Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 6, 20021. ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Sprague, Tkac Commissioner Ellison Advisory Members: Staff: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Jennie Eng, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE PUBLIC STATEMENTS None CONSENT CALENDER 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items: 4.1a Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Tract 5882 Phases lA, 2E, 4A, 4B, & 5A (Mclntosh & Associates) located south of Brimhall Road and east of Allen Road. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) 4.1b Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the acquisition of two lots by the County of Kern in the City of Bakersfield located at the northeast corner of "N" Street and 25th Street. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) 4.1c Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for acquisition of a parcel at the northeast area of Allen Road and Shallow Water Court, generally located south of Brimhall Road, east of Allen Road. (Ward 4) 4.1d Receive and file Administrative Review for Darrell=s Mini-Storage (ZC P98-0506) (Marino & Associates) located on the south side of Stockdale Highway between Buena Vista and Allen Roads. Motion was made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the non-public hearing items portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. Commissioner Tkac stated that he had listened to a tape from the pre-meeting. PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 2 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6019 (Porter Robertson) located on the south side of Olive Drive, east of the Friant-Kern Canal. (Negative Declaration on file) 4.2b Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6107 and Zone Change No. 02-0308 (Porter-Robertson) located on the east side of Calloway Drive, north of Hageman Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Ward 4) Motion was made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the public hearing items portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 5.1) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6104 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 3) Commissioner McGinnis moved to continue this item until June 20, 2002. Motion was seconded by Commission Tkac. Motion carried. 5.2) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6108 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Public Portion of the hearing is open. Staff report given recommending approval. Hearing opened for those in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Michael Shore, Mike Stephanovich, Michael Carlorsky, Pat Thompson, Neil Walker, Andrew Thomson, Patrick Mellon, Tom Ramos, Dominic Fontana, Robert Blakemore, Kevin Williams, John Wagner, Karen Thompson, Karen Ramos, John Bradhurst, Marianne Beckham and Elizabeth Garcia, all residents of the area, spoke against the project and had the following concerns: · Increased traffic through their neighborhood is a safety concern for their children. · They would like the development to follow standards that aesthetically coincide with the current developments. · The increase in congestion with decreased visibility increases the potential for a tragedy. · There is no other development in the City of Bakersfield where you have multi-use residential spilling its residents onto an existing residential estate tract plan. · The County has the property zoned as R-2 PD and believes the County would not have designated the property as PD if they were not concerned about the future development, design and consistency with the surrounding uses and other developments. With a PD or PUD designation the design stage would have to be brought back before the Commission. For there to be consistency between the report, the Negative Declaration and the County's R-2 PD zone, the City's proposed designation should read R- 2 PUD. This is a significant error and puts a PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 3 cloud over the whole report and the Negative Declaration. Recommends that the process, including the report and Negative Declaration be started over so that the public can respond to a report that will accurately reflect the City's intention with respect to zone designation. Suggested placing an entrance for ingress and egress on Allen Road. Decrease in property values. Hearing opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Harold Robertson with Porter Robertson Engineering and Surveying representing Williams Development Company, stated they have no objections to staff's recommendations of conditions for approval. He mentioned that the zoning has been laid out since 1991. Allen Road is designated an arterial by the 2010 circulation element. Regarding the increase in traffic, no other alternatives have been discussed because the amount of traffic being generated is far below what the capacity of those streets are. Jeff Williams with Williams Development, the applicant, stated that the economic changes would be more than $50,000. There has been no discussion at this point about the product itself, the units, or the design. This project will go through the site plan review process. The subject property was zoned R-2 prior to any houses being built in the area. The situation has existed and is not new. Bill Williams stated that he believes some things have been misrepresented. The public portion of the hearing was closed and the hearing was opened for Commissioner comments. Chairman Sprague asked if this project is zoned R-2 or R-2 PD to which staff responded that the property in the County is zoned R- 2 PD. In the City it is zoned R-2. The zoning upon annexation could be any agreed upon zone district that is consistent with the general plan, or you can change the general plan and the zoning as part of the annexation proposal. Upon annexation into the City, this property will be zoned R-2. Staff stated that the Commission does not have the authority to make the property R-2 PD. Commissioner McGinnis stated that overall he agrees with the points that have been made. Inquired of staff that if the project is approved if the masonry wall will surround the project to which staff stated that the only place the wall would be required would be for the double frontage lots adjacent to Allen Road, or if there were residentially zoned property adjacent to it, and the project had parking adjacent to the fence. Any sump on the project would be required to have a wall around it. Staff stated that it is their understanding that the school districts do not change upon annexation. Commissioner McGinnis voiced his concern for the traffic issues. Believes that the current proposal would ruin the current neighborhood. Suggested an alternative to perhaps include another traffic