Month 1999.04 April.


Day 1999.04.06PC


PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Planning Commission Regular Meeting
City of Vacaville
7:30 p.m. –  Council Chambers    April 6, 1999

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

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

C.    COMMUNICATIONS:
1.    Letter from James Blain, regarding Item G.1, Nob Hill Estates.
2.    Corrected site plan for Item H.1. Lee Family Day Care.

D.    APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
    Commissioner Aldrich moved, Commissioner Drake seconded to approve the agenda.  Motion approved 6-0.

E.    APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Drake moved, Commissioner Aldrich seconded to approve the minutes of March 16, 1999.  Motion approved 6-0.

F.    BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR:
None.

G.    PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1.    NOB HILL ESTATES TIME EXTENSION, Mobile Park Properties, applicant
File No. 99-032
a.    Tentative Map
b.    Planned Development
c.    Reaffirmation Negative Declaration

Associate Planner Trippi reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this project consists of a one-year time extension request for a 20 lot, custom home subdivision on 19.4 acres located north of Senaca Way and Cheyenne Drive.  Approximately 12 acres will be subdivided, and 7.4 acres will be dedicated to the City as open space.  Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is within the scope of a previous Mitigated Negative Declaration (EA-33-91), which adequately described the impacts this project and meets the requirements of CEQA.

Mr. Trippi noted that in Condition 52 regarding school issues, the word “ capacity”  would be inserted.  Commissioner Drake asked for clarification of condition 20c regarding roof materials. Staff noted that this was a condition from the previous approval, adding that it may not be appropriate to include treated wood shake, and that staff could revise the condition.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
    Tom Phillippi, Phillippi Engineering, stated that they were in agreement with the conditions of approval.  He noted that they don’ t anticipate being able to start the project in the near future. He commented that because this is an upper-end project, it is expensive to build.  He added that they may consider developing the project in phases.
    Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION ACTION:

Commissioner Drake moved, Commissioner Dimmick  seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-032 approving a one-year time extension for the Nob Hill Estates Tentative Map, Planned Development, and Reaffirmation of the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration with Condition 20.c modified to read as follows:

20.c.    Roof design shall provide a variation in the height and direction of ridgelines.  Roof materials shall be concrete tile, or an equivalent subject to review and approval by the City Planner.  No composition shingles are permitted.

Motion approved 6-0.

2.    VACAVILLE AUTO CENTER FREEWAY SIGN  AmeriVision, applicant
File No.  99-044
a.    Policy Plan Amendment
b.    Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration

Senior Planner Macaulay reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a request for an amendment to the Vacaville Auto Center Policy Plan to allow off-site advertisement on the proposed freeway-oriented sign.  The Auto Center Identification sign, which is not under consideration with this Policy Plan Amendment, is proposed with a 717 sq. ft., 60 ft. high electronic reader board.  The sign will be located adjoining Interstate 80 within the Vacaville Auto Mall, which is on Orange Drive at Auto Center Drive.

