Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/20/99AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, May 20, 1999 5:30 p.m. JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE MA THEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours pdor to the Planning Commission meeting. agenda may be' obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. A final 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 acceptan.ce date of appeal. Such appeal must be filed in writing within 10 days from date of hearing, addressed to the City Council,'c/o Office of the City Clerk, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA 93301. A $334 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 $334 non-refundable filing fee. If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council headng, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final. Agenda, PC, Thursday - May 20, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These items'will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items 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. 3,1) 3.2) Agenda Item 8 Comprehensive Sign Plan No. P99-0296 Agenda Item 7.2 - Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5944 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held March 29, April 1, April 12 and 15, 1999. -5. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET FY 1999-2004 DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS. (City of Bakersfield - Public Works Dept.) [City-wide] Staff Recommendation: Find consistent with General & Specific Plans Group vote [Ward4]. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (Martin-Mclntosh) veSting Tentative parcel Map 10465 containing 16 parcels on 148.77 acres for service industrial development, zoned M-2 (General Manufacturing) and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B. 1;, located on the southwest corner of Pacheco Road and Gosford Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote [Ward 4] PUBLIC' HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 7.1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5939 (Martin-Mclntosh) containing8 lots on 4.03 acres for multiple family residential purposed, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1, located on the northwest corner of WesbNold Drive and Brookside Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - May 20, 1999 Page 3 [VVard 6] ~Vard 4] [~Vard 4] 10. 7.2) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5944 (Hershel Moore) consisting of 177 lots for single family dwellings on 50.69 acres on property zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), located on the southwest corner of Akers Road and McKee Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve 7.3) Group vote Vestin_o Tentative Tract Map 5936 (Martin-Mclntosh) containing 127 lots on 54.64 acres for single family residential purposes zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), including a request for private streets and deviation from the street standard; and double frontage lots on a local street and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.I., located on the southwest corner of Buena Vista Road and Ming Avenue (extended). (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Group vote Approve PUBLIC HEARING - Comprehensive Sign Plan No. P99-0296 (Castle & Cooke, CA) A comprehensive sign plan for the Riverwalk Office Center at 8,000-10,000 Stockdale Highway within a C-O (Commercial & Professional Office) zone. (Categorically exempt) ReCommendation: Approve Group vote COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees 11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING. 12. ADJOURNMENT Planning Director May 18, 1999 Held - Thursday May 20, 1999 5:30 p.m. ROLL CALL City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California., COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS' RON SPRAGUE ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: JANICE SCANLAN, Deputy City Attorney II JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director - JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner - JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Tkac r:ead the Notice of the Right to Appeal Commissioners Boyle and Dhanens stated that they did not attend the TueSday pre- meeting but did listen to a tape of the meeting and would be able to participate in tonight's meeting. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS Commissioner Boyle requested that Consent Agenda Item 3.2 be removed from the consent calender. He had a question about it. Minutes, PC, Thursday, May 20, 1999 Page 2 3.1) 3.2) Agenda Item 8 - Comprehensive Sign Plan No. P99-0296 Agenda Item 7.2 - Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5944 Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve Consent Agenda Item 3.1. Motion carried. Roger MclntOsh requested that Agenda Item 7.2 be moved in front of Item 6 and 7 so that the people attending the meeting for that item would not have to wait so long. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to move Agenda Item 7;2 in front of Agenda Item 6. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper to aPprove the minutes of the regular meetings held March 29, April 1, April 12 and 15, 1999. Motion carried. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET FY 1999-2004 DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS. [City-wide)] Ted Wright, Engineer IV with the Public Works Department, gave a detailed presentation recommending finding of consistency with General and Specific Plans be made. COmmisSioner Sprague asked Mr. Wright if the present Comanche ROad was going to be deleted from the point of diversion to Highway 178 and abandoned or is it going to continue to be a road to those parcels? Mr. Wright said that that portion of Comanche Road would be vacated. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Wright how the property would be deeded back to the property owners? Mr. Wright said it would be divided right down the center of the road. The property owner(s) to the east would get the east half and the property owner(s) to the west would get the west half. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Wright if the property owners would still have access off of Comanche Road and Highway 178 when Comanche Road is realigned. Mr. Wright said that 178 is a CalTrans facility and if they have access now, he is sure they will maintain it. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if they knew the acreage for the new fire station site at Panorama/Paladino Drive that's in the budget for $80,000? Mr. Wright said that he didn't think they had any particular site in mind at this time. The money is just being set aside for the future. John Stinson, Assistant City Manager, said that he knew the Fire Department did not have a specific site designated for that particular station. They just want to have some funds available so they can begin looking for a site. Commissioner Sprague asked how they ascertain the value of the property? Mr. Stinson said they go through a normal process of acquisition. Commissioner Sprague asked about the road widening on Brimhall west of Coffee Road. He wanted to know why the city is putting it in instead of the property owner when he develops the north property. Mr. Wright said the property owner would get some credits Minutes, PC, Thursday, May 20, 1999 Page 3 because it is on the TDF list and that's what the funds are being used fOr. If the need is there, the city would just as soon put the road in now rather than wait for the property owner to develop. Commissioner DhanenSasked Mr. Wright to elaborate on the slide he showed to the Commissioners regarding the White Lane interchange. Mr. Wright said that one of the things being looked at was an urban interchange which is basically one big intersection on top where the on and off ramps for White Lane intersect at one point. Commissioner Dhanens asked why some city funds are being used by the North Bakersfield Recreation and Park District for improvement costs and what is the relationship with the city and district to allow this to happen? And are those funds being generated from development with the area that's coming to the city and not to the park district? Mr. Wright responded by saying there is an agreement between the city and the North Bakersfield Park District whereby we collect a park improvement fee for development of homes and projects. The fees are collected at the building permit stage for park improvement. We collect the fees and then they go back to the district for improvements. - A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to make a finding that the Capital Improvements Program Budget for FY 1999-2004 is consistent with the general and specific plans. Motion carried. 7.2) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5944 (Hershel Moore) [Ward 6] Staff report was given recommending approval with changes in conditions from Public Works memo dated May 18, 1999. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition or in favor of the project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle wanted to know why the original condition was changed in the memorandum from Public Works stating that as each phase is built they would pay in the necessary funds for the widening of McKee Road but in the memorandum it was changed to the second phase. Ms. Shaw stated that they came to an agreement with the developer to construct the two lanes as soon as possible. Commissioner Boyle asked how many lots were in the first phase. Ms. Shaw said there are 28 lots in the first phase and it is approximately half of the McKee frontage. Commissioner Dhanens made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract 5944 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A" to include also the memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission dated May 17, 1999. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, Thursday, May 20, 1999 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING- VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP (Martin-Mclntosh) Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10465 [Ward 4] Staff report was given recommending approval with changes in conditions from Public Works memo dated March 1, 1999. Staff corrected the date of the Public WOrks memo from March 1, 1999 to' May 18, 1999. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh, representing the applicant, spoke in favor. Mr. Mclntosh requested a change in the 'language on one of the conditions of approval. He also requested to add a condition at 3.3.4 to read "subdivider may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City of Bakersfield for the reimbursement of the cost of improvements for the north half of Pacheco Road should the adjacent property develop." The reason for this request is that Pacheco Road is bounded on the north side by railroad property and they could some time in the future develop that piece of property. Castle and Cooke would like the opportunity for the city to collect some money from the adjacent property owner on the north side should the property develop and get a reimbursement back. Mr. Mclntosh also requested that condition 3.1.3 read as follows: "The proposed 'permanent drainage .retention basin and storm drain system shall be dedicated and constructed as approved by