CITY OF FAIRFIELD CITY OF FAIRFIELD PLANNING

Document Sample
CITY OF FAIRFIELD CITY OF FAIRFIELD PLANNING Powered By Docstoc
					                                                             CITY OF FAIRFIELD
                                                           PLANNING COMMISSION
                                                                MINUTES

COUNCIL CHAMBERS                                                                                     NOVEMBER 12, 2003
CIVIC CENTER                                                                                        REGULAR MEETING
                                                                                                             7:00 P.M.

I. ROLL CALL

PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS:                                           Benshoof, Burch, Houdashelt, Mattis, Silverman, Rogers
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:                                            None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:                                            S. Quinn, E. Somjen, E. Beavers, M. Van Lonkhuysen, B.
                                                                  Miller, J. DeLorenzo, F. Beiner, S. Reece-Martens, J.
                                                                  Bragg, J. Pederson, E. Gebing, J. Karpiak, S. Hess

II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

             Led by Commissioner Mattis.

III. INFORMATION ON SPEAKER CARDS

IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

             There being no changes to the agenda, the following motion was made:

ACTION

       It was moved by Commissioner Mattis, seconded by Commissioner Houdashelt to
approve the Agenda as submitted.

ROLL CALL

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:                                              Benshoof, Burch, Houdashelt, Mattis, Silverman, Rogers
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:                                              None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:                                           None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:                                            None

V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 22, 2003

       There being no corrections or additions to the minutes of October 22, 2003, the following
motion was made:

ACTION

        It was moved by Commissioner Houdashelt, seconded by Commissioner Benshoof, that
the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of October 22, 2003, as
mailed.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc                          Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                                          Page 1
MINUTES                                                                                                   NOVEMBER 12, 2003


ROLL CALL

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:                                              Benshoof, Burch, Houdashelt, Mattis, Silverman
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:                                              None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:                                           Rogers
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:                                            None

VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS

             There were no public comments.

VII. SCHEDULED MATTERS

A.           PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF A 2,400
             S.F. MODULAR BUILDING IN MANKAS PARK FOR THE PURPOSE OF
             PROVIDING COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS
             (RESOLUTION 2003-43)
             (M.D.R. 2003-24)
             (APPELLANTS: DICKINSON)

             The Chairperson opened the public hearing.

        Mr. Van Lonkhuysen explained to the Planning Commission that this appeal is based on
the staff approval for a 2,400 s.f. modular building to be placed at Mankas Park to serve as a
neighborhood center for community services. The primary use for this building would be to
house the “Life after School” program for the adjacent K.I. Jones elementary school. He noted
that this project was approved at the staff level, due to the size of the structure, on October 2,
2003. Mr. Van Lonkhuysen added that this type of modular building is also being proposed at
Laurel Creek and B. Gale Wilson schools. The Laurel Creek project has also been appealed, but
the B. Gale Wilson site has not. He also explained that there was a request to move this item to
the December meeting but, due to Zoning Ordinance requirements, appeals must be heard within
45 days of the appeal filing and moving the meeting would not meet that requirement.

        Mr. Van Lonkhuysen explained the zoning and adjacent use specific to this project. The
building is proposed to be located on the south side of Mankas Park, directly behind the existing
parking lot. The area is zoned recreation (REC). The site is to the north of Owens Street and
South of Mankas Blvd. The park is bordered by K.I. Jones elementary school and surrounded by
single-family homes. He further explained that this site was chosen due to the proximity of the
school, play area and available parking. The location provides for a setback far enough from the
parking area to not be visually intrusive (50 feet). The building will be 2,400 s.f. with a large
classroom, computer workstations, kitchenette, and bathrooms. He displayed elevation designs
and overlays. The elevation will include vertical lap siding with full trim and colors to match
surrounding home color schemes.

        Two issues are included within the appeal, stated Mr. Van Lonkhuysen. These include:
1) inadequate parking; and 2) facility location. Staff has studied the parking issue within the area
and found ample parking through the use of the lot and 300 feet of street parking near the site
(not in front of homes). In addition, the Transportation Department has concluded that the pick-
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc                          Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                                          Page 2
MINUTES                                                                            NOVEMBER 12, 2003


up time (4:30-5:30 p.m.) will not interfere with school pick-up times earlier in the afternoon.
Morrie Barr, Deputy City Manager overseeing the Transportation Division, submitted a
professional opinion that states that the proposed use of this (and the Laurel Creek) facility will
actually assist in diminishing congestion during the p.m. peak hours because the children
attending these programs will be picked up later in the day and at varying times.