study to locate another access to the property. He stated that he cannot and will not support the project as it is aligned right now. Commissioner Tragish inquired and staff confirmed that the County did originally zone the property R-2 PD. This zoning means that in the County the density would be the same and that it provides for similarity to our planned unit development ordinance. The project goes PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 4 through a site plan review, not at a staff level, but at a Commission level. If no request for annexation had been made the applicant would have to comply with the County PD plan or procedures. Commissioner Tragish asked what the standard of measurement is that determines that the zoning remains the same, or is changed to something else upon application for annexation? Staff replied that it is up to the property owner, and that the County accommodates the zone district desired upon annexation. Mr. Froehlich originally requested R-2 from R-2 PD upon annexation. Commissioner Tragish asked if the site plan (the actual build out of project) is currently being done to which staff responded they do not have possession of it yet. Commissioner Tragish asked when the site plan would take place presuming that the project is approved tonight to which staff responded that the site plan can take place anytime after this project has been completed. It is up to the property owner to submit the site plans for review and to obtain a building permit. The earliest this would occur would be after annexation if they develop the project within the City. Commissioner Tragish asked if the site plan review is an open hearing to which staff responded that it is a public hearing before the Development Services Director where staff prepares a report that analyzes the project in terms of its compliance with adopted ordinances and standards and makes a recommendation to either approve the project or deny it. They don't usually recommend denial because they tell the applicant before the hearing if there are deficiencies that need to be corrected so they can make the corrections before the case goes for hearing. All the conditions relevant to the project would be in compliance with adopted ordinances and standards by the time of the hearing. This would be a public hearing and people within 300 feet of the boundaries of the project would receive notice. Commissioner Tragish asked Jeff Williams what they envision building to which Mr. Williams responded that they envision putting single story four-plexes on the site. There may be some two story. Commissioner Tragish asked Jeff Williams if he would agree to a condition whereby there would be an eight-foot block wall between the residential neighborhood and the project, and those three homes to which Mr. Williams indicated that they would agree to a block wall, but does not think that eight-feet is advisable. Commissioner Tragish asked staff if the applicant agrees to conditions of approval can they require an eight-foot wall, to which staff responded that if the applicant wants to agree to an eight-foot wall it can be included as a condition of approval. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Williams if he would agree to a condition of an eight-foot high masonry wall to which Mr. Williams said he did not have a problem with that even though he felt that eight-foot was a little high. Mr. Williams commented that site plan review is strict on two-stories and overlook issues. Commissioner Tragish addressed the concerns of the residents and Commissioner McGinnis by inquiring if a block wall could be placed across Dove Creek, but instead of cutting the project out, allowing the applicant sole access through Dove Creek? PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 5 Mr. Williams responded that they have discussed the option to make a "knuckle" and possibly put a non-passable island in between so there would be pedestrian access. Mr. Williams indicated that it is a County road and they would need cooperation of the County. Commissioner Tragish asked Steve Walker, Public Works Traffic Engineer, about putting some type of block wall whereby the Dove Creek entrance would be used exclusively by the project in the project and that the residents of Palm would not have access and would have to use other areas of the project for ingress and egress to which Mr. Walker responded that he has not looked at this possibility. He commented that because the lot is on a corner it may be physically possible to do it. Mr. Walker stated that because the streets are in the County, he cannot speak for the County as to whether they would entertain the idea, and therefore cannot give approval for something outside of their boundaries. Commissioner Tragish commented that if the condition is placed on the project, and is approved and the annexation goes through then County approval is not needed because it would then be under the City's jurisdiction. Staff responded that only the streets within the project would be city streets. The other streets, Allen Road, Dove Creek, Majesty Palms, would still be in the County and be under County control, and would remain so after the annexation. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Walker about the traffic issues and capacity versus safety. Mr. Walker explained that the additional trips (709) based on the units built was in reference to a question as to whether a second full access road would be required. If the development is under 200 homes there is no secondary full access requirement. Mr. Walker explained that the trip generation on a single-family home is 9.57 trips per unit. The trip generation on a unit of a multi-family apartment type complex is 6.63 trips per unit. The maximum number of units that can be built on the site according to the Planning Department is 107 and on the basis of the nationally recognized standards there would be 709 or 710 trips, which is 355 trips in bound, 355 out bound. The adjacent existing tract has 87 or 88 lots. The entire subdivision generates approximately 832.6 trips per day, 417 trips in, 417 trips out. Not everyone uses Dove Creek. If 60% of the traffic went to the north and 40% went to the south it is estimated that there would probably be 200 trips coming from the north into Dove Creek and 60 trips coming from the south into Dove Creek, and about the same number exiting to those same directions from the existing development. Mr. Walker said there are several intersections that are designed exactly like the Majesty Palm, Dove Creek, Allen Road connections and they would have much, much more traffic then what are being proposed here. Just to say the layout is the same and inherently unsafe would mean that they would have to go back to all those that have been approved in the past or approved in