the city engineer with approved access provided to the retention basin." The original condition reads "shown on the tentative map" and they would like it to read "approved by city engineer." Mr. Mclntosh said the reason for this is because they have submitted a master drainage study to the city engineer for review but have not yet received approval. They are willing to work with the city engineer to properly locate the retention basin. It may not be at the location on the map. It may have to be moved. Mr. Mclntosh had one more request and that is to remove Planning Condition No. 13. This condition requiring approval of P99-028 prior to recordation of the final map puts them in an awkward situation since its not an application that this subdivider is processing. The city is processing the application and it was suppose to go on the last general plan cycle and was pulled off at the last minute. We agreed that we would construct a local collector and the local collector would qualify as a collector if it remains a collector or it would act as a local street if the general plan circulation element was amended. They don't want to be held up in case the Circulation element does not get. approved. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Mclntosh if they were planning On closing off Pacheco Road. Mr. Mclntosh said that that was not correct. Pacheco Road is a continuous right- of-way that goes through and they have asked that that condition we rewritten to provide a "T" intersection at Mattingly. Commissioner Sprague also asked Mr. Mclntosh what the width of the easement is between the railroad tracks and the property line. Minutes, PC, Thursday, May 20, 1999 Page 5 Mr. Mclntosh replied that the width of Progress Road is a 60 foot right-of-way. Commissioner Sprague asked if there is more easement between the road and the railroad track~s? Mr. Mclntosh said that that depends on where you are at. He then showed the Commissioners, staff and audience a detail map at Harris. He said that there is a title problem and the boundary does not follow the section line and the railroad. The railroad and Progress Road are parallel but the ownership goes to a Sales Map lot line So it varies as you go up and down Progress Road. At Harris Road the centerline of Progress is about 10 feet off of the Sales Map boundary but the mid-section line is 6-1/2 feet to the west. What they are asking for is to vacate all of that portion of Progress on the property (which is 30 feet from the centerline plus another 10 feet) which would leave 20 feet on the adjacent property. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Mclntosh if the property owner of the 20 feet has been notified of the vacation of the road and have they agreedto it? Mr. Mclntosh said that they are!not asking for a vacation of the road on anyone else's property. The vacation of the road is only for the property owned by Castle and Cooke. The road way outside the border would not be affected. Commissioner Sprague asked if that didn't limit access io the owner of the 20 feet of property? Mr. Mclntosh said they are replacing it With Mattingly. The western portion of the property is accessible from a number of different directions - Pacheco to the north, and Harris and Panama Lane. commissioner Sprague asked if there is any intention of bringing a rail spur off the western portion of the tract into those parcels. Mr. Mclntosh said "no" because this property owner does not own a small strip. They would have to obtain an easement from the adjacent property owner and instead of doing that, they opted to come off of the · Asphalto Branch instead of the Sunset line and provide rail service to only the 6 inside parcels. The outside parcels will not have rail service. There will be two crossings across Pach.eCo. Commissioner Sprague asked Ms. Shaw if there were any public safety issues that Public Works should look at regarding the two rail crossings on Pacheco. Ms. Shaw asked Mr. M~lntosh what the distance is between the two. He responded by saying approximately 700 or 800 feet. Ms. Shaw stated that typically separation between signals, at a minimum, need 720 feet. It looks like there is that much in that location. The Traffic Engineer would have to be consulted. 'Commission,er Sprague said that he is not opposed to vacating as long as other property owner's rights to ingress and' egress are not violated. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Mclntosh if Progress Road is vacated, would the lots in Phase 3 be able to tie into the rail line if they got the rights privately? Mr. Mclntosh said the only place that could happen is Parcel 5. It starts out at 20 feet and taper~ down to almost nothing. The whole 60 foot right-of-way through parcels 1 and 2 would be completely Vacated. There. is no opportunity to get access there. Commissioner Boyle said he sees. an advantage to the other property owners to vacate Progress Road so that the opportunity is there for the people in Phase 3 to strike a private deal with the railroad to get themselves access to it. Commissioner Boyle said he would support the applicant and the elimination of Progress is appropriate. Minutes, PC, ThurSday, May 20, '1999 Page 6 Commissioner Boyle asked staff about the requested deletion of Public Works Condition No. 13. If the Commission were to deny the GPA in June, would there be a problem? Mr. Grady said that staff Was in agreement with deleting the condition. Commissioner Brady stated that his concern was with the intersection of Pacheco and Gosford. He asked if Gosford was built out width-wise as far as it can be between Pacheco and the railroad tracks? Is there any portion of it that is not full width? Mr. Mclntosh