Commissioner Williams questioned if the issue of safety had been addressed as part of this proposal.  He also asked what the process would be for their recommendation to the City Council if the Commission felt that safety is an issue.   Mr. Macaulay clarified that the Commission cannot initiate a Policy Plan Amendment, but can request that the City Council initiate one to clarify the standards for the auto center identification sign.
Commissioner Turpen questioned if CalTrans has standards about the content of a sign. Mr. Macaulay noted that the Outdoor Advertising Act includes standards for message center displays related to the amount of time the image can be on the screen.  He added that the standard prohibits morally offensive content.  Mr. Turpen questioned if this new technology had been fully evaluated by CalTrans.  He felt that it would be important to review this before any commitment is made for off-site advertising.  Mr. Macaulay noted that he was not aware of any surveys that have been done, adding that there are similar signs in other communities  with permits issued by  CalTrans.  He reviewed the size of the proposed sign in comparison to the sign in Roseville.  He also noted that if the City Council were to approve the sign, it would be brought back to the Commission for project conditions.
Commissioner Dimmick noted that the Gateway Committee is looking at all the gateway areas of town, and the view that people receive as they drive down the freeway.  He noted that the Committee’ s goal is to lay out guidelines for signs and landscaping.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
    Scott Tomlinson, AmeriVision, stated that his company built and installed the sign for the Roseville Auto Mall.  He acknowledged that there is a concern about the quality of information that may appear on the site.  He clarified that the sign would be used not only for off-site advertising, but also community activities.  He provided pictures of the advertisements that could appear on the sign, adding that the images can be adjusted for clarity and brightness.  He reviewed the agreements that are signed for advertising, and the revenue that can be generated for the City.  Mr. Tomlinson noted that Cal Trans has reviewed the sign extensively, adding that the images come on the screen in a way that does not create a large distraction. He clarified for the Commission that an association is established that would determine what advertising can go on the sign, adding that outside dealerships that would be in conflict with the Auto Mall would not be allowed to advertise.  He stated that the sales generation in Roseville has increased since the sign was installed, but they cannot determine if it is attributed to the off-site advertising. Commissioner Dimmick questioned if the sign could be restricted to only Vacaville owned and operated business, stressing that advertising costs need to be affordable.  Mr. Tomlinson noted that many local businesses are not locally operated, but stated that they could consider reduced rates for local businesses.  He provided a video demonstration of the sign in Roseville.
    Jeff Fair, AmeriVision, stated that studies have been performed by the Federal Highway Administration regarding electronic message boards and have found no significant adverse affects on traffic.  He felt that this technology has provided a hightened sense of awareness on the roadway.  He noted that electronic signs typically increase sales from 5-15%.  He reviewed the state requirements for the amount of time messages can be on and off.  He stated that these type of signs are common in other parts of the country and have had no adverse effects.
    Ralph Marcello, Roseville resident, stated that a benefit to the city would be the additional tax that is generated from the sales of cars that are sold as a result of this sign.  He felt that there is a greater danger from people who use cell phones than from people reading advertisement signs.
    Tim Quakenbush, 792 Lovers Lane, questioned the economic viability of this sign.  He stated that the Roseville sign has generated a lot of controversy, which Vacaville does not need.  He stated that there are other resources available to businesses for advertising.  He felt that this would be setting a precedent for other businesses who also want a similar sign.  He added that 10% local service advertising on the sign would not be a great benefit to the community.
    Sally Werner, 102 Vine Street, felt that this sign will not improve the aesthetics of the community.  She felt that Vacaville is a unique community with beautiful surroundings that she hopes will stay that way.
    Ernest Kimme, 110 Laurel Street, stated that it is important to look at the intent of the Policy Plan when it was originally approved by the City Council.  As a former Council member, he noted that at the time, the technology was not available and this type of signage was not intended when the Policy Plan was approved.  He felt that it is important to consider the traffic impacts and the type of distraction that off-site advertising could create.  He noted that the Saturn sign in Cordelia is extremely bright and he has experienced the night vision hazards when driving through the area.  He also stated that it is important to consider what the community wants the gateways to look like.  He noted that community advertising is already available on two existing signs along the freeway.
    Kimberly Ash, Ad Art Signs, stated that there will be a sign located in this area either way, and they should not limit the advertising because of the potential increase in revenue.
    John Barnato, 337 Danbury Circle, stated that he is on the Gateway Committee.  He felt that the sign could advertise the auto mall without providing off-site advertising.   He felt that the sign would be similar to a billboard and is not the image that the committee wants for Vacaville. He stated that there are other options for signage and that the City needs to be consistent.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
    Commissioner Drake noted concern with off-site advertising and the possible content of the sign.
Commissioner Aldrich noted that many of the downtown businesses are family operated and would not be able to afford the cost to advertise on the sign.  She also noted concern about who would be responsible for reviewing  the content of the sign.
Commissioner Turpen noted that he would be in favor of the proposal more if some of the billboards along the freeway were removed.
Commissioner Dimmick, who is also on the Gateway Committee, felt that if this sign provided off-site advertising, it would be similar to a billboard.  He felt that it would not provide substantial community benefit, adding that Vacaville already has signs that provide that service.
Commissioner Williams noted a visitor’ s impression of a community is formed very quickly, and the city has a legitimate reason to limit advertising to on-site premises.  He noted that signs are intended to serve many purposes, but it has not been determined that a sign should help generate revenue for a city.  He stated that he would vote to deny the proposal.

