warren Bennett, BD Properties, noted that the cul-de-sac serves only 16 lots, and that the foot traffic generated by these lots could be accommodated by a sidewalk on only one side, and would help create a rural atmosphere.

    Commissioner Turpen questioned the status of a school agreement.

    Mr. Bennett noted that they have met with the school district and will meet the mitigation requirements.

    Loretta Hein, 206 Alta Mira, noted that her lot backs up to Lots 3, 4 & 5.  She stated that she has always understood that the property behind her home will be developed.  She added that they would like to have an open style fence to maintain the rural atmosphere.  She also requested that she not have to work with three separate homeowners about the type of fence that each of them wants.

    Greg Fitzgerald, 132 Vine Street, noted concern that some of the Commissioners had not visited the site, adding that it is a unique area of Vacaville, and they should minimize the impacts.  He noted that much of the open space would be privately owned and maintained and requested that it be open space that can allow access to the public.  He noted concern about a portion of the homes being allowed to encroach into the 25% slope.  Mr. Fitzgerald stated that the lots are deep and didn’ t see the need to encroach into the slope.  He questioned if some of the lots could be reconfigured to allow more building area.  He also questioned if the removal of the trees would be done as part of the approval, or by each individual owner.  He questioned if they would be required to provide open fencing.  Ms. Duffy reviewed the recommended conditions that provide that a resident would be able to keep an existing wood fence.  Mr. Fitzgerald felt that the minimum square footage of the homes should be increased to 2,500 to 3,000 sq. ft.  Ms. Duffy clarified what is considered an open style fence adding that perimeter fencing has always been a requirement of the developer and has not been passed onto the individual homebuyer.

    Wendy Gardner, 348 Markham, requested that an open style fence be maintained.  She noted concern about a homebuyer being allowed to install a solid wood fence and would like to be able to facilitate the type of fence with the adjoining homebuyer to maintain the rural atmosphere.

    Bob Jordan, 266 Alta Mira Drive, commented that he did not want to create a cul-de-sac problem like the one that exists on Alta Mira.  He noted that there is access to Old Rocky through Alta Mira, and they have had problems with kids accessing the area and misusing the property. He stated that they should have public access through another area.  He felt that a sidewalk on one side of the street would be sufficient.

    Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
    Commissioner Williams noted his appreciation for the public comments.  He requested to see a map of the ridgeline and topography for future developments that include or adjoin ridgelines. He noted concern about having unacceptable environmental impacts and is not convinced that this is the right development for the area.

    Commissioner Aldrich noted concern about cutting into the 25% slope for driveways or homes.  She stated that she understood the concern about the potential of unmatched fences.

    Vice-Chairman Minkler agreed that one sidewalk would be acceptable, and that perimeter fencing should not be required.  He also noted concern about cutting into the slope.

    Commissioner Drake questioned if they would be allowed to cut into the 25% slope for driveways.  Ms. Duffy clarified what portion of a home could encroach and reviewed which lots would be affected.  Mr. Drake felt confident that City staff would address any issues during their approval process.

    Commissioner Turpen requested that they recalculate development impact fees.  He felt that the developer might pay full mitigation fees if the school district would guarantee students would go to local schools.  He felt that current disclosure notice was developed prior to Proposition 1A and now more information should be given to homebuyers.

    Commissioner Williams felt that this development is not much different from a regular subdivision, and there is a need for sidewalks on both sides, particularly for safety reasons.  He noted his opposition to the project as a whole because the density is inappropriate for the topography.  Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Aldrich seconded to deny the project because of inconsistency with the topography of the area.

    Vice-Chairman Minkler noted concern with the motion.  However, he felt that the project meets the City requirements, and was not comfortable denying the project.

COMMISSION ACTION:

Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Aldrich seconded to deny the project. Motion tied 3-3 (Williams, Aldrich & Turpen, yes, Wilkins, Minkler & Drake no).

Community Development Director Rowland reviewed the potential to continue the item to address the grading issues.

Commissioner Drake reiterated that it is not appropriate to vote against a project except on its own merits.

Commissioner Aldrich noted concern that on some of the lots there is no option but to cut into the slope.  She felt that it might be setting a precedent.

Commissioner Drake moved to approve the project.  Motion died for lack of a second.

Vice-Chairman Minkler recommended that the project be brought back to provide more information on how the lots would be affected.

Vice-Chairman Minkler moved, Commissioner Drake seconded to continue the item to a date uncertain.  Motion approved 5-1 (Turpen, no).