        Mr. Van Lonkhuysen stated that the appellant included an alternative site for the building
to be located on the opposite, north side of the park. Staff feels that there are multiple reasons
that this site is a poor option including no parking lot, conflict with usable, flat grass area used by
youth sports teams and overall greatly increased cost. He noted that staff has received a letter
from the local soccer league indicating that they use the flat grass field at Mankas Park regularly
and locating the building at this alternative site would interfere with their practice area. He
stated that staff does not support this alternative location.

        Mr. Van Lonkhuysen concluded by recommending that the Planning Commission adopt
the resolution to uphold administrative approval of this project. He added that John DeLorenzo
and Fred Beiner, both from Community Services, will be presenting additional information to the
Commission at this meeting.

         Commissioner Silverman asked to see an overlay display of the alternative location. Mr.
Beiner displayed this and noted that this alternative location would use up 35-40% of the usable
flat turf area within the park. At least 2-3 mature Oak trees would need to be removed to place
the modular in this alternative location, in addition to the needed installation of utilities and an
additional parking lot.

       John DeLorenzo addressed the Planning Commission and introduced himself as the
Director of Community Services. He presented the Commission with details of the Life After
School (LAS) program. Community Services has offered the LAS program for over 20 years
and feels it offers a critical benefit to the children (promoting education and self-esteem), parents
(providing quality, affordable child care) and the community (reducing crime and future juvenile
delinquency). Mr. DeLorenzo referenced several studies noting the benefits of such programs,
along with quotes by Fairfield Chief of Police, Bill Gresham. He also clarified that Community
Services offers two after school programs: Place to be After Three (middle-school kids) and Life
After School (elementary). The projects on appeal tonight will only house elementary-age
children in the Life After School program.

        Mr. DeLorenzo stated the reasons that LAS is seeking a new building and why the
current situation is no longer working. Currently, LAS is housed in the schools but is being
“evicted” from several due to lack of facility space. In the schools where LAS still has space,
they often must use the gymnasium or other non-classroom facilities, neither of which are
conducive for completing homework, a critical element of LAS. In several schools, Community
Services must bus or van children to other locations in attend LAS. This is a poor set-up as the
children spend unnecessary time being transported and often must ride with high school students,
an undesirable situation for these impressionable younger children.

        Community Services has conducted surveys of the private childcare sector to see how the
community would provide service if LAS was unavailable. Findings indicate that the capacity
for before, after-school and off-track care is inadequate to handle the need and the fees are
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc   Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                   Page 3
MINUTES                                                                            NOVEMBER 12, 2003


substantially higher. This situation would mean many children would become latchkey kids
during the critical after school hours. He displayed photos of existing modular programs in use.
Mr. DeLorenzo submitted over 500 signatures that the City has collected in support of these
programs and the city-selected sites. He concluded his presentation by explaining that it is likely
that if these modular buildings cannot be placed at these locations that they may not be located
anywhere, thus canceling the program at these schools. He explained that the additional costs of
relocating these buildings to an alternative site has not been approved by City Council and that
there is no guarantee of an approval of additional funds.

         Fred Beiner addressed the Planning Commission and introduced himself as the City Park
Planner. He explained that alternative locations on the school property were reviewed but were
found to be too far from accessible utilities and cost prohibitive. He noted that several important
factors were considered when selecting a location including relationship to school, play area and
parking. Parking is an important factor because parents cannot simply drop off or wait outside
for children, they must sign them in/out each day. The alternative site proposed by the appellant
is far from the play area and would require that a new parking lot be constructed. Mr. Beiner
stated that the cost for the approved location is estimated at $277,224. The cost for the
alternative location is estimated at $537,298. Mr. Beiner concluded his presentation by
recommending that the Commission uphold the staff decision.

       Commissioner Silverman asked how many children would use this site and if this site
would be used during non-school times. Mr. Beiner responded that the building and staff ratio
would allow for up to 50 children. He added for clarification that this location would not have a
before-school program, only after-school and the hours would be 3:00-6:00 p.m. with pick-ups
occurring from 4:30-6:00 p.m. Mr. Beiner stated that the site will house an “off-track” program
with similar activities and structure during summer and off-school sessions. The hours would be
7:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m.

        Commissioner Mattis asked if the Commission and speakers would need to stay within
the issues of the appeal during this meeting. Mr. Karpiak responded that all issues surrounding
the project could be discussed. Commissioner Mattis asked for more details on the use of the
building.

