Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/05/98Council Chamber, City Hall AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Thursday 5:30 p.m. - November 5, 1998 ROLL CALL ALTERNATE: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TA VORN RON SPRAGUE NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. A PUBLIC STATEMENTS ANY PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS ON THE AGENDA OR WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING A PUBLIC HEARING NEED NOT FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD. ALL OTHERS WISHING TO SPEAK BEFORE THE COMMISSION MAY FILL OUT A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PRESENT IT TO THE SECRETARY PRIOR TO' COMMENCEMENT OF THE MEETING. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL Planning Commission decisions on Zone Changes, Parcel Maps and Tentative · Subdivision maps are subject to appeal by any person aggrieved. No permit shall be issued for any use involved in an application until after the final acceptance date of appeal. Such aPpeal must be filed in'writing within 10 days from date qf hearing, addressed to the City COuncil, cio Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $330 non-refundable filing fee must be included with filing of the initial appeal for those appeals filed by the applicant or any person outside the notice area. All appeals filed on land divisions will require a $330 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will standl If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are. withdrawnl the action of the Planning Commission shall become final..- Agenda, PC, ThurSday - November 5, 1998 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked-by asterisk (*) These items :Will be acted on as a group without ind vidual staff presentations if no member of the Plannir~g"c~m'~nission 0~' a'~lier~ WiSheS to comrnent-~r-as~ qUestions ~n a c~s~ '~ i~em's are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wiShes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held August 17, August 20, August 31 and September: 3, 1998. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 1) Tentative Tract 5706 Optional Design (John Wilson and Associates) LoCated on the south side of Highway 178, about 300 feet east of Miramonte · DriVe consisting of 32 lots for single family residential purposes, 2 open space lots, a pedestrian access and private street on 4.61 acres zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development). (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from October 15, 1998) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Group vote. APPROVE 2) Tentative Tract 5396 (Telstar Engineering) LoCated on the south side of Hosking Avenue approximately 500 feet east of South H Street, consisting of 161 lots on 40 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling). (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE GrOup vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS 1) VeSting Tentative Parcel Map 10554 (Delmarter & Deifel) Lo~:ated at the northeast corner of Gibson Street and Burr Street, consisting of 8 parcels on 19.08 acres on property zoned C-2-D and a waiver of mineral rights ' ' oWners' signature in accordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16~20.060 B.1. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group vote. Agenda, PC, ThUrsday- November 5, 1998 Page 3 10. 11. 2). 3) Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10559 (Martin-Mclntosh) Located on the east side of Quantico Avenue, approximately 300 feet north of TeXas Street, consisting of two parcels and a "Not A Part" on 9.7 acres zoned ..... R-2-(Limited~Muitiple-Family-DWelling)~and-M~-lv..(LightJt4anufacturing);.~and waiver of mineral right owner's signature in accordance with BMC Section 16.20.060.B. (categorically exempt) sTAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group vote. Tentative Parcel Map 10347 (Wayne Massie) Located on the northwest corner of East Pacheco Road and Cottonwood Road, consisting of two parcels on 40 acres on property zoned 7.3 (Heavy Industrial) in the!Casa Loma Specific Plan,.and a waiver of mineral rights owners' signature in acCordance with Bakersfield Municipal Code Section 16.20.060 B. (Categorically exempt) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE GrOup vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS P98-0441 ~ Ordinance amending the Bakersfield Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.66 for a Hillside Development (HD) zoning district. In addition, a change of zone in those areas that have slopes exceeding eight (8) percent located primarily in the northeast part of the City of Bakersfield to add the HD zone as a combining zone. (Negative Declaration on file) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Roll call vOte. COMMUNICATIONs A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSl0N COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF NEXT PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT STANLI Plannin( MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held November 5, 1998, City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL coMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER ROBERT ORTIZ WADE TAVORN RON SPRAGUE ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: ~ CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV STAFF: = Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None : CONSENT ~CALENDAR None Minutes, PC, Thursday, November 5, 1998 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held August 17, August 20, August 31 and September 3, 1998. Commissioher Brady had a correction of the August 20, 1998, minutes on Page 10. The fourth line down should read "Mr. Brady asked Ms. Bjorn if an answer to the complaint had been filed." The next sentenCe should say "any problem raised by Ms. Bjorn" and lastly the next sentence should read "... her client to request a temporary restraining order." Commissioner Brady moved to approve the rest of the minutes as written. Commissioner Ortiz seconded and the motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - EXTENSIONS OF TIME 5.1) Tentative Tract 5706 Optional Design (continued from October 15, 1998) Staff repOrt was given. This item was continued from the previous meeting and staff's 'position had not changed. Staff recommended approval with the same conditions. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. John Wilson of Wilson and Associates stated that he agreed with all the conditions and the staff report and had no questions. public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Wilson if it was the intention of the developer to join the present Hidden Lakes Homeowners Association in order to utilize the street through the development called Lakeside Way into this project or is he planning to obtain a right-of-way easement through the east portion of the adjacent proPerty into Las Palmas. Mr. Wilson stated that it was the developer's intention to join with the Lake Association the two parcels to the west to use their amenities and to provide a right-of-way secondary access from the east end of this project joining on to a dedicated street. The one we choose to go to is to the south not to the east. commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Wilson if there is anything in writing from the owner of the property granting the road easement? Mr. Wilson stated that there is nothing in writing but the developer has indicated that he will grant an access easement to our developer with the option being that when his property is deVeloped, then that easement will move to accommodate his project. Minutes, PC, Thursday, November 5, 1998 Page 3 Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Wilson what type of rOofs would the houses have?-~Mr. Wilson stated that they would have some. kind of tile. _~Not shake or shingle. Commissioner Sprague commended staff for getting back to the Commissioners regarding the questions posed at the last meeting regarding various situations that existed in the staff report. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Ortiz, to apProve a one year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5706 Optional Design to expire September 1, 1999, with findings and conditions set forth in the resolution (Exhibit "A") 5.2) Tentative Tract 5396 (Telstar Engineering) Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. CarI Moreland, representing Telstar, spoke in favor but had questions about two of the conditions. He wanted to know if the new condition 7.2 included the old condition 2.4. If so, then 2.4 should be deleted. He requested that Condition 4 be deleted also because this is an approved phase map and in fact had even been parceled into four parcels into the four phaSes that had been approved. He felt that to add a new condition that off-sets the phasing of the costs is in contradiction to the approved phases and the way the property has been parceled into these four parcels. This is also in contradiction to the new condition that was just faxed on November 4 from Jim Movius. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Ms. :Shaw stated that Condition 7.2 refers to a regional transportation impact fee and Condition 2.4 refers to a local traffic fee. They are two separate fees. Ms. Shaw also stated that regarding Condition 4, if the engineer's estimates for the improvements are reasonably balanced with regards to the sizes of the phases, the Condition will not apply. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Moreland to point out the four phases on the map separately. Commissioner Brady then supported staff. Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw if the Public Works Department had requested this condition in previous projects. Ms. Shaw stated that this condition has been included for about two years. Ms. Shaw stated that the intent is to try to get the phasing such that we're not left with a phase of four or five lots that has all of the arterial improvements yet to do. They don't seem to pencil out Minutes, PC, Thursday, November 5, 1998 Page 4 financially and they never get done. In the last ten years there has been about a dozen or~ more examples, where that has happened..The conditionensures.. orderlY development and balanced phases. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Moreland what he wanted to do either accept the conditions and get the extension or not accept the conditions and not get the extension. Mr. Moreland replied that he would accept the conditions and go with the, extension. A motion was made by Commissioner Brady and seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Tract 5396 to expire October 2, 1999 with findings and conditions as set forth in the attached ReSolution Exhibit "A" and the conditions set forth in the November 3, 1998, memorandum from Stanley Grady to the Planning Commission. Motion carried.' PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS 6.1) Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10554 (Delmarter & Deifel) Withdrawn 6.2) veSting Tentative Parcel Map 10559 (Martin-Mclntosh) A staff report recommending approval with conditions as attached in Exhibit "A" of the resolution and the added condition by memo regarding compliance with all ordinances and policies was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. Roger Mclntosh representing Golden Empire Gleaners spoke in favor. He asked for deletion of Condition No. 2 which requires the area shown as "not a part" to be included as Parcel 3 within the border of the subdivision. That then would require the street improvements along the frontage of that parcel to be completed prior to recordation of the map. Ca{tie and Cooke who is taking this back as owners does not have a problem developing the street frontage improvements at the time of development. Mr. Mclntosh also requested that condition 1.1 which reads "the parcel boundaries to be along the M-l/R-2 zoning..." Mr. Mclntosh wanted to add "as adjusted by staff." He stated that the staff report recommended that staff would initiate a zone change to clean up the discrepancies in the zone line. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Ms.: Shaw stated that Condition 1.1 should read "as adjusted by the staff initiated zone change." Ms. Shaw stated that with regards to condition 2 the map act does say=that it has to cover everything for sale, lease or finance now and in the future. With regards to improvements on Quantico, if the Planning Commission MinUtes, PC, Thursday, November 5, 1998 Page concurs that those improvements would be premature at this time and are happy ......... with. catching_it, at. site plan review thatshe has no objection to chan_ging the condition. Commissioner Dhanens asked whether it was customary for Planning Condition No.; 6 to be reviewed by the City Attorney's office? Mr. Grady said that the Planning staff would be able to make that judgment. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Mclntosh if he agreed with the change to Condition No. 2 that improvements be made at site plan review. Mr. Mclntosh agreed that that would be fine. A motion was made by Commissioner Ortiz and seconded by Commissioner Boyle to approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10559 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "^", the changes Stated by Ms.:Shaw and the memorandum dated November 3, 1998. Motion carried. 6.3) Tentative Parcel Map 10347 (Wayne Massie) A staff report recommending approval with conditions was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Wiley Hughes representing Wayne MaSsie spoke requesting a deferment of the improvements until the building permit stage because they felt the improvements were premature at this time. The specific items would be Item No. 1, Item No. 2 through C and E and Items 3, 4 and 5. : Public portion of the hearing was closed. Ms. Shaw stated that since the parcel is not being used, she agreed to removing Condition No. 1. Since there is no requirement to do the street, Condition No. 3 regarding street lights could be removed. Condition No. 4 regarding channelization could also be removed but Condition No. 5 is a requirement to be in a maintenance district. There would be no fees until other improvements were made to Cottonwood Road. Ms. Shaw stated that she was not prepared to address Condition No. 2 as it was in the Casa Loma Specific Plan. She asked Mr. Hughes if he would agree to continue this item until the next Planning Commission meeting so that they could discuss it. Mr. Hughes agreed. A motion was made by'Commissioner Brady and seconded by Commissioner Ortiz to continue this item until November 19, 1998. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, ThUrsday, November 5, 1998 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS - ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS P98-0441 ~ Ordinance amending the Bakersfield Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.66 for a Hillside Development (HD) zoning district. Staff report recommending approval was given with changes outlined in the Planning Director's memo of November 5, 1998. Some minor technicalities had been resolved with the Fire Department and Building Department concerning roofs. There will be no shake roofs. The grades of street were redefined based on the type of street. Contour grading had some exhibits that were deleted as they could have been misinterpreted. 'Also added in was that the Fire Chief could waive certain requirements on the vicinity plan if someone was just building a single family dwelling. There are two major unresolved issues that the committee could not agree. One is maximum Street grades which stand now at 4% for arterials, 5% for collectors, 7% for locals and 10% on driveways greater than 50 feet. The building industry argued that there should be greater flexibility in northeast Bakersfield by virtue of the natural topography. The other iSsue was contour grading. That is making things look like there is still hills and valleys. It is required now on slopes of greater than 10 feet of cut or fill that are exposedtopublic view. The Building Industry has argued that with the designing and the construCtion, it would cost more. In their opinion, people will not build there as the costs will be too high. Commissioner Sprague declared a conflict of interest. A five minute recess was called. Public portiOn of the hearing was opened. Roger Mclntosh stated that he has met with staff and the committee numerous times but that he still had some concerns about it. The draft document dated October 26, 1998, still has wording in it that talks about the overlay area to apply to contiguous areas of the city with generally 8 percent slopes or more. He wanted to make sure that if the document is adopted that the map goes along with it. That any revisions to the ordinance Would have to go through a map change as well. Mr. Mclntosh also had some concerns about the maximum grade of the access. He was still concerned about the grades 4 percent, 5 percent and 7 percent starting with an arterial, a collector and a local street. He has done more research and he wanted to point out some observations. He provided a slide which showed standards taken out of the Institute for Transportation Engineers for Traffic and Speeds on Grades. The steeper the grade the slower the vehicle going up the grade. He stated that in actuality that if you have a 7 percent grade on an arterial for a mile, the 7 percent grade will raise you in elevation 370 feet and as you go up the hill you get to the top at 370 feet. With this ordinance, a 4 percent grade rising 370 feet would take 9,225 feet. The way you have to do that is wind around the hill to get to the top of the hill. Taking those same speeds, the speed on a 7 percent grade at 33 miles per hour will take that vehicle 1.82' Minutes, PC, .ThurSday, November 5, 1998 Page 7 minutes'to respond. The speed at 43 miles per hour on a 4.percent grade will take 2.44 .-minutes-to-respond:. It.actually .takes30.seconds longer- to .respond with.the.flatter grade because of the increase in distance. It almost doubles the length. If you are going down the hill at 55 miles per hour, in both cases, it takes 1.09 minutes to respond on a 7 percent grade and 1.91 minutes to respond on the four percent grade. That's almost a minute longer. Mr. MclntoSh Wanted the Commission to look carefully at what they are approving. He feels that there is no problem with the 7 percent grade maximum On all streets. Its being done in northeast Bakersfield now. In additioni he has a concern about Section 17.66.060 - Vicin!ty Plans. This is the requirement to show topography within 300 feet of the property. If you have a two acre parcel and:you have to go beyond that in all directions, that is a total of 18 acres. It becomes very costly to provide that type of information on a Very small parcel. It says that the Fire Chief may require more information on the plan or waive the requirements as appropriate but Mr. Mclntosh feels that it needs to be spelled out for a specific exemption :for smaller areas. Mr. Mclntosh also had some concerns about the diagrams that are shown for slope management recommended slope contouring. He felt there is a conflict in the exhibits. On slope management the Uniform Building Code requires a setback from top of slope and toe of the slope. In this scenario it is difficult to determine where the top of the slope and'toe of the slope is. It would be hard to calculate or show and establish the location of your buildings and fences. In general, Mr. Mclntosh, feels that the ordinance does not accomplish what was first set out to do. At first it was a health, safety