Day 1999.07.06PC

Present: Chairman Wilkins, Vice-Chairman Minkler, Commissioner Aldrich, Commissioner Dimmick, Commissioner Drake, Commissioner Turpen, Commissioner Williams.

Vice-Chairman Minkler moved, Commissioner Williams seconded to approve the minutes of June 15, 1999, including the corrections requested by Commissioner Drake. Motion approved 7-0.

Associate Planner Duffy reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a proposal for new house plans to replace previously approved house plans for the Spinnaker Cove, senior-restricted subdivision, located south of Ulatis Drive and Burton Drive and on a strip of property east of Burton Drive north of Ulatis Drive. Three single-story house plans are proposed on the 65 lots within the subdivision, each with three front elevation treatments. The proposed homes range from 1,460 to 1,801 square feet in area. The project also includes other minor adjustments to street landscaping design. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is within the scope of the previous Spinnaker Cove Negative Declaration (file no. 97-107), which adequately described the impacts of this project and meets the requirements of CEQA.

Commissioner Williams commented that he knows there are policies in the General Plan that allow transfer of density between zones, but what is missing is a policy to allow transfer between General Plan areas. He felt that this is a gray area where two different General Plan designations have been merged. He acknowledged that this action has already been taken, but he will question such an action if it happens in the future unless there is some clear policy in the General Plan that would allow it.

Tom Phillippi, Phillippi Engineering, representing the applicant, reviewed the allowance for the reduction to the density on Parcel B. He stated that most of the revisions to the project are a result of changes in the market and it is anticipated that larger units will sell better. He noted that they hope to move forward with the project in the next few weeks. He clarified that the “ for sale” sign was placed on the property when it was anticipated that the property might be sold, but at this time, City Developers intends to move forward with the project, and it was an oversight that the sign had not been removed.

Mark Len, City Developers clarified that there is a joint venture pending, which they will be part of and will develop the project.

Commissioner Dimmick noted that there is no open space within the subdivision and questioned if a linear park could be implemented and if a pedestrian bridge could be built to access the park. He also felt that landscaping should be added along the canal and creekway. He felt that open space or access to the park would enhance the development and make the project more sellable. He noted that some of the elevations provided in the staff report appeared to be duplicates. Mr. Phillippi responded that the layout of the lots will provide a lot of openness and views to the creek. He added that the duplicate elevations seem to be an oversight and he would review them with the architect.

Vice-Chairman Minkler noted concern about one of the house plans looking boxy and suggested that the elevation be enhanced where possible. Mr. Phillippi noted that the porch feature will add depth to the front of the house and soften the elevation.

Commissioner Turpen questioned the location of the bike path on the far side of the creek, adding that it would be a good idea to install a bridge to create circulation in the area. Mr. Phillippi noted that the community center is very close to this project, adding that the expense of a bridge would be tremendous for a subdivision of this size. He clarified that if a bridge were required as part of this proposal, the applicant may withdraw the modification and build the project that was originally approved.

Commissioner Aldrich noted that this is a gated senior project and it would defeat the intent of the project if there is an access bridge to the park.

Commissioner Turpen stated that the city continues to build a product for one or two types of market. He noted that there are many other types of products that can be utilized for a site like this. He stated that, in general, a broader range of diversity could be explored. Mr. Phillippi noted that developers want to build what will sell and bankers want to lend for projects that will sell. He reviewed a project that was built in Suisun, which included reduced fees and a joint venture with the city and the developer. He stated that such projects can be a risky venture that many developers are not willing to take.

Steve Longino, 224 Putnam Court, stated that his home backs up to this project. He asked for clarification of the setbacks to the existing homes and if the existing oak trees would be maintained. Ms. Duffy clarified that the trees would remain, and for his particular lot, there would be a 30-foot rear setback. Mr. Longino also questioned if a retaining wall would be installed between the properties. Ms. Duffy noted that the developer has the option to replace the existing wood fence, which would be closely coordinated with the adjoining property owners, but a sound wall would only be installed along Ulatis. Mr. Longino noted concern about teenagers who live in the existing homes, possibly disturbing the senior residents. He questioned if a linear park is installed, would it be accessible to only the residents in the senior subdivision. Staff noted that the area would not be closed off.