        Jill Bragg responded further to Commissioner Silverman’s question regarding the use of
the facility during non-school times. She noted that this will be a neighborhood center and, per
the request of the neighboring residents, various classes could be offered such as cake
decorating, cooking classes, yoga, pilates, etc. She stated that these classes could be scheduled
on Saturdays, if desired, but class time cut-off would be 8:00 p.m. on all days.

        Commissioner Rogers asked if a location below the existing parking lot was ever
considered. Mr. Beiner stated that this location was not considered primarily because the City
only considered the alternative suggested by the appellant. He noted that location is on a rolling
hill and would require a great deal of earth movement.

       Commissioner Mattis asked if the infrastructure/utilities were available at these locations.
Mr. Beiner confirmed that it is available for the Owens Street site and capacity exists for the
Mankas Street area.

C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc   Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                   Page 4
MINUTES                                                                            NOVEMBER 12, 2003


        The Chairperson recognized Dan Morin, 2793 Owens Street, Fairfield, CA. Mr. Morin
explained that he lives across the street from the proposed site. He has lived at this location for
three years and has never seen the grassy area used for youth sports. He feels that parking will
be a real issue, as the limited street parking will not allow use for visitors to the homes in his
area. He also questioned whether this building will be used for other activities such as NA or
AA meetings. He feels that the alternative location is a better one.

         The Chairperson recognized Jenny Ponting, 3700 Lyon Road. #111, Fairfield, CA. Ms.
Ponting explained that she is a single-mother and a licensed clinical social worker with a son
attending the LAS program at B. Gale Wilson for over two years. She feels this program is
wonderful; they care about the kids and provide a safe and educational place for them to be. She
feels the area needs more programs like this to support children and families. She also stated that
traffic is not a problem because pick-up is staggered.

        The Chairperson recognized Scott Dickinson, 2803 Owens Street, Fairfield, CA. Mr.
Dickinson introduced himself as a business owner and resident of this area. He and other
residents of Owens Street are not opposed to LAS, but want it at the north end park location. He
feels that traffic in the proposed site will be a problem all day. He also stated that he does not
see a problem with the addition of parking to the park area (if alternative location used). He
questioned the validity of the City’s cost estimate for the proposed and alternative locations,
specifically the parking lot and landscaping prices which are dramatically different.

        The Chairperson recognized Reggi Blancett, 2816 Barton Place, Fairfield, CA. Ms.
Blancett stated that she has lived in this area for 20 years and strongly supports LAS but not in
the proposed location. She feels that traffic and safety are a genuine concern at this location.
She stated that neighbors of Owens Street have become the night watchmen of the park. She
also noted that K.I. Jones administration confirmed that the soccer leagues practice within the
school grounds regularly, and only occasionally use the park grass area.

        The Chairperson recognized Bill Blancett, 2816 Barton Place, Fairfield, CA. Mr.
Blancett stated that he is not against the program but feels this location is too congested and
unsafe for additional activity. He noted that the play area is not safe for children due to beer
bottles and pot smokers. He displayed photos of the hazardous traffic/parking locations in this
area.

         The Chairperson recognized Jose McNeill, 5245 Tapestry Court, Fairfield, CA. Mr.
McNeill stated that he has two children using he LAS program and he finds it a wonderful,
supervised program. He feels that this type of activity in the park everyday will deter negative
activities. He agreed that congestion is bad in the area but this program and location will not
increase the number attending (as they all come from the school) but may improve the situation
by delaying pick-up. He agreed with the staff recommendation and finds the alternative site to
be too expensive and impractical.

        The Chairperson recognized Angela Faulkner, 3249 Seminole Circle, Fairfield, CA. Ms.
Faulkner stated that she is a small business owner in the area and has two children attending LAS
and the summer program. She reiterated that only kids from K.I. Jones, and in the LAS program,
will use this building, not other kids. She also thinks there may be some confusion with the

C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc   Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                   Page 5
MINUTES                                                                            NOVEMBER 12, 2003


middle school program and stressed that these are very young, elementary age children at these
programs. She stated that this program is much needed in the community.

       The Chairperson recognized Cathy Woodsen, 1740 Astoria Drive, Fairfield, CA. Ms.
Woodson stated that her son attends LAS and loves the program. She understands the neighbors
concerns but feels this program is essential and needs a permanent home.

        The Chairperson recognizes Joseph Shilts, 2408 Ten Gate Road, Fairfield, CA. Mr.
Shilts stated that he was the Public Works Director when these homes were built and understands
the cost issue in changing the location. He supports the staff recommendation.