COMMISSION ACTION:

Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Drake seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 99-044, recommending that the City Council deny the proposed amendment to the Vacaville Auto Center policy plan.

Commissioner Turpen stated that local jurisdictions can add safety concerns to CalTrans considerations, which he thought this proposal would warrant.  He felt that because of safety reasons at this site, where two lanes merge off and on, additional safety concerns should be noted.

Commissioner Williams noted that he would amend his motion to include the additional finding of safety.  Motion approved 6-0.

Commissioner Williams felt that it would be appropriate to look at what type of sign they want at that site, and because of safety issues, and determine what type of signs would be appropriate that this location.  Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Turpen seconded to recommend to the City Council that they direct the Commission to initiate a Policy Plan Amendment that would examine the issue of electronic bulletin boards at the auto mall.  Motion approved 6-0.

Vice-Chairman  Minkler called a 10 minute recess and resumed the meeting at 8:55 p.m.

3.    VINEYARD HILLS ESTATES –  BD Properties, applicant
File No. 98-197
a.    Tentative Map
b.    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 is 20,000 sq. ft.  Subsequent house plans will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.  Consideration of this item was continued from the Planning Commission meeting of March 2, 1999.

Ms. Duffy reviewed the changes to the previous proposal, adding that staff had held two neighborhood meetings and made a site inspection to evaluate the yards that back up to the property on Markham and the damage from drainage.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
    John Banta, 330 Markham, noted that his lot is located on the corner of Lot 9.   He requested clarification of the sewage line that runs behind his house.  He also noted concern about the hours of construction and that they would be able to work seven days a week.  City Engineer Baird clarified where the sewage lines are located adding that they are in separate lines from the storm drain and there is no potential for the two to overflow into each other.
Loretta Hein, 206 Alta Mira Drive, noted that her property is adjacent to lots 3, 4 & 5 and requested that an open style fence be installed along the whole length of the property.  She noted that a lot of wildlife moves through the area and requested that lots 6, 7 & 8 not be fenced until the property is ready to be developed, so that the wildlife is allowed to continue to move through the area.  She felt that it would be unreasonable to allow the hours of construction to be 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.  She suggested meeting with staff and the developer to determine the type of fencing to be installed.
Greg Fitzgerald, 132 Vine Street, stated that his property is next to lot 2.  He noted that the developer has addressed their concerns about providing larger lot envelopes.  He stated that his only concerns relate to fencing and what the definition of open range fencing is, including the height limitations.  He stated that he would not be in favor of a chain link fence, but would prefer an open style or split rail fence, so that the rural atmosphere could be maintained.  Regarding minimum square footage of the homes, he felt that because this subdivision is proposed with large lots, 2,000 sq. ft. would not be large enough.
Dick Warner, 102 Vine Street, noted concern about the fencing and questioned how they would be able to work on their existing fences if a new fence is placed only a few inches away. He noted that a post and rail fence would be less expensive and easier to repair.  He felt that wildlife would be restricted if a chain link fence is installed.  He noted that because of the slope of lot 12, it will be difficult to disk, and questioned if they would be allowed to keep livestock to keep the slope cleared.  Mr. Warner also questioned if cobblestone would be installed for drainage.  City Engineer Baird reviewed the condition that will address drainage.
George Conner, developer of the project, thanked staff for their work on the project.  He noted that the redesigned project has addressed the concerns that were raised at the last hearing, particularly the amount of cut within the 25% slope area.  He noted that the new design also reduces the amount of grading that will occur.  He stated that he is willing to meet with the residents and install any type of fence that they agree to.  He requested that they be allowed to install sidewalk on only one side of the street to provide a rural atmosphere.  He felt that the requirement that homes be at least 2,500 sq. ft. is excessive, and that size does not always indicate the quality of a home.  He requested that the condition be changed to a minimum of 2,200 sq. ft.  He reviewed the setback for the drainage swale, adding that this subdivision will improve the drainage in the area for the Markham residents.  Condition 51 (regarding the common driveway), he requested that the word “ concrete”  be eliminated so that they would have the alternative of using other types of hardscape.