Karen Longino, 224 Putnam Court, stated that the residents in the new subdivision would be able to see the park, but would have to walk all the way around Nut Tree to access it.

Mr. Phillippi clarified that the Mediterranean Villa subdivision, which is near this site, will provide a path to the park and open up the area to adjoining residents.

Commissioner Drake noted concern about the “ for sale” sign being on the property and the developer going through this process with no intent to build the project, but only to be better able to sell the property.

Commissioner Aldrich noted that she is very interested in this project, and that it is a type of housing that is greatly needed. She felt that it will provide a new opportunity for seniors to select a new home.

Commissioner Williams noted that the original approval addressed a niche in the market, and is concerned that a year ago they were allowed to go to the maximum density, and now the size of the homes have been increased, which provides a significant increase in the footprint. He was concerned that the larger homes will be more expensive, making them less affordable to seniors, and that the homes should not be in such a compressed space.

Commissioner Turpen stated that it is useful to consider a broad spectrum in design, but it makes sense that a developer will build what they know will sell. He noted that they need to have a better city policy on gated communities. He felt that it would be worth pricing a pedestrian path into the project, and he is not convinced that it would be cost prohibitive to the project.

Commissioner Dimmick moved, Commissioner Turpen seconded to deny the project and require that landscaping be installed along the creek and canal, and that they be provided additional elevations. Commissioner Dimmick felt that some type of landscaping is warranted and the applicant should come back with a modification.

Chairman Wilkins questioned if it would be more appropriate to continue the item rather than deny it.

Community Development Director Rowland clarified that the applicant has a current approval, which would not need to be brought back to the Commission.

Commissioner Dimmick moved, Commissioner Turpen seconded to continue the project, requiring landscaping along the creek and canal and a price for the pedestrian path.

Commissioner Williams noted that he still had concern about larger houses and would be opposed to the project because of the increased house size.

Commissioner Drake stated that it would not be fair to interject personal opinions on a project that is in compliance with the city requirements. He noted that he was opposed to the motion.

Commissioner Williams stated that as a Planning Commission they have the responsibility to adhere to the General Plan. He noted that this is a senior project, but this modification may be pricing out some seniors, and that the house sizes in the original proposal are more appropriate.

Commissioner Aldrich agreed with Commissioner Williams that the increase in cost of the larger homes may price out some seniors. She noted concern about asking the developer to research the price of a pedestrian bridge when it would not be on their property, and is not the developers responsibility to install. She felt that added landscaping would be nice, but added that senior citizens in a gated community may not want other people accessing the subdivision through a pedestrian bridge from the park.

Commissioner Drake noted that this is a small senior subdivision, and there are a lot of other housing possibilities for senior housing in Vacaville, so they should not be concerned if some seniors will not be able to afford these houses.

Commissioner Dimmick noted that he was not concerned with the increased house size, and he withdrew the requirement from his motion that would include the pricing for a bridge. Commissioner Turpen seconded the modified motion.

Commissioner Turpen noted that the modification would not increase the number of units in the subdivision, but would increase the profit to the developers. He felt that amenities are important, and it is not unreasonable to ask for a pedestrian bridge, which would improve the site. He felt that the size of the units in the original approval is more appropriate.

Mr. Phillippi clarified that the house plans are options that are provided to the homebuyer, and it would be their choice if they decided to select a larger home. He noted that they are willing to work with staff regarding the elevations and will offer to install landscaping along the creek. He added that there would be the issue of who will maintain the landscaping.

Commissioner Drake emphasized that their charge as a Commission is to take action on what is proposed.

Mr. Len noted that the maintenance of the landscaping could be addressed as part of the homeowners association, and requested that they be allowed to move forward with the modification, adding that they will meet with staff regarding the landscaping.