the future and say that they are unsafe. He doesn't believe that they have had definite information or fact to declare that they're unsafe. There is going to be more potential exposure because there is going to be more traffic. This is not unusual and that is why there is not a significant impact statement in the environmental portion of the application. It doesn't mean that there are no impacts at all. It means that it is not unusual to be expected for a development of this type; whether that road to the north developed into multi-family or whether it developed into single-family residential. You would still have more access of traffic going through the area. PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 6 Mr. Walker stated that concerning a traffic light at Palm and Allen staff has looked into this, and while there is no definite time table, the County does assure that because it is a collector street, and Palm will eventually be a four to five lane street, and Allen Road would eventually be a six lane with median islands it is expected that there will be a signal light at that intersection at some time in the future. Concerning a signal light at Dove Creek and Allen Road the answer is not firm. The County generally does not close off full access openings that are existing so it would probably remain a full access opening, but it is unlikely there will be a signal unless there were some additional problems. The County cannot predict a light at this intersection at this time. Commissioner Tragish asked if the County would have any objections to blocking off Dove Creek entirely to which Mr. Walker stated that he does not believe the County would have a problem with physically blocking of the extension of Majesty Palm north of Dove Creek and putting an access onto Allen Road and having that be the primary access would not be any more hazardous or problematic then having it at Dove Creek. Believes it would be the same type of exposure. He believes that there would be limitations on turning movements; no direct left turn out. Commissioner Tragish asked if there was an access onto the project from Allen Road that the access would not be as smooth as if it was through Dove Creek to which Mr. Walker responded that he believes it would be comparable; they face the same amount of traffic and the same turning movements that they want to make. Mr. Walker commented that technically the street is capable of handling all of the traffic that is proposed. Commissioner Tragish asked if the school buses have been factored into the analysis of traffic to which Mr. Walker responded that they have not taken into account specifically school buses because that is an interim stop and time is very limited for the amount that they are stopped at one location. Mr. Walker indicated that this is a common occurrence and therefore they do not factor it in and say that it is an external that is going to cause additional problems. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Walker if he agrees that there is going to be some stacking of traffic which would create an unsafe condition to which Mr. Walker responded that the City and County both consider this situation, and that is why they require that there be approximately 150 feet of storage before you come onto a main street. Commissioner Sprague asked if in Mr. Walker's opinion if the Commission made it a requirement to put a road off of Allen Road into Majestic Palm through lot six, the middle of the subdivision, as another access point, if it would then also facilitate the deletion of secondary access at the end of the cul-de-sac and also if a decel lane could be put in from Allen Road to right turn into that area through lot number 6? Mr. Walker responded that he hasn't done a specific review of that but that it would probably cut down the traffic that would go through Dove Creek by half. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if the Commission has the authority to make a condition that a road be placed through lot number 6 to T into Majestic Palm, and leave the south end open so that traffic would flow through two access points. Staff responded that PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 7 they would not be able to do that as a discretionary condition because maps have to be in compliance with policy ordinances and rules and regulations that are in place at the time the maps is complete and they are past that point. Commissioner Sprague asked if they would have authority because Allen is a County road for the access to which staff responded that they do not know and cannot respond to that question. Commissioner Sprague commented that the Commission does not have authority to require access through lot six. Staff responded that the applicant can agree to it. Commissioner Sprague asked the applicant if they would be willing to put an entrance in through lot number six, or in an area off of Allen Road to eliminate some of the traffic congestion going into Majestic Palms and still leaving the south end open which would not require blocking it offthere. Mr. Williams responded that they could not agree to this because it would change the project. Commissioner Tkac asked if Majesty Palms would become a speedway down to Palm to which Mr. Walker responded that the City does have limits on the total length of roadways without interruption. The maximum length of a street without interruption is 1,000 feet, and the maximum length of a cul-de-sac is usually 600 feet. Marian Shaw clarified that the cul-de-sac length is actually a function of the number of units, and that's why the fire department has requested the additional access to the north because of the number of units that face or use that street. Commissioner Tkac addressed the issue of noise to which staff responded that this project would generate the normal sounds that you would have in a residential neighborhood from traffic. There is not a noise source generated from this multi-family project that's going to exceed any threshold that would suggest that we would need to do a special study because it's multi-family. Commissioner Tkac asked how long this property has been zoned R-2 to which staff responded that the applicant's representative advised them that it was zoned R-2 prior to construction of the homes. Commissioner Tkac asked if a developer can promise a park in an area to which staff responded a developer can promise "Blue Sundays". Any park would have to be dedicated or comply with park ordinances. Commissioner Tkac commented that pursuant to the 2010 General Plan every area is suppose to have it's mixes of different types of uses, and inquired, based on the statement made that this area has less R-2 zoning than many other areas, what the actual R-2 zoned area is on a percentage basis. Staff responded that no analysis was done