       The Chairperson recognized Sharon Welling, 1751 Gillespie Drive, Fairfield, CA. Ms.
Welling urged the Commission to approve the original plan so this project can be completed.

        The Chairperson recognized Lisa LaFarga-Stevens, Fairfield, CA. Ms. LaFarga-Stevens
stated that the children who attend LAS are young and are not the troublemakers that some of the
neighbors are concerned about. She urged the Commission to realize that if it is a choice
between a location not all approve of, or canceling the program all together, to please choose the
one which best serves the needs of the kids and all of the community.

        The Chairperson recognized Maggie Halls, 3225 Bear Creek Drive, Fairfield, CA. Ms.
Halls introduced herself as a member of the Community Services Commission and stated that
she is very concerned that misbelief will cause the cancellation of the program. Children in
grades K-5 will use this program and these are not problem groups. She also reiterated that this
program serves to lessen the traffic congestion because the pick-up of these children is delayed
into the evening and is then staggered.

             No one else appeared to speak on this matter.

        Mr. DeLorenzo responded to public comment and stated that this is a neighborhood
center and is not designed for AA or other outside activities. He added that staff has researched
this type of modular building use in other cities (Vacaville, Roseville and Rocklin) and all have
been run very similarly with no problems and all positive comments. He noted that Community
Services hopes to purchase these modular buildings by December so they can piggyback on a
larger order at last year’s prices, to save taxpayer money. In regards to budget issues, Mr.
DeLorenzo said that the alternative location is double the cost approved by City Council. He
cannot guarantee this amount would be approved and cancellation of the program in these
locations is a possibility.

       Mr. Beiner displayed a photo diary of the parking issues within the parking lot area taken
every 15 minutes on Thursday, October 23, 2003 between 3:00-6:00 p.m. He explained that the
photos show traffic flow but with continuous available parking in the lot, particularly within the
4:30-6:00 p.m. pick-up times.

         Commissioner Mattis stated that he is not concerned about the additional cost to move the
site but has not heard enough evidence to support moving it. He does not like that kids are being
bussed. He likes the proposed location’s proximity to the play area and does not see an increase
in traffic since these are the same kids who attend the school. He wants to maintain the flat,
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc   Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                   Page 6
MINUTES                                                                              NOVEMBER 12, 2003


grassy turf area, as the park near his house did not have a useable area for many years, and this is
an important park feature. He noted that he would like to see the area near the parking lot have a
red curb marker as it has a blind turn and could be a hazard.

         Commissioner Silverman asked if staff was familiar with the cost information presented
by Mr. Dickinson. Mr. Beiner explained that information is a cost estimate developed by the
engineer/consultant for this project. He further explained that the landscape savings seen on the
proposed location (and not on the alternative plan) is due to the fact that this park is budgeted for
a redesign to include the play area, which will include the modular building location.
Commissioner Silverman asked if it would be possible to extend the redesign to the alternative
plan area and thus incorporate the landscape cost. Mr. Beiner stated that it was never the
intention to redesign that area of the park and in doing so would require a re-design of pathways,
irrigation, etc. In addition, the approved budget for the redesign does not incorporate the other
side, only the children’s play area.

        Commissioner Houdashelt stated that she is familiar with this park and knows the flat
grass area is well used. She originally opposed this approved location but now feels that it is
very important to continue the LAS program and this site is best both fiscally and for the
integrity of the park.

        Commissioner Rogers agreed that, after hearing about the redesign and uses of the park,
the original plan is best. She would like to see safety issues, as discussed by Commissioner
Mattis, included in the plan.

       Officer Ed Gebing explained that the City has been studying streets and intersections
around local schools. He stated that the parking lot could be made to have one way in and one
way out.

       Mr. Quinn noted that the Commission could add a condition of approval that requires the
study of the needed length for the red curb and other safety issues.

             Mr. Pederson stated that the Transportation department can review these safety concerns.

             The Chairperson closed the public meeting.

             There was no further discussion regarding this matter, therefore, the following action was
taken:

ACTION

        It was moved by Commissioner Burch, seconded by Commissioner Houdashelt, to
approve Resolution 2003-43, with amendments to include condition of approval regarding safety
issues, upholding administrative appeal of a 2,400 s.f. modular building in Mankas Park for the
purpose of providing community services programs.




