Day 1999.04.20PC

Also Present: Community Development Director Rowland, City Planner Emerson, Senior Planner Macaulay, City Engineer Baird, Division Chief Brick, Building Official Turgeon.

City Planner Emerson reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a proposal to convert a residence at 500 Azalea Way into two classrooms for second and third grade students. The new classrooms would become a part of the Bethany Lutheran School, located on the adjacent property at 621 Orchard Avenue. The project also includes the future placement of two modular classrooms in a portion of the on-site paved parking lot, subject to a subsequent Design Review permit. A Planned Development permit is required because of proposed reductions to on-site parking and building setback standards.

Kurt Johnston, Fairfield resident, and long time church member, stated that their goal is to move the church and the school to a new facility on Leisure Town Road, and this would be an interim situation until the new facility is completed. He added that they initially did not intend to utilize modular units, but because of the building and fire code requirements, it will take longer to convert the house to a school.

City Planner Emerson clarified that the placement of the modular units would be a staff level review. He added that the site currently has more than the required parking spaces, so they will be allowed to eliminate some when the modulars are located.

Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Aldrich seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-051 approving the Planned Development Permit application for the Bethany Lutheran School Expansion. Motion approved 6-0.

Senior Planner Macaulay reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this project involves the periodic update of the Building and Fire codes contained in Title XX (Construction and Fire Standards) of the Land Use and Development Code. These updates occur every three years, and are mandated by the State of California. The proposal includes local amendments to the codes. Pursuant to Sections 15063 and 15073 of the Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Initial Study of potential environmental impacts has been prepared and circulated for this project. Based on the findings of the Initial Study, adoption of a Negative Declaration is recommended.

Chairman Wilkins questioned if Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) would be regulated for barbecues. Division Chief Brick noted that they would not be regulated. Commissioner Williams asked why Title 24, the energy efficient standards are not reflected. Building Official Turgeon clarified that Title 24 is included in the state code and automatically goes into the amendments. Because they are not proposing any changes to the energy standards, they are not included in this process.

Commissioner Aldrich moved, Vice-Chairman Minkler seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 99-065, recommending that the City Council approve the Draft Negative Declaration, adopt the 1998 California Building Code, California Fire Code, and related building and construction codes specified in attached Exhibit A, and adopt local amendments to those codes as specified in Exhibits B & C. Motion approved 6-0.

Senior Planner Macaulay reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that Seeno Construction is proposing to amend the Village Hills subdivision Planned Development permit to add two new house plans. The new plans have floor areas of 2,559 sq. ft. and 3,312 sq. ft., and would be constructed on 9 of the 20 remaining vacant lots in the subdivision. Village Hills is located along Beelard Drive, between Elmira Road and Marshall Road. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is within the scope of a previous Negative Declaration for the Village Hills subdivision, which adequately described the impacts this project and meets the requirements of CEQA.

Mr. Macaulay noted that one of the concerns from area residents was the lack of trim elements on the proposed houses. He stated that a condition could be added that the trim be comparable to the existing homes. He also added that the lot where an area resident was requesting that a single story unit be required on Lot 101.

Commissioner Williams noted that the majority of the new models were two story and questioned how the housing mix of single and two story units would be affected. Mr. Macaulay noted that they would still meet the required ratio.

John Schermerhorn, Seeno Construction, stated that they have tried to satisfy the concerns of the existing residents as well as meet the market needs. He noted that the area residents wanted larger homes to help their property value. He felt that the proposed homes will fit well in the area and the colors and landscaping will match the existing homes in the subdivision. He clarified for the Commission that 20% of their buyers requested the option for the larger home with the bonus room. He stated that his company has been working on this subdivision since 1994 and are looking forward to completing the project. He noted that he had met with Mr. Barry who is requesting a single story home behind his, adding that they will work to resolve the issue, possibly installing trees along the property to preserve his privacy.

Commissioner Dimmick asked if the floor plan for the largest home could be reversed which would place only a bathroom window next to the existing home. Mr. Macaulay noted that the driveway cut and utilities are already in place, so the house could not be reversed.

John Barry, 1066 Beelard Drive, stated that he is the original homeowner, and that the original development plan indicated a single story home on Lot 101, and that the current map should also require a single story home. He noted that he has a pool and wants to maintain his privacy, adding that he chose his lot because it would have fewer views into his yard. He commented that he had spoken to Mr. Schermerhorn and would make concessions as a last resort if a two-story home is constructed.