on this disbursement percentage to see what is zoned in the immediate vicinity. Commissioner Tkac asked if the applicant would be willing to work with any borders on the south area buffering with trees and/or landscape that could dovetail into the area to keep the continuity of the homes. The applicant responded that they would be willing to consider and/or agree to something, but it would have to specific. Commissioner Tkac asked about lighting issues to which the applicant required that the PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 8 only lighting on the project will be what is required by the City and a porch light. Commissioner Gay expressed mutual concerns. Expressed that the residents of The Palms should develop the wall and landscape on their side. He stated that he is not comfortable with the project the way it is and would like to see the applicant look at it again and bring back some other options. He would agree with a block wall along the south side and that no single-story be within the first lot or two lots to the north. Commissioner Sprague asked if there is a requirement to put a fence or a block wall along the west line, or will that just be left open to the farm houses and agricultural property to which staff responded that there will be a builder's fence. There is no current requirement to place a block wall there. Commissioner Sprague inquired if there is a sump lot next to lot 12 next to the commercial center to which Ms. Shaw responded that it appears to be an existing topographic feature that would be eliminated when the four-plex was built on the lot. Commissioner Blockley asked if the notice for the annexation and change in zone part of the process and if the residents were given notice during the annexation process to which staff responded that the annexation process has changed, and is not sure what noticing is required for adjacent residents. The property may have been zoned when the master was done several years ago. Staff indicated that they do not see information in the Staff Report indicating that the zoning took place at the time the annexation was done. Five Minute Recess Taken Staff responded that the zoning for that property was done as part of a master zone change about three years ago when they pre-zoned all the property within the metro area, or within the sphere of influence. Regarding the noticing requirements Mr. Grady said he does not have the file with him, but he knows that things have changed and that a lot more of the process is handled at LAFCO than at the City, Commissioner Blockley asked if there is some acceptable device or median that would reduce the speed of traffic coming out of the multi-family extension of the street. Mr. Walker responded that there are traffic calming devices such as speed bumps, mini circles, or narrowing. He indicated that the main concern would be in the County area around Majesty Palm, and he can't speak for the County. Mr. Walker stated that in the past the County has not been in favor of speed bumps. Mr. Walker stated that the effect of a speed bump usually is not that great. Commissioner Tragish commented that he is still concerned with the issue of safety. He asked if he were to request a traffic analysis would that require a continuance of the application to which staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish asked if it would require a motion by the Commission in support of the analysis to which staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish suggested to the Commissioners that a traffic analysis be required of the safety issue to the extent of 1) would an access through lot 6 through this project be safer than and access through Dove Creek; and 2) whether or not having an access through lot 6 and blocking of Dove Creek would be a safer alternative than allowing Dove Creek to remain open as a sole source of access. PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Sprague commented that the Commission cannot require access through lot 6. Staff responded that the Commission cannot require this type of access as a discretionary condition. There has to be a finding for public health, safety and welfare reasons that it is necessary to place access through lot 6. There would have to be evidence in the record to support the position that you have to have this road at that location as opposed to any other location. Commissioner Sprague asked if the traffic study indicated a public health, safety and welfare issue then it could be inserted into the record? Staff responded that the traffic study could provide the basis for the Commission making a finding. Commissioner Sprague commented that perhaps there should be some input from the County to see what their concerns would be before a traffic study is requested. Commissioner McGinnis asked about the street lengths and staff confirmed that a T in the street constitutes a breaking up of the length. Commissioner McGinnis commented that the lot 6 access does not appear to be a current alternative. Commissioner McGinnis asked if the applicant would be willing to continue so that they could meet with staff to work out the concerns raised. Applicant Jeff Williams indicated that they would be agreeable to a continuance. Mr. Williams suggested turning Dove Creek into a "knuckle" turning north so that it was the only access to the project that would require blocking off a portion of Monarch Palm. Mr. Ramos would have a concern because he would need access to his property. Mr. Williams would support doing that because they could design it and make that part of the project. Mr. Williams does not feel that the County would be too excited about this idea. Mr. Williams stated that if the neighborhood was in support of his proposal and they joined the applicant in approaching the County then he thinks they might have a chance. Commissioner McGinnis concurred with the applicant. Commissioner McGinnis indicated that a two week continuance would allow time to get the County's position and get this worked out. The applicant suggested continuing the matter for two weeks and they will do the design and meet with the County and residents. Commissioner Tragish indicated that he would like to see a traffic analysis and hear what the County's comments are. He would support a continuance. He likes the idea of a "knuckle" because it provides a buffer. Staff pointed out that the public hearing has already been closed on this issue. Any continuance will have to be re-noticed for July 18th Commissioner Tragish moved to continue this matter until the July 18th meeting at which time the public portion of the hearing will be re-opened. Motion seconded by Commissioner Tkac. Motion carried by group vote. PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 10 5.3) Revised Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6018 