C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc     Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                     Page 7
MINUTES                                                                                                   NOVEMBER 12, 2003


ROLL CALL

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:                                              Benshoof, Burch, Houdashelt, Mattis, Silverman, Rogers
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:                                              None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:                                           None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:                                            None

B.           PUBLIC HEARING ON APPEAL OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF A 2,400
             S.F. MODULAR BUILDING IN LAUREL CREEK COMMUNITY PARK FOR THE
             PURPOSE OF PROVIDING COMMUNITY SERVICES PROGRAMS.
             (RESOLUTION 2003-44)
             (M.D.R. 2003-18)
             (APPELLANTS: ATKINS/YOUNG; FOSTER; GRITSKO; PETERSON; TAING;
             THAI)

             The Chairperson opened the public hearing.

        Mr. Van Lonkhuysen explained to the Planning Commission that this appeal is for a
project identical to the aforementioned item to be located at Laurel Creek Park. This project was
also approved at the staff level due to the size (2,400 s.f.) and is now being appealed by
neighbors of the park. Mr. Van Lonkhuysen stated that the proposed site is at the north side of
Laurel Creek Park, bordering the Laurel Creek elementary school parking lot and Gulf Drive.
The site is located in an area of single-family homes. He also displayed several maps and
overlays and indicated that the modular will have stucco siding in order to match the surrounding
homes and existing portables.

        Mr. Van Lonkhuysen identified the appeal issues which include parking, traffic, building
design, setbacks and conflict with the park’s master plan. He stated that staff has studied the
parking issue, including visits to the site several times, and has concluded that the parking lot,
along with the approximately 600 linear feet of street parking, is more than adequate. The
setbacks for the modular are 25-feet, which meets the Zoning Ordinance, and is actually more
than the 20-foot setbacks for the surrounding homes (measured from property line to garage
door). He noted that photos have been included in the Planning Commission packet to
demonstrate how these modulars, in parks, look when used for this type of after school program.
The photos are from the Browns Valley after school care building in Vacaville, which has been
running after school programs out of modulars from some time.

        Mr. Van Lonkhuysen concluded by recommending that the Commission adopt the
resolution, upholding the administrative approval of this location.

        Commissioner Benshoof asked if it was true that the LAS parents and staff were unable
to use the adjacent parking lot. Mr. Van Lonkhuysen replied that this was not true.

        Mr. Beiner explained that this location was chosen partly due to its very close proximity
to the school. This site does have an existing before and after school program. He indicated that
the children will be escorted to and from school each day by LAS staff. He mentioned that the
building will have soft security lighting on the outside, just enough to provide a light wash over
the building and will not glare into the Gulf Drive homes. Mr. Beiner addressed the appellant’s
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc                          Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                                          Page 8
MINUTES                                                                            NOVEMBER 12, 2003


alternative location requests and noted that, due largely to the costs of running utilities, the price
would be much higher. The cost estimate for the city proposed site is $381, 551. The cost
estimate for the alternative site off of Gulf Drive with a long turn-around drive is $622,797. In
regard to the question of conflict with the master plan, Mr. Beiner stated that the park’s master
plan was last approved in 1992 and 30 acres have been developed with seven acres to be
completed in the future. The 2006/2007 City Council budget indicates that these last seven acres
are scheduled to begin completion at that time. The original plan does call for a recreation center
off of Cement Hill Road to include 75 parking spaces. The cost estimate to build per the park
original master plan (off Cement Hill Road) is $941,499. The City Council and Community
Services Commission recently adopted a new master plan which includes new parking,
restrooms, a dog park and lighted tennis courts, in addition to the neighborhood center to be
located at this proposed site. Staff feels that this revised master plan is an improvement to the
original plan and will better support the parking needs of the area.

        Mr. Beiner concluded with a display of a parking photo diary taken on October 28, 2003
between 3:00-6:00 p.m. Photos were taken every 15 minutes and indicate very little congestion,
specifically during the prime pick-up times of 4:30-6:00 p.m.

        The Chairperson recognized Elizabeth Skeie, 597 Vintage Valley, Fairfield, CA. Ms.
Skeie stated that she finds it hard to believe that there is no room within the school to house this
program. She questioned how it is possible to project traffic without knowing exactly who will
be using this building. She feels that the money used for this program should go back to the
school to support all of the children.

        The Chairperson recognized Felicia Flores-Workman, 4219 Brudenell Drive, Fairfield,
CA. Ms. Flores-Workman stated that she believes the LAS program is a high-quality service and
she is very happy with it, as are her children. She would like to see Kindergarten added to the
program and believes this is a proper use of park land. She hopes that a larger facility such as
this will provide stability to the program.