Luana Wheeler, 1054 Beelard Drive, noted that her home is on the other side of lot 101. She stated that she appreciated that Seeno is moving forward to complete the subdivision. She felt that the front of the largest home looks like a box and that the window design could be improved. She stated that she also has a pool and is concerned about privacy. She stated that if trees are provided for the other resident adjoining Lot 101, she would also like trees planted adjacent to her lot.

Brad Pfeifer, 503 Crownpoint Circle, stated that he has a single story home and was concerned about having a large two story home on both sides of his house. He felt that it would block his view and would dwarf his home.

Steve Morton, 485 Crownpointe Circle, requested that the trim be consistent with the existing homes and questioned if lights will be installed on the side of the garages.

Vice-Chairman Minkler questioned if there is any legal commitment to stay with the original plan as far as requiring that a single story home be built on Lot 101. Staff noted that there was no commitment, and it is at the discretion of the Commission, as long as the home met all the setback requirements.

Commissioner Williams noted that he had met with Mr. Barry at his home regarding Lot 101, as well as drove through the subdivision. He noted that there are already two-story homes that look into his backyard. He suggested that a two-story home could be moved further back to address Mr. Barry’ s concerns. He added that they cannot guarantee peoples privacy.

Commissioner Dimmick stated that he understands the issue of privacy, but you can’ t force a developer to plant trees for someone’ s privacy. He felt that larger homes would be in the best interest for the existing homeowners, and will raise their property values. He requested that the trim elements be comparable to the existing Larchmont homes.

Commissioner Turpen agreed that the 3312 Plan is large and boxy and suggested keeping Lot 101 as a single story unit using the 2559 plan on Lots 140 and 142 for aesthetic reasons, not for privacy.

Senior Planner Macaulay noted that it may be difficult for the developer to redesign the plan, and suggested that if the Commission felt strongly, that the developer could come back with a different plan.

John Schermerhorn, Seeno Construction, stated that the homeowners have asked for larger homes for many years, and they have worked hard to accommodate the residents’ concerns. He felt that the 3312 plan is a good design and it would be difficult to redesign. He clarified that this plan would only be utilized on 4-5 lots within the 150 lot subdivision. He stated that views are not guaranteed, and he would prefer not to modify the plan.

Commissioner Dimmick suggested options to reduce the impact of the home. Mr. Schermerhorn noted the structural elements that would prohibit the options Mr. Dimmick suggested. He added that it would require a redesign of the whole house.

Commissioner Turpen moved that the project be approved with Lot 101 being single story and Lot 140 be developed with Plan 2559. Motion died for lack of second.

Commissioner Williams moved, Commissioner Turpen seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 99-059, reaffirming the previous Negative Declaration and approving the modification to the Village Hills planned development, subject to the conditions of approval contained in Exhibit A with the following modifications to read as follows:

8. Front elevation trim and accent features shall equal or exceed the front elevation trim and accent features used on the existing house plans being constructed by Seeno in the Village Hills subdivision.

City Planner Emerson reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that the applicant is proposing to construct an 8,400 sq. ft. retail building on Parcel 1 of the Water Works site, located at 202 Bella Vista Road. The proposed building materials are concrete tilt-up panels with a standing-seam metal canopy on the front elevations, consistent with other buildings on the site. No tenants have been specified at this time.

Commissioner Williams noted because of this centers location, there is the potential of the tenants to use illegal signage to attract business. He had concerns about the possibility of balloons, banners and sandwich boards being used. He questioned if it could be a requirement in the tenant lease that the tenant be required to comply with the sign ordinance. City Planner Emerson stated that it is possible, but has never been done in the past. In addition, tenants are required to pull building permits for signage and they are typically informed about the sign requirements.

Dick Quinn, 86 Westwood Street, and applicant for the project, stated that he is in agreement with the conditions of approval, and noted his appreciation for staff’ s assistance on the project. He requested that signage compliance not be a requirement of his lease, adding that he informs his tenants that they have to go the city for sign permits. He reviewed how traffic circulates off of the Bingo site and requested that the Bingo Hall be allowed to have signage on Davis Street.

Commissioner Aldrich noted her agreement with Commissioner Williams’ s concerns about compliance with the sign ordinance. She stated that with the new sign ordinance being adopted soon, this may be a good place to start enforcing the ordinance.

Commissioner Williams requested that a condition of approval be added that the property owner is responsible for compliance. He stated that because of lack of visibility for this site, he is trying to anticipate potential problems.

City Planner Emerson noted that legally they cannot enforce a portion of a lease between the property owner and a tenant.