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval of the Negative Declaration and Revised Tentative Tract Map 6018 with findings and conditions as set forth in the attached Resolution. The public portion of the hearing is opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Mr. David Stanton, President of RiverLakes Ranch Master Association, representing the board and approximately 1400 homes or 3000 individuals, who pay dues for the private facilities expressed his concerns about the provisions of the Negative Declaration because it does not take into account significant issues that should be covered. Regarding Element Number 9, Land Use Planning this project is required to be consistent with the RiverLakes Specific Plan. There are not less than 12 items which need to be reviewed and he believes that only one is being considered in the Negative Declaration. There are approximately 7 resolutions of the City of Bakersfield all of which require consideration of which none are mentioned. Mr. Stanton commented that there is a concession that putting multi-family will increase traffic, and inquires how a conclusion can be made that there will be an impact without a traffic study being done. There was a traffic study done in 1998 which did not include all of the traffic that is currently present. The zone map is incorrect. The traffic today does not go down South Shore because there is an enormous amount of traffic that wasn't there in 1998, and Centennial High School generates a lot of traffic. Today the traffic goes through the little streets which were not designed to handle the traffic, but were designed as single family residential streets only to get out to Seamore to make a right hand turn on Olive. Therefore, the traffic study from 1998 is wrong. A conclusion that says there is no impact on this neighborhood without a traffic study is equally wrong. Mr. Stanton stated there is a bus stop on the north side of South Shore on a street call Aspri. This is curvilinear street meaning there are limited lines of site. This is a safety issue. The proper access would be through Coffee. This change of access would require a change in the specific plan. Mr. Stanton asked why the road can't be widened with acceleration and deceleration lanes to keep the traffic on Coffee and protect the children of the neighborhood? Concerning the population the 1999 U.S. Census uses 2.28 for R-2 housing. The 2000 U.S. Census uses 2.79 for R-2 housing which is different and larger and the current figures should be used. In the Parks & Recreation section the number is decreased to 172 from 225. Mr. Stanton stated that as members of the public they are entitled to a Negative Declaration or an EIR. Mr. Stanton commented that the report concludes that there is an impact for the need for park space, but it is insignificant because when the units are built the developer will have to make a contribution towards public parks, but the map does not point out the Association has a park area and lake that they pay the maintenance on and those in the multi-family units should pay their share of maintenance and operation just like the other 1400 residents pay. While there may be no impact on "public parks" there will be an impact on the 1400 residents. Mr. Stanton stated that they would like a condition that the new development pays for its share of the park and lake. PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 11 Mr. Stanton stated that the Association has a right to architectural review over this particular development Michael Johnson, Jeanine Johnson, Ken Swift, Randall Jackson, Martin Martz, Vernon Kartinen, Debra Howard, Charloote Coggins, Mike Desharle, William Pulamar, and Kristin Bluendell all stated their concerns which included: Traffic concerns for the already developed area. Number of apartments and population increase proposed. Aesthetics of the apartments. Safety concerns. The proposed multi-family homes would be exempt from home association fees and CC&R requirements. Others from the apartments using their association facilities Public portion of the hearing opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Randy Bergquist, with Porter Robertson Engineering, stated that some of the issues raised cannot be addressed tonight. The units will not be two-story, and will have tile roofs with garages. The RiverLakes Specific Plan adopted in 1990 does show the school site, the golf course, the proposed R-2, the collector roads, major arterials, and restrictions that no driveways or other access roads for residential uses shall be allowed vehicle access to Coffee Road. He stated that the roads are public roads and not private roads. He believes that the roads were constructed to code. He stated that he does not know how you can keep people out of the park when the roads are public. In 1998 there was a request to make an access from Coffee Road and was denied and the current developer would not propose this access. He stated that they would like to limit discussions to issues related to the tentative map, and they agree with staff's recommendation. Jay Rosenlieb with Klein, DeNatalie law firm supports staff's recommendation. The decision to be made is not on a General Plan Amendment or a zone change, but is looking inside the boundaries of this particular proposed map and determining whether this proposed map is appropriate for inside the boundaries. The traffic and park issues, and the impact of apartments in this area are not at issue currently, but rather the map is at issue. Historically, decisions made to the entire specific plan area, and this particular map, are not made in a vacuum. The effects have been studied and they stack high. They are building a community with diversity and gives everybody an opportunity. Does not feel the development will detract from the value of the homes. The employees and retirees of Karpe Realty are invested in this project and are at stake. The units will be single-story with no overlooks. Block walls will be put up. The units are $300,000 units. The outlet at Coffee Road was considered in depth by staff and City Council and was rejected. This particular project is not new. The zoning, which is not at issue currently, has been in place since at least 1990 and part of the Specific Plan. The map is the only issue on the table. The Commission's job is to make a decision on the proposed improvements to the already approved R-2 zoning. The public portion of the hearing is closed. The hearing is opened for Commissioner comments and questions. Chairman Sprague commented that this item has been before the Commission previously PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 12 and was rejected by the Commission and the Council. Commissioner Gay is concerned about the association fees and the gated community issues. Jay