Donna Lawell, 372 Markham, was concerned about the 10 ft. setback for the drainage swale.  She noted that there is a line of Black Walnuts in the area and there should be no trenching within the dripline.  She also questioned the setback for structures.  Ms. Duffy clarified that a 20 foot setback would apply to accessory structures such as sheds and gazebos, and a 50 foot setback would apply to the main structure.  Mr. Conner noted that the 10 foot drainage setback would not interfere with the dripline.  Ms. Lawell provided pictures of the existing fences expressing concern about having a new fence located within inches of the existing fence.
Dorothy Blestcher, 390 Markham Avenue, stated that drainage runs into her backyard. She requested information that would prove that 25% of the drainage will be diverted from her home as a result of this project.
Wendy Gardner, 348 Markham Avenue, thanked staff and the developer for their hard work on the project.  She questioned who would be responsible for the maintenance of the drainage swale after the development is completed.  She wanted the assurance that they will be able to resolve any problems that may occur in the future.  City Engineer Baird stated that the drainage in the area will greatly improve with development in this area.  He also noted that the developer could grant an easement for the purpose of maintenance.  She questioned if the new homeowners would be required to receive approval for small structures within the 20 foot setback.  Ms. Duffy clarified the restrictions within the CC&R’ s that would address that issue as well as Building and Planning Division requirements for accessory structures.
Public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
    Commissioner Aldrich thanked Mr. Conner for his progress on the project, specifically the reduction in the cut on 25% slopes.  She felt that 2,200 square feet homes would be acceptable.
    Commissioner Turpen stated that he admired the hard work that has been put into the project.  He questioned the hours of construction and if they were appropriate.  Mr. Conner noted that he would be willing to end construction at dark.  Mr. Turpen agreed that a minimum 2,200 square footage would be appropriate.
    Commissioner Drake congratulated the applicant and staff for a nice project.
    Commissioner Dimmick stated that he would be in favor of allowing the sidewalk on only one side of the street.  He noted that it would add to the rural atmosphere, adding that often rural custom subdivisions have no sidewalks at all.
    Commissioner Williams stated that staff and the developer have worked hard with the neighbors to come up with a project that meets the Commissions concerns from the previous hearing.  He felt that there should be some flexibility regarding the minimum square footage of the homes.  He felt that appropriate construction hours would be from 6 a.m. to dusk on weekdays and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekends.  He added that he was in favor of installing a sidewalk on only one side of the street.  He felt that there needs to be a condition that clearly states that the purchaser of the lot and subsequent homeowners have responsibility to maintain the drainage swale.
    Vice-Chairman Minkler questioned the standard construction hours and expressed concern about changing that standard.  He suggested keeping the minimum square footage at 2,500, and allowing the developer to come in for individual lots and demonstrate that the smaller house size is justified.

COMMISSION ACTION:

Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Turpen seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 98-197 approving the revised Planned Development, Tentative Map, and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Vineyard Hills Custom Residential Development, subject to the conditions of approval with revised conditions to read as follows:

4.    There shall be a different house plan designed for each lot on this development. All dwellings shall comply with the requirements of the RE-20 zone district. Each home shall have a minimum 2,200 sq. ft. in area and meet the definition of custom homes in the City of Vacaville Planned Growth Ordinance.