3.    BLUE OAK UNIT I AND III SUBDIVISION –  Phillippi Engineering, applicant
    File No. 98-165
    1. Vesting Tentative Map
    2. Planned Development
    3. Mitigated Negative Declaration
The project consists of subdivision on 14.7 acres, located on the east side of Vine Street, just north of the Albertson’ s shopping center.  The northern portion of the project site (Unit I) consists of 33 custom-home lots on 10.9 acres with a minimum lot area of 8,000 sq. ft.  Subsequent house plans will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.  The southern portion of the site (Unit III) consists of 25 lots on 3.8 acres, and is planned for production homes with floor areas ranging from 1,150 sq. ft. to 1,400 sq. ft.  The minimum lot size for this portion of the subdivision would be 4,200 sq. ft.  This project includes the realignment of Vine Street to connect with Markham Avenue.  This item was continued to March 2, 1999.
    1. BLUE OAK UNIT II –  Phillippi Engineering, applicant
File No.  98-163
    1. Vesting Tentative Map
    2. Planned Development
    3. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
The Blue Oak Unit II subdivision consists of 32 custom home single family lots on 12.9 acres, located on the west side of Vine Street, across from Wesley Avenue.  Site access is provided by three new street connections with Vine Street.  The minimum lot size would be 10,000 sq. ft.  An identical project was approved for this site in July of 1990, and the planning applications expired last year.  This item was continued to March 2, 1999.

H.    BUSINESS ITEM:

1.    STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE

Community Development Director Rowland reviewed the goals and focus of the strategic Plan which include:  1) Strengthen the local economy: 2) Enhance community pride and enjoyment; 3) Promote neighborhood viability; 4) Promote the health, safety and future of our youth; 5) Maintain effective and efficient City services; and 6) Encourage citizen awareness and participation.

Commissioner Williams stated that this is a good plan, but questioned how the Commission’ s interest in updating the General Plan would be reflected in the strategic plan.

Mr. Rowland noted that it could be an action plan within the strategic plan.

Chairman Wilkins noted that he was on the Commission when the strategic plan was first instigated, because there were items other than land use issues that need to be addressed.  He commented that this program is outstanding and he is not aware of any other city that does this. He recommended that the quality of education and children being able to attend schools in their area be addressed.  He suggested setting a new goal to maintain a first class education system in Vacaville, then determine how it will be accomplished.  He felt that it will be important to have a close partnership with the City, Developers and the School District to achieve these goals.

Commissioner Williams felt that the issue of highways and corridors should be added to Goal 2, Enhance community pride and enjoyment.  He suggested that it would be important to look at policies regarding schools when the General Plan is updated.

Commissioner Turpen noted his support for the document, also stressing the importance of updating the General Plan.  He felt that there are many issues that need to be looked into further, such as impact fees.

Vice-Chairman Minkler questioned if something could be done in the Old Rocky area, regarding maintenance of open space areas.  He suggested also looking at ways that the open spaces could be more accessible.

Commissioner Turpen noted that they need to look at the different types of open space, noting that some areas may or may not be accessible to the public, and are strictly for visual enjoyment or agricultural preservation.

Commissioner Williams stated that if the City is going to acquire open space, it is important to also maintain it.

Mr. Rowland commented that they would compile the issues that were discussed and bring them back for the Commission’ s review.

Chairman Wilkins suggested creating categories that can fit into an existing goal.

Mr. Rowland stated that the Council would also be receiving input from other commissions and the community.

I.    DIRECTOR'S REPORT:

1.    Assistant Director Rowland reported on City Council actions pertaining to Planning Commission items and reviewed the tentative schedule of future Planning Commission items and select items under staff review.

J.    COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Chairman Wilkins congratulated Mr. Rowland on his promotion to Community Development Director.  He stated that he is looking forward to being able to continue to work with him in the future, and noted his appreciation for his past direction.

Mr. Rowland noted that he was looking forward to continuing to meet with the Commission.

Commissioner Aldrich stated that the Red Carpet Carwash landscaping is continuing to get worse.  She also noted that Nut Tree Road north of Vaca Pena is beginning to sink.  Staff stated that they would look into the situation.

Commissioner Williams felt that it is important to advance the installation of a traffic light at Wrentham and Browns Valley.  He stated that the corporation yard improvements should include a sidewalk along Elmira Road in the first phase of improvements.  He also stressed the importance of staff looking at a project fresh when it comes back and not feel obligated to have old conditions follow with the project.

City Planner Emerson noted that a lot of projects come back revised or new, and to some degree staff endeavors not to revisit issues that have been addressed in the past.  He noted that they do look at new policies and address new issues.

Mr. Rowland noted that the City has been criticized in the past for having a “ moving target” .  He stated that if policies and facts haven’ t changed, they should reach the same conclusions.  If new information is received or elements change, they would be addressed, but it is important to be consistent and fair.

Chairman Wilkins stated that it is important to capitalize on opportunities when they are available, and let the developers know what is expected of them.

K.    ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to discuss at this regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Mary Page, Recording Secretary