        The Chairperson recognized George Curry, 2408 Ten Gate Road, Fairfield, CA. Mr.
Curry explained that he lived in this area for over ten years (recently has relocated) and never
noticed any parking or traffic problems. He decided to attend this meeting after reading in the
paper that some people are actually against this program. He urged the Commission to pass this
as written.

        The Chairperson recognized Kim Young, 415 Lakehurst Court, Fairfield, CA. Ms.
Young stated that she feels this location is too close to the street and that the children will have
to cross the busy and dangerous entrance to the parking lot before and after school each day. Her
children will attend this program next year and she feels this location is unsafe.

       The Chairperson recognized Warren Atkins, 415 Lakehurst Court, Fairfield, CA. Mr.
Atkins explained that it does not make sense to walk kids past this driveway opening four times a
day and that safety concerns need to be addressed. He proposed that it would make more sense
to move this building to the south side of this parking lot because people would loop through the
parking lot to drop off children and there would be no need to walk across the driveway.

             The Chairperson recognized Stella Denise Allen, 2786 Seabreeze Drive, Fairfield, CA.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc   Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                   Page 9
MINUTES                                                                           NOVEMBER 12, 2003


Ms. Allen stated that she supports this project. Her son attends LAS and is very happy. She is
happy knowing he is safe and not being bussed. She feels that without LAS there would be more
traffic at the school because all the kids would have to be picked up at the same time.

        The Chairperson recognized Tara Spinelli, 749 Dynasty Drive, Fairfield, CA. Ms.
Spinelli explained that she used to live near Laurel Creek and her son attended the school and
LAS. She and her son were so happy with the program that she continued to drive him there for
six months after they moved, an inconvenience, but worth it. She feels it is an excellent
program.

       The Chairperson recognized David Flores-Workman, 4219 Brudenell Drive, Fairfield,
CA. Mr. Flores-Workman reiterated that this is a great program. He stated that at 5:30 p.m. he
has never seen more than four cars in the lot. He believes the kids need their own space, as
sometimes they are crammed into a broom-closet-type space.

       The Chairperson recognized Gani Bonifacio, 3027 Gulf Drive, Fairfield, CA. Mr.
Bonifacio supports LAS but is concerned about the traffic on Gulf Drive and the fact that the
building could be used by anyone on the weekends. He questioned if the staff-to-child ratio
would be high enough to really watch the children around the speeding traffic.

        The Chairperson recognized Doug Peterson, 2989 Gulf Drive, Fairfield, CA. Mr.
Peterson stated that he disagrees with this location. Gulf Drive is a busy, main-feeder road. He
added that the building should have a large setback due to large awnings that stick out. The
location specified by the original master plan allows for traffic and parking, unlike this plan. He
stated that it is unsafe to have the kids passing through the busy driveway four times a day. He
further added that the city petition is illegal and many of the people who signed it do not live in
Fairfield.

        The Chairperson recognized Dennis Gritsko, 3055 Gulf Drive, Fairfield, CA. Mr.
Gritsko stated that he does not disagree with LAS, just this location. He asked why the original
master plan, minus the fancy parking lot, cannot be implemented. He added that speeding is a
real problem on Gulf Drive.

        The Chairperson recognized John Foster, 1025 Hickory Avenue, Fairfield, CA. Mr.
Foster stated that the setback is irrelevant because it does not provide parking or a driveway. In
regards to parking, he feels that, realistically, people will park in front of the homes and walk
across the street to access this building, creating congestion and a safety hazard. He is concerned
about the slamming doors and noise from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. everyday. He said that City
funds should not be used on a compromised location. He stated that the ideal location is at the
south end of the parking lot without the added driveway.

             No one else appeared to speak on this matter.

        Commissioner Burch stated that he was concerned about the safety of children crossing
the parking lot. Mr. DeLorenzo replied that the children will be escorted by staff and safety will
be enhanced due to traffic concerns. He stated that crossing flags and safety vests could be used
and that safety will be addressed, as the children will be chaperoned by adults.

C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc   Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                 Page 10
MINUTES                                                                            NOVEMBER 12, 2003


        Commissioner Houdashelt asked what the cost would be at the south end of the parking
lot without a new lot added. Mr. Beiner approximated the cost at $600,00 due to utilities and the
needed repaving of the existing lot.

         Commissioner Burch asked if utilities could be connected through the school at this
closer location. Mr. Beiner stated that the walkway could connect, but utilities must come up
from Gulf Drive. Mr. Tobitt, the engineering consultant for the project, explained that the school
utilities are stretched too thin and cannot further be tapped. Commissioner Rogers asked if the
utilities could come through the dirt area instead of the parking lot. Mr. Tobitt explained that the
cost is bringing them from the street, no matter the route, and that the lot would need
improvements due to the more intensive use brought upon by the additional traffic.

