Day 1999.08.03PC

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

Commissioner Williams noted a correction on the last page that refers to Chairman Williams instead of Chairman Wilkins. Vice-Chairman Minkler moved, Commissioner Dimmick seconded to approve the minutes of July 20, 1999, as amended. Motion approved 5-0-2 (Williams and Aldrich abstained).

Assistant Planner Behvand reviewed the project and introduced the staff report into the record, noting that this is a proposal for a one-year time extension of the Cooper Station Subdivision located on 59.4 acres at the southwest corner of Leisure Town Road and Ulatis Drive. The development is a 198-lot single family residential subdivision, with primary access from Leisure Town Road and Ulatis Drive. Five house plans are proposed for the project. Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is within the scope of the previous Cooper Station Negative Declaration, which adequately described the impacts of this project and meets the requirements of CEQA.

Ron Merrill, JJM Corporation, noted that they were requesting a third time extension request because of the economy. He noted that their intent is to build an upscale project with larger homes. He stated that they are in negotiation with a major builder who will move forward with the original plan. He added that they will be working with staff regarding the house plans. He clarified that they were not requesting any changes to the original approval.

Commissioner Williams moved, Vice-Chairman Minkler seconded that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 99-145, reaffirming the previous environmental assessment and statement of overriding consideration, and approving a one-year time extension for the Cooper Station subdivision. Motion approved 7-0.

City Planner Emerson introduced the study session, noting that it would be a presentation and public discussion of the City of Vacaville Residential Design Guidelines. The Planning Commission and City Council originally adopted the guidelines in 1996. The guidelines include comprehensive standards pertaining to subdivision layout, site planning and architectural design.

Mr. Emerson reviewed the background of the development standards and a summary of the design requirements. He noted that there are three tiers of the design requirements which are 1) ordinances; 2) design standards and 3) guidelines. The three major categories of the design requirements are 1) subdivision design; 2) site plan design and 3) architectural design. Mr. Emerson provided examples of the design requirements and architectural design. He also reviewed the changes that will be implemented as a result of requests made by the Commission and City Council.

Commissioner Williams felt that an area that could be explored would be when a subdivision is being built next to an existing subdivision or potential subdivision, noting areas where a street is stubbed off for a future connection. Mr. Williams questioned if there are guidelines that address alleyway entries. Mr. Emerson noted that alleys are addressed in the standards. Mr. Williams questioned of there are guidelines that require on-site amenities for higher density projects or senior citizen complexes. He also asked if there is a requirement for elevator access for seniors. Mr. Emerson clarified that the standards only address single family residences, but multi-family standards could be added.

Chairman Wilkins stated that residents need to be aware when a stubbed street will connect with their subdivision. He also questioned if traffic-calming measures are addressed. Mr. Emerson noted that typically developers don’ t have a problem with street connections, it is usually a neighborhood concern. He added that a traffic calming study is being prepared by Public Works.

Vice-Chairman Minkler questioned if the recycling requirements are still necessary with the new city recycling program. He noted that they need to be consistent with City standards. Mr. Emerson noted that they would review that standard, but the intent is to provide convenience for residents. Mr. Minkler noted concern about allowing wood shake shingles, adding that fire treatment applied to the shingles doesn’ t last long.

Commissioner Dimmick felt that the recycling requirement would be more appropriate in commercial standards. He agreed that design standards are important, and suggested that more open space or linear parks be provided in developments. He also felt that it is important to provide logical circulation within a development.

Commissioner Drake questioned if a proposal meets all the development code standards, are there any grounds to deny a project. Mr. Emerson noted that if a development does comply with all the development standards, the Commission does need to make findings, and if it complies, it may be difficult to deny. He added that potential impacts raised at the hearing could be grounds for denial.

Chairman Wilkins stated that it is important to consider the difference between the “ letter of the law” and the “ spirit of the law” . He felt that the Commission would have the right to determine if they think a project fits well in an area.

Commissioner Williams stated that the guidelines give a basis to approve at an upper end, but the city does have discretion to encourage a developer to provide more in a project. Mr. Emerson noted the findings within the Planned Development guidelines require a project to be compatible with surrounding areas.

Commissioner Dimmick reviewed the areas within the standards that provide discretion to the Commission or the Council.

Commissioner Turpen noted that a professional staff has developed the standards, but questioned to what extent the standards can promote innovation. He stated that he would like to approach a process, which would be a request for proposals. He also felt that the City could choose to add subsidy to a project to gain a project that will improve the City. He felt that the process should become a competition to resolve a situation. He stated that they need to look ahead and be innovative and felt that the executive housing project should be handled as a competition to extract the best value.

Chairman Wilkins noted that developers often request an exception to allow composition roofs of a lesser grade. He felt that it is important to provide roofs with visual relief. He also suggested providing larger side yards to allow access for RV’ s, and that meandering sidewalks would provide a park-like environment. He stated that they need to let developers know that they want innovation, but doesn’ t know how that can be accomplished, especially when developers don’ t like to take high risks. Mr. Emerson noted the street standards were revised which allow more flexibility for small lot projects. Mr. Wilkins noted that in-fill projects could be good areas to explore more innovation.

Commissioner Dimmick questioned if many of the subdivisions being built now were approved prior to development of the guidelines. Mr. Emerson gave examples of recent subdivisions that comply with the standards.

Vice-Chairman Minkler questioned what latitude they have on approving time extensions, to encourage some update to current standards. Mr. Emerson noted that because the subdivision map act requires a developer to agree to any changes to the subdivision conditions or the decision maker must deny the map. However, many subdivisions include a planned development permit which is subject to discretionary review and could include requirements to meet current standards.

Commissioner Drake felt that the message to developers needs to be to move forward if their project is approved.

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 provided an update on the Nuggett Market at the Village at Vacaville Shopping Center. He provided a project description and reviewed the modifications to the building and site plan. Chairman Wilkins noted concern about the design of the parking lot requesting that parking stalls not be allowed directly on the drive isle. Vice-Chairman Minkler spoke highly of Nuggett Markets, adding that they have a high quality operation.

Commissioner Williams questioned if there is a policy for naming streets, referring to a sign he had seen called “ Travis Credit Union Street” . Mr. Rowland noted that there is no policy, but developers submit names and they are reviewed for dispatch by Police and Fire, and to determine if they are too similar to an existing name. He clarified that the approved street name for that area is “ Travis Way” , which does have a historical tie to the community. Mr. Williams noted that businesses may change, but streets do not, so it is important not to name streets after a business, which could be used, as a form of advertising.

Commissioner Turpen noted that the damaged billboard on Cliffside Drive had been removed. He stated that he would not be able to attend the next Planning Commission meeting.

Commissioner Williams noted his appreciation to the Public Works Department for the traffic study that is being conducted around the Nut Tree. He requested that they receive the results from the study after the Renaissance Faire. He thanked the Commission and staff for their concern during his recent recovery from surgery.