Commissioner Aldrich moved, Vice-Chairman Minkler seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-121 approving the modification to the Spinnaker Cove Planned Development, and reaffirming the Mitigated Negative Declaration subject to the conditions of approval with condition #2 revised and added condition #13 to read as follows:

2. The design of the houses shall comply with the plan submitted for this modification, except for the elevations of house plan B which shall be revised to display significantly different elevations than those approved for plan A. The new elevations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner. The house plan number and base square footage for the new house plans are as follows:

13. A plan to include appropriate landscaping along the creek and the canal shall be prepared for the review and approval of the City’ s Landscape Architect and City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.

Director Rowland asked for clarification that the requested landscaping would not require additional width in that area which may affect the plan. He suggested that the approval of the elevations and landscaping be deferred to staff for approval.

Assistant Planner Duffy reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a proposal to pave the rear portion of the existing mini-storage parcel located at 920 Davis Street to allow recreational vehicle storage. The proposal includes perimeter chain-link fencing, with slats, and perimeter landscaping. The applicant is proposing the storage lot as a temporary use to remain on the site from 3 to 5 years, until the final phase of the storage project is completed.

Ms. Duffy reviewed the two letters that were submitted. The letter from R.A. Proctor requested to postpone the approval and that exceptions to the standards not be granted. The second letter from Lothrop Ventures acknowledged that the property owner will have to contact them regarding the location of the fence.

Ms. Duffy noted that the short-term advantages are that this project will provide needed RV storage, and that the proposed area does not face onto the street, but backs up to a service commercial parking use. She added that because this is a temporary request, it would be impractical to install a wall until phase 2 is built.

John Simmons, applicant, noted that he opened his mini-storage facility in April and he appreciates being able to do business in Vacaville. He added that he is trying to fill a need for RV parking, and his intent is to use the area for a period of five years until he can build phase 2. He clarified that the area will be paved and the pads will be cut out to place in the building for phase 2. He noted that the proposed area could accommodate 30-40 vehicles and that he would add landscaping to mitigate visual impacts. He stated that his buildings are tilt-up construction and it would be difficult to construct a wall that could be incorporated as part of a building later on. He noted that the Bingo Parlor customers would be the only ones to see the chain link fence. He clarified that phase 2 was being deferred for five years to allow time for phase 1 to economically become more stable. He stated that he prefers to use concrete tilt-up construction, but would check with an engineer to see if a block wall could be integrated into a building at a later date, but he was not economically in a position to spend a lot of money on a block wall at this time.

Dick Quinn, 86 Westwood, questioned if a fence requires a building permit and if barbwire is allowed on the top of a fence. He noted that it was his understanding that a block wall would be installed along the south property line. Staff clarified that the existing chain link fence did not require a permit and that barbwire is permitted. He stated that 25 years ago he had proposed RV storage with chain link fencing and vines, and was told he would have to provide a solid block wall. He reviewed the area where he has provided landscaping along his property to help screen the chain link fence. He noted that a charter school will be locating in one of his buildings, and a lot of people come to his site to the bingo parlor, and he felt that the chain link fence is unsightly. He agreed that a solid fence would be more costly, but is appropriate for the area. He provided photos of the existing landscaping which illustrates what the trailer park residents look at. He agreed that RV storage is needed, but felt that a wall would be an investment in the project.

Commissioner Turpen noted that good arguments were made, but this area faces a parking lot, and felt that there should be an area for compromise for a temporary use.

Commissioner Drake noted that he had visited the site and was not able to see through the fence. He felt that this is a first class facility and this proposal will improve an unused area.

Chairman Wilkins questioned if this project is not approved, would be existing RV’ s need to be removed, Ms. Duffy noted that they would have to be removed, and reviewed the fencing which currently crosses the property line which will be corrected.

Vice-Chairman Minkler questioned if a compromise would be to raise the height of the fence to the height of the RV’ s for the five years that this will be a temporary use.