         Commissioner Silverman stated that he has a problem with the cost estimate of moving
the site to the end of the lot and would like to see a better estimate of all the alternative sites. He
feels that children crossing that parking lot is a safety issue and would like staff to take another
look. He feels that the neighbors have a legitimate complaint that the original master plan does
not indicate buildings out on the street.

        Mr. Karpiak explained to the Commission that it is important that they decide whether
they want to actually vote on this resolution tonight or continue it to another meeting. As there is
a time issue with this project (45 days from date of appeal), the Commission needs to adopt the
resolution or draft and vote on a new one tonight. Commissioner Silverman stated that the
alternative would be to schedule another meeting sooner than the December date.

        Commissioner Houdashelt stated that she feels that the best place for this building is the
south end of the parking lot. She said that this building needs to be placed but not at this
location.

        Commissioner Mattis stated that the safety issue needs to be addressed. He is
uncomfortable that Community Services plans to have the children wear safety vests in order to
deal with this location. That plan tells him that this is the wrong location. He is afraid of
delaying the project and potentially jeopardizing the program at Laurel Creek but feels that
safety is more important.

       Commissioner Silverman stated that he believes the City Council will agree to an
increase in the expense if it is reasonable and needed due to safety reasons. Commissioner
Mattis agreed.

       Commissioner Benshoof agreed with his fellow Commissioners on the safety concerns
and feels that the City Council will agree also.

             The Chairperson closed the public meeting.

        Mr. Quinn stated that if the Commission shares a general safety concern with this project
there are two options: 1) uphold the appeal to City Council and if Council approves, the process
will start over which could delay this project; or 2) schedule a special meeting prior to December
2, 2003 to continue this meeting. Staff can return with additional information and cost estimates
and the Commission can act upon this resolution prior to the December City Council meeting.
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc   Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                 Page 11
MINUTES                                                                                                  NOVEMBER 12, 2003


        Commissioner Silverman asked Mr. Quinn what he suggested the Commission do in this
situation. Mr. Quinn suggested that the Commission schedule a special meeting to review the
information and act on it prior to the December City Council meeting. The Commission
discussed various dates and decided on Wednesday, November 19, at 7:00 p.m.

             There was no further discussion regarding this matter, therefore, the following action was
taken:

ACTION

       It was moved by Commissioner Silverman, seconded by Commissioner Burch, to
continue this item, Resolution 2003-44, to a special scheduled meeting on November 19, 2003.

ROLL CALL

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:                                              Benshoof, Burch, Houdashelt, Mattis, Silverman, Rogers
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:                                              None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:                                           None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:                                            None

C.           PUBLIC HEARING ON REVISIONS TO THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE,
             INCLUDING CORRECTIONS OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS, MINOR
             ORGANIZATIONAL REVISIONS, LANGUAGE CLARIFICATIONS, AND
             AMENDMENTS THAT CODIFY CURRENT CITY POLICY AND PRACTICE BY
             THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT.
             (RESOLUTION 2003-45)
             (Z.C. 2003-12)

             The Chairperson opened the public hearing.

        Mr. Miller explained to the Commission that this hearing is to briefly review some of the
minor changes made to the City Zoning Ordinance. These changes include minor organizational
changes, typographical errors and clarification of current City policy. He addressed a few of the
more important changes which include a new definition of congregate care facilities, allowing
mixed use in commercial mixed (CM) districts, conditional use permits to be allowed for
homeless shelters within the limited industrial (IL) district, and a definition change for boarding
houses. The new boarding house definition includes resident owners who rent out three or more
rooms in their house. Mr. Miller concluded by recommending that the Commission adopt the
resolution.

        Commissioner Mattis asked to see a map of the IL district where homeless shelters can be
allowed. Mr. Miller indicated that he did not have a map at this time. Commissioner Mattis
stated that he wants this item pulled from the revision until the Commission can see a map.

       Commissioner Silverman asked for a definition of “guesthouse”. Ms. Somjen stated that
a guesthouse does not have a bathroom or kitchen. It could be a play or storage area and is not
intended to be a place where another family could live. Commissioner Silverman questioned
why this revision was removing the limitations on guesthouses and if this could mean multiple
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc                          Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                                        Page 12
MINUTES                                                                             NOVEMBER 12, 2003


structures could be built. Ms. Somjen clarified that a guesthouse is not a dwelling unit, it is just a
room detached from the house. A homeowner would not be allowed to have more than one
“second dwelling units on site.”