and welfare ordinance and with the numbers and speeds it becomes a garbage ordinance. More concern has been placed on brakes wearing out in garbage trucks and with properly maintained vehicles you can accomplish the same thing on a 7 percent grade as a 4 percent grade. Development in the area will cost more and with lower densities and with the assessment district in place, assessment will go higher and it will be more difficult for the homeowners to pay off the assessment district. Laura Snideman with the Building Industry Association spoke against the ordinance. A lot of the ordinance makes sense as it is for the health, safety and welfare but a lot of the ordinance for the grading, slopes that are proposed and some of the contour issues it does not make sense. With this grading, lots would cost $25,000 to develop instead of the usual $12,000. If proposals of 4, 5 and 7 percent simply do not make sense and don't do what you want them to do, the BIA would be happier with 8, 12 and 15. Other communities like San Francisco and San Mateo County have steeper grades and they have no problems. Ms. Snideman stated that they hoped the Planning Commission would either turn down the ordinanCe in its entirety or revisit the grading and contouring issues. Minutes, PC, Thursday, November 5, 1998 Page 8 Brian Todd with the Bakersfield Association of Realtors agreed with BIA's position on ....... this .issue. ~: He did ~want..toadd .that a~comment was made earlier that there was.so_much more land outside of the zone that will be restricted that the implication seemed to be that it didn't matter how restrictive it was and he wanted to point out that there are property owners in the zone who have economic rights and have to be able to develop the land ina way that makes sense and is marketable. That is the bottom line for their concerns. :Mr. Todd asked that the Commission either implement the changes or deny the ordinance. No one spOke in favor. Public portion of the hearing was closed. CommissiOner Dhanens commented that the committee has met extensively for a long time with various members of the community and members of the Building Industry Association, Board of Realtors and other interested parties and at the conclusion they decided to agree to disagree. Because of its topography, it will be more expensive to develop than normal anyway. The map will go along with the ordinance so that a public hearing will have to be held for a change to it. CommissiOner Brady mentioned that he was not on the committee and he wanted to state that he wasn't criticizing anyone that was but he wanted to get comfortable with the issues. He stated that he thinks the effect of the ordinance is much broader that just a Hillside Ordinance because we as a community are facing in the next 50 to 100 years an expansion of this valley and with people moving here wanting to build homes and businesseS. He thinks that this ordinance may be telling developers to build where its cheap, where it is easy to fight fires and pick up garbage - build on the ag land. The developersmay have an easy out with this ordinance as they will have an excuse to say we don't bUild in the northeast because it is too expensive. Commissioner Brady asked for a response from staff or Chief Fraze if the response times were factually longer at a 4 percent grade versus a 7 percent. Chief Fraze answered Mr. Brady by stating the Fire Department took this very seriously and they toOk their Engine 8 and Engine 10 (the trucks that would actually respond to those locatiOns) and they found that at a 7 percent grade for Engine 10 (the first engine due out in that area) the top speed is 31 miles per hour. When you go up to 10 percent, it drops to 20 miles per hour, 12 percent drops to 15 miles per hour and at 16 percent it drops to 12 miles an hour. Chief Fraze stated that as far as the 4, 5 and 7, the Fire Department could negotiate better than that but as far as the 8, 12 and 15 they can't. They are unacceptable to the rigs that they have. Commissioner Brady asked Chief Fraze that with respect to fighting a fire, except for getting a rig there, is there any difference or challenge by these local streets at 7 vs. 10 percent. Minutes, PC, Thursday, November 5, 1998 Page 9 Chief Fraze stated that basically not except for angle of approach is very important. His positionis that theycould go the lO. percent for a limited space Commissioner Brady asked if all the rigs are just for city use only. Chief Fraze said "no" that all the rigs they buy is for use all over as there are hills in other parts of the city. Commissioner Brady asked if the Fire Department could purchase rigs that would respond better to hills like they have for the mountains. Chief Fraze said yeSthey could but it would defeat the purpose of the Fire Department being able to respond any where in the city and help out. CommissiOner Brady asked if the brakes would be checked more frequently if this