Commissioner Drake noted concern about raising the height of the fence because of windloads and agreed that the fence should be consistent on both sides of the development.

Commissioner Dimmick noted that the fence and storage yard is not in compliance. He agreed that there is a need for RV storage, adding that it will provide additional cash flow that could be used for a fence. He felt that a fence could be incorporated into the wall of the future building. He noted that landscaping will take at least five years to mature, and he did not feel that a block wall would be an undue burden on the applicant.

Commissioner Turpen stated that it is not their place to get involved in the applicant’ s financial decisions. He felt that this is not a great visual impact and staff has a reasonable plan to bring the project into compliance.

Commissioner Drake stated that the rents for RV spaces don’ t bring in a large amount of money and the proposal would be a plus to the city by getting RV’ s off the street.

Commissioner Dimmick moved, Vice-Chairman Minkler seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 99-131 approving the Planned Development and Reaffirmation of the Pervious Negative Declaration to allow for an outdoor trailer/RV Storage at the Simmons Mini-Storage Facility for a temporary period of five (5) years, with added condition 8 to read as follows:

8. A solid wall (block or other solid decorative wall such as concrete “ tilt-up” ) shall be placed along the north and south boundaries of the outdoor RV, Boat and Trailer storage. The height of the wall shall match that of the existing storage buildings in this property.

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. Commissioner Williams requested that the discussion on the Auto Center Policy Plan be postponed to August 3, since he and Commissioner Aldrich would be absent from the meeting of July 20. Mr. Rowland noted that he would look into rescheduling the item. Chairman Wilkins questioned if another use could locate in the vacant K-Mart site along with Nuggett Market since they won’ t be using the whole building. He felt that it would be nice to have the whole building utilized.

Commissioner Aldrich questioned the status of relocating the ARCO station on Orange Drive. Mr. Rowland reviewed the situation, noting that the plans are not currently moving forward and will take additional time for the sale of the land needed for the relocation.

Commissioner Williams commended staff for their additional review of the Bentley Square grading plan. He felt that it is important to maintain the trees on the site.

Commissioner Drake questioned if the parking lot and striping at the vacant K-Mart site would be improved as part of the Nugget Market project. Mr. Rowland noted that they will be required to repave and stripe the parking lot as part of the site improvements. Mr. Drake questioned the width of shopping center driveways, stating that it is difficult to turn a large vehicle in or out of the entrances without driving over the curb. Mr. Rowland stated that wider driveways are easier for vehicles to enter and exit, but allow higher speeds.

Assistant Director Rowland noted that on August 17, staff would review the residential design standards. He felt that it would be beneficial to review the small lot subdivision standards to familiarize the Commission with the standards and see if they felt that they are still applicable or need revisions.

Commissioner Dimmick noted that his main concern with the Spinnaker Cove Subdivision was not the size of the houses or lots, but the lack of landscaping on two sides of the development.

Commissioner Aldrich commented on the sign for the Royal Motel. She noted that there is a banner on both sides of the sign, which are in poor condition and questioned if they will be required to install a permanent sign. Mr. Rowland noted that existing Council direction is to only enforce signs that are a safety hazard.

Commissioner Turpen agreed with Commissioner Aldrich’ s comments about the Royal Motel sign. He also commented, in general about the unsightliness of many signs in Vacaville.

Commissioner Dimmick commented about U-Hauls that are being parked on Davis Street on an unimproved vacant lot. He noted that they need to be consistent in their enforcement of vehicle storage.

Commissioner Williams commented about a recent fire in Centennial park, noting concern about the Fire Departments inability to access gates. He felt that it is important to take that into consideration when approving developments that have access gates. It was also suggested that Mr. Williams contact Fire Chief Moore to inquire about that particular situation.

Chairman Wilkins suggested that it might be helpful to be provided copies of past minutes when a project is being discussed that has been reviewed by the Commission in the past. He also questioned if the Commission was still interested in purchasing Commission shirts. Commissioner Aldrich noted that she would get a catalog and follow-up with the Commission.