Rosenlieb responded that they do not know why the development is not in the assessment area. Mr. Rosenlieb indicated that he is not aware of the gate requirement. David Stanton responded that the way this was put together was that each developer could make a decision to join the association or not join the association. Coleman, US Homes, Probuilt, aside from the R-2 areas, joined the association. This current builder does not want to join the association and he believes this is nonsense. The CC&R's say that it is the developer's option. He stated that as to the issue of the gated community, in 1990 there were no residents in the area and so there was no input in 1990 as to the R-2 zoning because there were no homeowners. The R-2 zoning was not pointed out in Department of Real Estate White Papers when anyone bought. The R-2 zoning was in the Specific Plan, but the Specific Plan was not available generally to purchasers in that area. In 1998 the golf course required some changes to the General Plan and in the Specific Plan. At that point for the first time a map was seen with the R-2, and the association entered into a deal with Fruitvale which Fruitvale was to record. The R-2 on South Shore was to be gated and was to have its own separate recreational amenities so that there would be no impact on their facilities, including swimming pool and the like. The R-2 was to have architectural design that would blend in and was suppose to be subject to the CC&R's and was suppose to be subject to review by their architectural committee. This was acknowledged in writing and orally. This was to be covered by a recorded set of CC&R's that burdened the South Shore facility. Mr. Stanton stated that they are the Master Homeowner's Association and their CC&R's allow for sub-associations to be formed although none ever have been. Originally as planned it included approximately 4,400 houses and has always been at the option of the developer. The current proposed apartments are not a natural barrier and the election is wrong. Jay Rosenlieb stated that the Commission is entitled to consider whatever they deem appropriate with the guidance of council. The use of the park facilities, etc. whether in the association or not is a private concern. Staff stated the Negative Declaration referred to by Mr. Stanton was recorded by Fruitvale Property back in 1998. Restrictions are included and recreational amenities states that "apartment complex shall contain a swimming pool and such other recreational amenities as the declarant deems appropriate for the apartments". It further talks about access to North Shore and South Shore Drives and that "access to both shall be gated." These CC&R's are not what the City enforces. The City enforces a Specific Plan and the zoning ordinance. The Specific Plan identifies a committee for a design review that will be comprised of the primary land owner, the primary land owner's consulting planning and engineer and an appointee of the primary land owner. It is the contents of the Specific Plan and where it defaults to the local zoning ordinances that staff applies to the project. Commissioner Gay stated that he is not ready to go forward with the project. Commissioner Sprague commented that the Commission is not discussing the CC&R's but rather a tentative tract map. PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 13 Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Rosenlieb why his client would not want to join the association, to which Mr. Rosenlieb responded that the decision to join or not to join has not been made. Mr. Rosenlieb expressed that they would be agreeable to discussing this issue with Mr. Stanton in a different venue. Commissioner Tragish expressed his concern of the traffic issues raised. He commented that things change over time from the original blueprint and would feel more comfortable if another traffic study was done. He stated he would also like to know if any analysis has been done to consider the safety of the street in that area. Mr. Rosenlieb responded that there has not been an analysis of the safety of the street in conjunction with putting the proposed project in that area. The previous traffic study was done in contemplation of the zoning that is on this property and the surrounding properties. Models were built that anticipated R-2 zoning and anticipated the density in that particular R-2 zoning. The traffic studies and the conclusions reached contemplated the buildout now being proposed. The conclusion has been that the streets will remain safe as they are now. He does not know that there are changed circumstances in the sense that the traffic studies done contemplated buildout as now is being proposed. Commissioner Tragish commented that models and statistics get you where you want to go, but it is not necessarily where you wind up at and you have to consider reality. Mr. Rosenlieb responded that at this point there is no evidence in the record. There is only anecdotal observations regarding traffic in the area. He believes that the best that the Commission can do is sympathize at this point. This particular development is not any particular large change from what was in the model. Commissioner Tragish stated that he does not agree that there is no testimony. He asked staff if the Commission is privy to any recent traffic studies to which Steve Walker responded that there has not been any safety study done. This is a known area for traffic accidents and moving violations. These maps are complete and North Shore and the connection has always been planned. In the Specific Plan the North Shore and South Shore streets are only partially shown because that is the area where they were a local collector. From that point beyond it became residential streets. The local collector streets are a higher classification street than a residential street. The incomplete information was not intended to be used in the way the Commission is trying to use it. The North Shore and South Shore connection has always been understood and was understood back in 1998 when the analysis was made on the capacities and whether or not there was a necessity to provide access to Coffee Road. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Rosenlieb if his client will build block walls, to which he responded that it could be a matter of discussion with the property owners. Commissioner Tragish stated that if the project was to be approved he would ask that there be a condition that there would be at least a six foot masonry block wall to the north and south of the property to the adjoining residential homes. Commissioner Tragish stated that his major concern is the traffic safety issues. Commissioner Sprague commented that changes have been made with the RiverLakes PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 14 Specific Plan as far as connecting roads as well as different R-2 and R-1 properties, and the traffic study done in 1998 was for the original plan, and changes have been made. Changes have been made that redirect traffic and there has been testimony presented that the traffic is moving north to Olive and to the South it is lesser than what was intended in the traffic study. He stated that he is not sure that if they require another traffic study if they would learn anything different then what they already know now; there is traffic congestion and it's going to get worse. Does not think that just doing a traffic study is going to channel the traffic going north to Olive back to South Shore/North Shore. Changes have occurred with different buyers and different owners and developers of RiverLakes and now new owners of RiverLakes coming in, and all these changes effect the traffic patterns. He stated that he agrees with Commissioner Tragish's suggestion that there is a current traffic study but it is not fair to place the traffic study on the backs of this R-2 development. Steve Walker responded that a new traffic study that would consider the school issues could not be performed for another three months when school starts again the fall. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if the visible changes since 1998 are relevant enough to require a traffic study to this particular development and its access onto South Shore, and if there are traffic safety issues that were not anticipated in the previous traffic report, to which staff said he is not sure what a new traffic study would show other than just the same capacity of South Shore. There are changes in operational characteristics with signals now at Hageman Road and more coming in. There will be stop signs where South Shore and North Shore come into RiverLakes. He does not believe that another traffic study will give any answers. Commissioner Sprague recommended continuing this for awhile and ask for a traffic study so they can see what is factual. Mr. Walker said that for what the Commission is looking for, a traffic study will probably give some additional information, but is not sure if it is going to provide enough clarity to say black and white it needs to be this way or that way. Commissioner Sprague asked what the time frame would be on a traffic study and Mr. Walker stated that any new traffic study should be during the school season, in which case this matter could be back before the Commission in September/October. Randy Bergquist with Porter Robertson suggested that they could offer a full right-of-way dedication to the property boundary at Coffee Road and then in the future when the City does a traffic study and feels that there is a need to put that through to Coffee Road, the right-of-way will be there and the road dedicated so that it would be something that could be done in the future. The reason they have hesitated on this is because they don't want a hundred roads going through their development as a short cut to Coffee Road. Commissioner Sprague asked if access on Coffee Road would be safe and reasonable to which Steve Walker responded that it can always be reasonable by following the standards. However, whether it's appropriate or not, and for or against the policies of the General Plan and Circulation the interior streets were designed to be local collectors to collect the traffic. This project does not have access allowed on Coffee Road because it's been waived and had to be a change in the waive of the access. Access would have to be allowed back in, and this takes Council action. Commissioner Tkac stated he would agree to put this off until October. PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 15 Commissioner Blockley stated the inconsistency between the CC&R's and public property. He commented that it is his understanding that the dedication through Coffee would have an arterial connection to a collector street with a local street that has apartments and whatever else fronting on that collector which does not seem to follow policy. Staff responded that it is their understanding that the applicant is proposing to give street right-of-way to Coffee pending a traffic analysis. If the traffic analysis shows that the road should go through that would have to come back before the Commission at the next general cycle which would be some time in September, and at that time everybody would be put on notice, and there would be another public hearing and the Commission would decided whether or not based upon that traffic study, the road should go through or not. Commissioner Blockley stated that it is his opinion that they can't come to a quick decision tonight. Jay Rosenlieb, representing the applicant, stated that they believe that the Commission has enough information to act on it as it is and would prefer to have a vote on it any way and not a continuance. Commissioner Gay moved to continue this hearing until the Sept 5, 2002 meeting. Motion seconded by Commissioner Blockley. Commissioner Tragish asked if the September time was sufficient time to conduct a traffic study? Staff commented that October 3 or October 17 would give sufficient time. Commissioner Gay amended his motion to include the reason for the continuance to be to provide for a traffic study to be done, and also to amend to continue the hearing until October 17, 2002. Seconded by Commissioner Blockley. Jay Rosenlieb commented that they do not wish to have the matter continued and would like to have a yes or no vote. Motion carried by group vote. 5.4) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6019 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Approved on the Consent Agenda 5.5) Revised Vestinq Tentative Tract Map No. 6087 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Continued from May 16, 2002) (Ward 4) Staff is recommending adoption and approval of the revised tentative tract map with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution. The public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 16 Richard Meyer with Mclntosh & Associates, representing Castle & Cooke, stated that they agree with staff's recommendations, findings and conditions. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish asked what the big pipe was in the middle of the tract to which applicant responded that it is an old abandoned irrigation facility that will be destroyed. Commissioner Tragish moved to approve the Negative Declaration approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 6087 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit A, and incorporating the memorandum from Marian Shaw dated May 31,2002. Seconded by Commissioner Gay. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ellison 6. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 6107 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 02-0308 (Porter-Robertson) . (Ward 4) Approved on the Consent Agenda GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 01-1025 (City of Bakersfield) (Wards 1 & 2) Staff report given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against the project. Commissioner Sprague made the following suggestion: If between Oak and Vineland there is potential for mitigation of staff's recommendation to downgrade to a collector from Oak Street to Union Avenue as collector status, and then have an arterial status from Union to Vineland? As development occurs from Union east to Vineland, the applicant would bring forward a plan for development which would include curbing and a free flow line to be determined by the traffic engineer and the planning director at the site plan approval process and then it would not have to come back before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gay stated his preference to downgrade Brundage Lane from Oak Street to Union and moving it east to Lakeview and have an arterial from Lakeview out to Vineland. Commissioner Blockley stated his concern for keeping the arterial status is to encourage development along Brundage Lane, and if there is restricted access which is the requirement for arterials, it makes more sense to him to follow the original recommendation of staff to decrease the designation of the street but keep the width as developed as an arterial. Because this is not acceptable to the County he inquired if there is some mechanism for changing the amount of access that can be designated for that particular arterial? Staff responded that where it is an existing situation there is a different rule. With new development there is much more restrictive PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 17 access control, especially on arterial streets. With the Brundage situation it would make good engineering sense if a totally new development came in along an existing area as to how much access they would have and how many driveways they would have, but it would not just be a set rule of no access to the arterial street. Commissioner Blockley asked that if a developer wanted to change use what would the City's position be on access to which staff responded that it is not a hard rule. Commercial development has access to arterial streets with commercial development. There are policies and standards in effect that limit the amount or spacing of driveways and access to make good engineering sense for accessibility and turns. Commissioner Blockley indicated that he spoke with Irma Carson, and she indicated that she would support Staff's recommendation. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that he wants to encourage development along the east side of Brundage, but does not want to penalize those who have already spent the money to widen the street. Would like Brundage from Oak to Union to be downgraded to a collector, and from Lakeview to Vineland to be an arterial. He asked staff that if the Commissioner were to maintain Brundage as an arterial from Lakeview to Vineland if that would have the least amount of impact on property owners? Staff responded that between Lakeview and Mt. Vernon that Calcot owns the most property and that they have already improved that to arterial or collector standard except for an area in front of their office, but it would impact them if they tried to do any future development on their site. Staff indicated that Calcot has a substantial legal parcel that would be under site plan review and anything they do would trigger arterial improvements along Brundage and Calcot is what precipitated staff looking at this. Commissioner Tragish asked if from Mt. Vernon to Vineland would have the least amount of impact to property owners to which staff responded in the affirmative and that staff has received 25 to 30 phone calls from County residents between Oswell and Fairfax who would prefer a collector, but the City does not have jurisdiction over that. Commissioner Sprague commented that improvement costs should be spread evenly among the owner developers. Commissioner Blockley asked if the width would remain the same whether it is an arterial or downgraded to a collector? Staff responded that the ultimate width of an arterial is 110 feet and the curb line to curb line width is 90 feet, and for a collector the right-of-way width is 90 feet, and the curb line to curb line distance is 68 feet. Staff is proposing to change the ultimate requirement from the 90 feet of pavement for an arterial to the 68 feet of pavement for a collector. In the area being discussed of changing from an arterial to a collector from Oak Street to Union, there essentially would be no physical change, because the existing improvements are already at the collector standard. From Lakeview to the east, it's a 50/50 proposition. There are some limited properties that are at less than arterial standards and close to collector standards. New ones are done to arterial standards. There is a difference of about 10 feet of paving. Commissioner Blockley expressed his concern of unfairly penalizing existing property owners. Staff suggested that between Lakeview and Oswell that it be called a collector status, but as PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 18 developments come in, they would evaluate whether or not the flow line needed to be kept at the same point as the adjacent developments. If the Commission wants to keep a level playing field then Union or Lakeview would be a reasonable demarcation point as there are very few parcels in this area that are currently out to arterial width. Commissioner Tragish reiterated that the least amount of impact would be leaving Brundage as an arterial between Union and Vineland. Commissioner McGinnis moved to adopt the Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration approving the request for a General Plan Amendment changing the circulation element designation from Brundage Lane between Wible and Oak to the intersection of Union Avenue, and incorporating Marian Shaw's memoranda of May 31,2002 and May 10, 2002, Stanley Grady's memorandum of March 29, 2002, and changing Brundage Lane from an arterial to a collector and recommend same to City Council. Motion seconded by Commissioner Tkac. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ellison COMMUNICATIONS None COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner McGinnis stated there is a Public Notice committee meeting tomorrow at noon. 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING There will be a Pre-meeting on Monday, June 17, 2002. 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 11:32 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary PC Minutes, June 6, 2002 Page 19 July 8, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director