        Commissioner Silverman questioned why boarding houses are not permitted citywide.
Mr. Miller stated that boarding homes were not considered appropriate for single-family areas
due to parking, etc. Commissioner Silverman said that it is discriminatory to limit the residential
areas that are permitted to have boarding homes. A change should be equitable, otherwise these
should only be allowed in commercial areas.

         Ms. Somjen stated that there are other commercial uses that have been deemed
inappropriate for single-family home areas but are permitted in higher density residential areas,
such as mini-storage. She noted that RM zones can be both single-family and multi-family. She
stated that the Commission can make boarding houses a conditional item in all residential zoning
districts, if desired.

        Mr. Quinn followed up on the homeless shelter revision and noted that the only place that
these shelters would be allowed is within the ½ mile radius to the county social services building.
Mr. Quinn noted that he wanted to change this condition to specify that the office must be
“government owned,” to ensure that it would not include leased facilities.

       Commissioner Mattis stated that he would like a map of the IL district to go to the City
Council with these revisions. He also does not want to make a blanket statement allowing
boarding houses in all districts. He does not think they are appropriate in single-family
neighborhoods.

         Commissioner Silverman asked why there was not a conditional use permit requirement
for all boarding houses. His primary concern is why boarding houses could be allowed in the
RM district where single-family homes could also be located but was excluded from all other
residential districts. He would like the wording to be changed. Ms. Somjen stated that the
purpose for this clarification was to address the numerous complaints received from single-
family homeowners regarding homes with too many people living in them. These occurrences
incur parking problems and are detrimental to neighbors. This is in response to a code
enforcement issue where the owners of homes (who continue to live in them) are renting out
more than three rooms. Under the current ordinance, these are not boarding houses because the
owner still lives there. Commissioner Silverman stated that he has a problem allowing boarding
homes in RM areas since these can have single-family neighborhoods as well. Ms. Somjen
stated that they could be excluded from the RM district as well. Commissioner Silverman agreed
with this. Mr. Quinn agreed that it would be best to exclude them from the RM district all
together rather than trying to define what is single-family within the RM.

             No one else appeared to speak on this matter.

             The Chairperson closed the public meeting.

             There was no further discussion regarding this matter, therefore, the following action was
taken:

C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc     Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                   Page 13
MINUTES                                                                                                  NOVEMBER 12, 2003


ACTION

        It was moved by Commissioner Mattis, seconded by Commissioner Houdashelt, to adopt
Resolution 2003-45, with added conditions including: 1) RM district to be included in areas in
which boarding houses are not allowed; 2) staff is to provide a map of the IL district to Council
with a footnote indicating that the Planning Commission was unable to review; and 3) change
term within the homeless shelter condition to “government owned.”

ROLL CALL

AYES: COMMISSIONERS:                                              Benshoof, Burch, Houdashelt, Mattis, Silverman, Rogers
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:                                              None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:                                           None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:                                            None

VIII. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

A.           DIRECTOR’S REPORT

         Mr. Quinn reported that the City is reviewing requests for qualifications for consultants to
review the focused EIR for the project proposed by Lewis Corporation on Claybank and Cement
Hill Roads. He also stated that a new project at the Fairfield Commons between the truck scales
and Solano College is beginning a focused EIR for a mixed-use project. He concluded by noting
that three applications have been received for the open position on the Planning Commission and
filling that spot will fully staff the Commission.

        Commissioner Benshoof asked for a status on the Mission Village area. Mr. Quinn said
that there are 20 potential buyers at this time, many interested in a mixed-use plan. Most of the
area will be sold to a developer with the exception of the Liberty Church facility. City staff has
encouraged the brokerage firm to sponsor meetings between the potential buyers and the City.

       Commissioner Houdashelt noted that she heard the City received the library grant. Mr.
Quinn confirmed and said the library will be located next to the Solano County Office of
Education and hopes to open by early 2005. The grant was won greatly in part to efforts by the
City Manager’s Office, Public Works, Planning Department and school children lobbying for the
new library.

IX. ADJOURNMENT

       There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned to the special scheduled
meeting of November 19, 2003.

                                                                                       Respectfully Submitted,


                                                                                       Sean P. Quinn, Secretary

SMH:ccs
C:\Docstoc\Working\pdf\dee08632-9e6c-4a83-92b0-0ff5f5578f4c.doc                          Department of Planning and Development
                                                                                                                        Page 14

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:6
posted:6/1/2012
language:
pages:14