ordinance Was put into effect. Mr. Fraze responded by saying probably but that the Public Works Department is responsible for that. Commissi°ner Brady asked Ms. Shaw if there has been a study about garbage trucks and grade iimitations. Ms. Shaw stated that the Director of Public Works, Raul Rojas, has a lot of experience with hilly areas and he has given staff explicit directions with regards to the maximum slopes for arterials, collectors and locals based on his experience in Upland and other areas to the south. The Public Works Department has an Equipment Maintenance Superintendent very experienced in that also. They have testified but not given Ms. Shaw any studies in regards to costs for garbage trucks. Mr. Rojas is very concerned about the cost to the city when we get these slopes. One example is that we can buy garbage trucks for the hills but they all have to go to Bena and if you have a specially geared truck that is trying to drive on a fiat road, you will lose' gears far qUicker than the stress of going up and down hills. The combination of going UP and doWn the hills and then trying to get to Bena to unload the trucks 2 or 3 times a day which gives wear and tear on the trucks. Mr. Rojas is also extremely concerned about safety. Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Shaw what the maximums were that Mr. Rojas suggested. Ms. Shaw responded by saying they were the ones in the ordinance right now, whichiis 4, 5 and 7. Commissioner Brady commented that the increase in cost of services WOuld be a justifiable expense to encourage growth in the hillside areas to preserve ag land. He feels that we are erring on the side of caution in respect to grades but is somewhat appeased by the language that appears to suggest that an applicant can bring a map and then negotiate a different grade for a particular street. Commissioner Brady, referring to Section 17.66.030 - Maximum Grade of Access, asked the City Attorney if the City Engineer could grant exceptions beyond the 10 percent maximum or if the City Engineer could grant exceptions higher than 4, 5 and 7? Mr. Mclntosh wanted to clarify a point that in the example he gave the Commission that the difference in the grade from 4 percent to 7 percent amounts to approximately 4,000 additional roadway to take care of and maintain that the city will have to pay for. Mr. Hernandez, Deputy City Attorney, stated that the language in Section 17.66.030 is much like the language placed in 17.66.190 C. which also grants the Planning Commission the opportunity to grant minor modifications to the provisiOns as long as Minutes, PC, ThUrsday, November 5, 1998 Page10 they do notiadversely affect public safety. So there is some minor leeway there as long ........ as-the modification, conforms with the intentr of the entire, ordinance.and_doesn,t ...... - ~. adversely affect public safety. Ms. Shaw Said that the intent of that sentence was not to apply strictly to the 10 percent angle of apPreach and departure but the maximum grade for arterial, collector, local streets and driveways so, therefore, it may be more appropriate to make the sentence a little clearer. Commissioner Brady proposed that the sentence that says "City Engineer may grant limited exceptions.." should be moved up to right under where they set the 4, 5 and 7 percent grades: He also proposed that instead of saying "may grant limited exceptions" it should say "may grant exceptions" and then require the applicant to go threugh a precess of proving to the city why it would be more beneficial for this project to have a grade higher than has been set. Put the burden on the applicant to demonstrate why it would be more beneficial to have a higher grade under the circumstances than not. If they can cOme up with proof that over the long haul its in the city's interest to have a higher grade, then they should be able to do that. He said he would support wording that was less erroneous and still put the burden on the applicant to come forward and make its case but may not in such an erroneous fashion. Commissioner Boyle stated that as a Planning Commission, their job is to design a community not do what's cheapest for the building industry. Just because we can do something doeSn't mean we should do it. We shouldn't be concerned with building homes the Cheapest way. Most of the homes in the hillsides of the communities in Southern California end up being the more expensive homes. Even if there is a slightly greater cost in building it, to him, isn't a problem. Commissioner Boyle said the City Engineer should be given "limited exceptions." Too much discretion some times cause violations in other things. The appeal process to the Planning COmmission gives you the safety you are looking for "limited matters" it can be handled thrOugh staff. If its something they feel is not limited, then they always have a right to appeal it to the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission language is much broader. He suggested fo take out the word "minor" in Section 17.66.190 C. in the subparagraPh and make it just to "grant modifications." Commissioner Boyle agreed with Mr. Mclntosh that the map must go with the ordinance. That makes it clear for everyone. On the issue of the 4, 5 and 7 percent grade Mr. Boyle would like to see it go back to committee because there are not that many arterial streets and maybe a 7, 7 and 7 would be best. He sees no advantages in going beyond a 7 percent grade. Commissio.ner Boyle stated that the issue of where the setbacks start should be sent back to committee to make a standard for that. Commissioner Kemper commented that she was not on the committee but commended them on the effort. Commissioner Kemper stated that the issue of maximum should be · sent back to committee and find a happy median between the 8, 12 and 15 request of the BIA and the 4, 5 and 7 recommendation by the city. Somewhere in between would Minutes, PC, ThUrsday, November 5, 1998 Page 11 -be more realistic,~., Commissioner. Kemper..also thinks that we shouldn't-limit.ourselves on.. the capabilities of the old fire rigs that are probably on their way out any way. Commissioner Kemper recommended the three items be sent back to committee - the issue of grade access, issue of contour grading (changing or amending the diagram) and getting.a little more definition on the setbacks. Commissioner Brady stated that he would support a motion to continue this item and he liked the suggestion by Mr. Boyle to remove the word "minor" from Section 17.60.190 C. so it reads "on appeal, the City Council or Planning Commission may grant modification from the provisions..." He would also support an increase in the base such as 7, 7, 7 as being more appropriate. Mr. Grady commented that if the Commission was going to continue this, it should be continued to the next-meeting which is November 19 and try to meet between now and the 19th so that it does not get bogged down in committee again and that the Commission be specific as to what the Commission wants the committee to look at so that the whole ordinance is not discussed again. Commissioner Tavorn commented that based on information received to the committee from knowledgeable people in the city that these are numbers based on experience. Also, the committee drove around the city and tested the 4, 5 and 7 percent grades. These numbers were based primarily on safety. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw what the grade was on Fairfax going north on College to Highway 178. Ms. Shaw stated that Fairfax Road at Valley View goes from a 5 percent to' a 6.75 percent, Morning Drive in the vicinity of State Route 178 down to Panorama Drive is 6.7 to 7 percent in that area and Alfred Harrell Highway going north to Panorama is 9.43 percent. Commissioner Dhanens commented that the sections that he sees as being a problem are: 1) SeCtion 17.66.030 on the Maximum Grade Access - Issues being the rewording of the paragraph and the verification by the committee of the arterials and collectors within that area that may or may not be affected by that, although we do not know what the circulatiOn pattern is, 2) .060 in the Vicinity Plan and whether or not we use the quad sheets and Whether or not we have a better definition of when the requirements of that get kicked in and what size parcel, 3) .190 C. regarding wording on the modifications that the Planning Commission can work on, 4) and the definition of the top and the toe of the slopes which would then be used for establishing setbacks. Commissioner Dhanens asked if they hear this on November 19 if it cOuld be scheduled for City Council after the new Councilmembers were sworn in. Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Boyle made a motion to refer the Ordinance back to committee to review the following areas: Minutes, PC, Thursday, November 5, 1998 Page 12 SeCtion .17.66.030 on-the issue of maximum grade on arterials and collectors esPecially considering what the possible location would be for arterials and collectors. 2) 3) SeCtion 17.66.060 on vicinity especially looking at whether it would be sufficient to Use topographical maps, etc. Rewording for 17.66.030 and 17.66.190 C. on the issues of appeals 4) Add an additional provision the ordinance defining the top slope for setback purposes. Commissioner Kemper seconded the motion and it was approved by group .vote. 8. COMMUNICATIONS 'None ~ 9.. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Sprague asked when the South Beltway issue would be coming up next. Mr. Grady Said it would be coming up on December 17, 1998. 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF 11. NEXT PRE-MEETING. Mr. Grady mentioned the items to be discussed and it was determined that a Monday pre-meeting was necessary. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:58 p.m. · Pam Townsend Recording Secretary pjt December 18, 1998