Community Development Director Rowland noted that as part of a sign permit, the property owner has to sign the application, and the City would also look to the property owner for compliance. He suggested that they consult with the City Attorney regarding this issue.

Commissioner Dimmick noted that the sign ordinance will be enforced if the Council chooses to require compliance. He felt that it will not be necessary to have that provision within a lease.

Vice-Chairman Minkler moved, Commissioner Williams seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-053 approving the Design Review for Water Works Parcel 1. Motion approved 6-0.

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. Mr. Rowland also congratulated Commissioners Aldrich, Williams, Wilkins and Drake on their reappointment to the Planning Commission.

2. Community Development Director Rowland noted that as part of the Auto Center Policy Plan Amendment, they would not be recommending that electronic signs not be allowed. Commissioner Williams requested that as part of the presentation to the City Council that his comments reflect that his intent was not to not allow electronic signs, but that they should review the types of signs that would be appropriate prior to a sign being proposed. He also noted Mr. Kimme’ s comments at the hearing that this type of sign was not envisioned when the policy plan was originally approved. Commissioner Dimmick noted as a member of the Gateway Committee, that their current sentiment is that they don’ t want electronic signs. He added that at the hearing for the electronic off-site advertising sign, no one from the auto center spoke in favor of the sign, only those who would be advertising on the sign. He felt that that particular proposal was inappropriate for that location. Commissioner Turpen also raised the issue of safety. He felt that with the new technology that allows increased information on a sign, it will create hazards in the area. He also felt that as more and more of these types of signs are allowed, they would be a safety hazard if they were all located together in a row. Commissioner Aldrich noted that her major concern about the sign was who would screen the copy on the sign. She also stated that she had driven past the Roseville sign and felt that it was very unattractive. Vice-Chairman Minkler noted that the applicant has indicated that there were no safety hazards associated with the sign, and suggested that it might be helpful for staff to investigate the impacts. Mr. Rowland noted that the sign ordinance would be reviewed by the City Council prior to being considered by the Commission. He added that they are waiting for responses from the Chamber of Commerce, so it may possibly be postponed to a later date.

Commissioner Aldrich requested that they receive copies of the City Council agendas. She stated that the landscaping and Red Carpet Carwash has not improved. Staff noted that they are working with the property owner to resolve the problem. Ms. Aldrich asked for clarification of required handicap parking spaces within her townhouse complex. Staff noted that they would look at the approved plans and report back to her. Ms. Aldrich asked when the lights at the UC Davis building would be shielded, noting that the lights stay on until 10:00 p.m.

Commissioner Williams stated that he was not aware that a school district can override local zoning. He questioned the review process and if neighbors are notified. Mr. Rowland noted that there has been a law in effect for many years which allows this process. He refered to the the Buckingham school proposed on Bella Vista Road, adding that the District still must comply with CEQA

Vice-Chairman Minkler noted that many of the new backflow prevention devices have been painted green, but don’ t appear to have any screening around them. Mr. Emerson noted that if Mr. Minkler provided him with locations, he would investigate the situation. Vice-Chairman Minkler noted a Commissioners Workshop that will be held on May 22^nd and questioned if any of the other Commissioners were interested in attending. Commissioners Williams and Aldrich stated that they would like to attend.

Commissioner Turpen stated that he is still uncomfortable with the disclosure regarding school capacity that is provided to new homebuyers. He noted that at one of the classes he attended at the Planners Institute that a lawyer had suggested that school districts hold the city harmless. He questioned if this was an option and how other cities handle situations with CEQA. He questioned if there was interest from the Commission to discuss this item with the City Attorney and review the possibiity before their next review of a subdivision. He questioned the potential liability for a city if information regarding unmitigated impacts is not provided to new home buyers. He felt that it is important to determine the magnitude of the problems and how they will be addressed. Mr. Turpen stated that they should review what options are available for disclosure to home buyers.

Commissioner Williams suggested the Mr. Turpen meet with the City Attorney and report back to the Commission. He agreed that it is important to investigate any way to address possible issues.

Vice-Chairman Minkler stated that he would be willing to challenge the law if any effective result can be achieved.

Commissioner Williams stated that he was glad that a sidewalk would be installed with the first phase of the Corporation Yard improvements. He noted that he was disappointed with the view of the Comp USA building from the freeway. He felt that it could have been designed more aesthetically and have less of a warehouse appearance.

Commissioner Dimmick commented that the Comp USA building may have looked better if the parking were designed around the building, rather than a straight wall along the freeway. He also suggested camaflouging the loading dock.