5.d    Maintenance of the private concrete drainage swales shall be the responsibility of each lot’ s property owner and shall be maintained to the standards approved and shown in the improvement plans for this project.

5. i    There shall be no homes within 50’  (detached structures within 20’ ) of the east property line of lots 9, 10, 11 and 12 which back up to the backyards of houses facing onto Markham Heights.

9.a    Requirement for maintenance (by each individual property owner) of the private concrete drainage swales to maintain the standards approved by this action and specified in the approved improvement plans for Vineyard Hills.
    1. Perimeter fencing for the project shall be an open-style fence. Any existing fencing that is in good condition along the southern and western property lines bordering lot 12, does not need to be replaced. Planning staff shall facilitate and coordinate the specifics (design style, location, time of construction, etc.) of perimeter fencing for this project to better accommodate for neighbors desires. Final design and location of perimeter fencing are subject to City Planner approval.
    1. The developer shall, within 6 months of close of escrow (transferring the property) or at the time construction begins, whichever occurs first, grade along Markham Heights to fill in areas of erosion and create a small berm along adjoining properties to the east.
    1. The following criteria shall be met along the rear of lots adjoining the residences facing onto Markham Heights:
    1. The developer shall grade the site to construct a drainage swale no less than 10 feet from the property line to the east (adjacent to the Markham Heights subdivision lots).
    2. The developer shall establish a 5’  easement adjoining the property line to the east to permit grading and fence maintenance by adjoining property owners in the Markham Heights subdivision.

62. & 5.j    Hours of construction shall be from 6:00 a.m. to dusk on weekdays, and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends.
    
    1. The width of Vineyard Hills Court shall be the hillside standard width (42 ft. R/W, with 32 ft. curb to curb). Sidewalk is only required on one side of the street.

51.    As part of the street improvements the developer shall install the common driveway (made of concrete or other material approved by the City Engineer) for lots 10-12.  If the private, separate, water and sewer services to those parcels will be under that driveway, they shall be installed concurrently with the driveway.  This area will be designated on the Final Map as a mutual access easement for the three lots, as well as a private utility easement for the three lots, and also a public utility easement for the fire hydrant that will likely be required to serve lot 12.

    The 22 feet of frontage for lot 10 on the cul de sac will undoubtedly need to be increased to accommodate all these facilities.  The engineer should submit a sketch showing how all the services and the fire hydrant fit within that area prior to submitting plans for the subdivision street improvements concrete driveway, or other material approved by the City Engineer.

Motion approved 6-0.

H.    BUSINESS ITEM:

1.    LEE FAMILY DAY CARE  Nicole Lee, applicant
File No.  99-012
a.    Family Day Care Home Permit

Assistant Planner Behvand reviewed the proposal and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a request to establish a Family Day Care Home at the single-family residence located at 1037 Zircon Court.  A Family Day Care Home provides less than 24-hour family day care for 7 to 12 children, including children who reside at the home, and is licensed by the State Department of Social Services.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED:
    No comments, public hearing closed.

COMMISSION COMMENTS:
    Commissioner Aldrich stated that the applicant has operated at this address for two years without any problems.  She also noted that they had received nice letters of commendation for the applicant.

COMMISSION ACTION:

Commissioner Aldrich moved, Commissioner Turpen seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-012 approving the Lee Large Family Day Care permit subject to the conditions of approval.  Motion approved 6-0.


I.    DIRECTOR'S REPORT:

1.    Community Development 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.

2.    City Planner Emerson reported on the Planners Institute that they had recently attended, noting that there were many good ideas and it was helpful to be able to compare information with other cities.  Commissioner’ s Williams, Aldrich, Turpen, Drake and Minkler agreed that it was a useful institute and provided helpful information. Commissioner Williams encouraged all who could to attend in the future.


J.    ADJOURNMENT:

There being no further business to discuss at this regular meeting of the Planning Commission, the meeting was adjourn at 10:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,


Mary Page
Recording Secretary