stated that they looked at that a few days ago and it is built out full width. There is curb and gutter down to approximately 20 feet from the north line of Pachec°. They agreed to make the connection into the end of the curb and gutter and finish the paving~ Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Shaw if there is some reason why this was not made a condition. Ms. Shaw said that when the conditions were written they were under the impression that the only connection that needed to be made was the one shown in the tentative map at the curb return. Commissioner Brady just wanted to make sure that Gosford wOuld be built out at fUll width southbound from White Lane to Harris. Ms. Shaw stated that she thought it already was and if it isn't that perhaps Castle & Cooke, Martin-Mclntosh and the City could put their heads together to make it so. Commissioner Brady asked if this would necessitate any restriping from north of the railroad tracks on southbound Gosford? Ms. Shaw stated she wasn't familiar with that piece of road to answer that question. Mr. Mclntosh stated that from the aerial photograph it is apparent that there is converging lane with arrows to instruct people to merge to the left. You can also see the improvements in front of the railroad property south of the railroad tracks. He stated that if there is any restriping to be done, it should be done by the city. They are willing to make the connection, bring the curb return around, tie into the existing curb and gutter and finish the improvements adjacent to the site. Ms. Shaw stated that if there was a problem with the road width that she believes that Gosford Road is on the TDF list and so there would be funds available for the city to widen the road if necessary. Commissioner Brady asked if this would be done concurrently. Ms. Shaw said that she did not know. It has to go through the budget process. Commissioner Brady said he has a problem with that. Mr. Mclntosh stated that the subdivider is building the outside two lanes on the west side of Gosford Road, The number one lane was constructed several years ago under standards that were much less than they are today. The City is going to reconstruct the number one lane as part of the improvements on Gosford Road so he is going to have to get together with the city and coordinate the complete construction and reconstruction of the number one lane. At the time they do that, they will have to coordinate the restriping and connections. Commissioner Brady asked if this would occur simultaneously with the construction of the roadway on Gosford Road adjacent to this project? Ms. Shaw said she is not aware of the schedule but what happens quite often is when a developer is doing extensive _ Minutes, PC,*Thursday, May 20, t999 Page 7 work on a road that is on the TDF list that qualifies for additional work, the city enters into an agreement with the developer to do the work covered by the TDF funds. That might occur in this case and in which case it would be done concurrently. Commissioner Brady stated that he would like to go on the record as stating he has a problem with this. He doesn't want to have an interruption with the piece of property south of the railroad tracks and north of Pacheco. He believes that it would create a hazard for motorists and the driving public and unless we have some assurance that its going to be full width and have a smooth transition, he doesn't think he can support the project. Commissioner Dhanens pointed out that in Exhibit 1(conditions of approval), Public Works condition item 3.1.1, that the first phrase of that condition reads "construct Gosford Road from its full width southerly terminus." The way this phrase is written it could take Care of Commissioner Brady's concern. According to this Gosford Road will be constructed to it - wherever the terminus is. Ms. Shaw stated that that is correct. Commissioner Dhanens asked about conditiOn 3.1.3 regarding the permanent drainage retention basins. Does Public Works have any problem with substituting the language "approved by the City Engineer" in place of "shown on the tentative map?" Ms. Shaw said that she had discussed the changes with Mr. Mclntosh and Public Works has no problem with either one of them. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he would support the project. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Mclntosh if the street has been built to full width and if not why not just amend the condition to state that they will build it to full width if it hasn't been done. Commissioner Brady stated that if Public Works condition 3.1.1 is interpreted to mean that the applicant must construct Gosford Road from its full width from whatever point it stops being fullwidth now, satisfies him. Commissioner Boyle made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, approve the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10465 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the following modifications: that Public Works condition number 3.1.3 will delete the words "shown on the tentative map" and replace them with "approved by the city engineer," that a new Public Works condition 3.3.4 will be added that the subdivider may enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City of Bakersfield for the reimbursement of the costs of the improvements for the north one-half of Pacheco Road should the adjacent property develop, and also add in the revised conditions changed in the memorandum from Public Works misdated March 1, 1999, (should be May 18, 1999) and also delete Planning Commission number 13. Motion carried. MinUtes, PC, Thursday, May 20, 1999 Page 8 PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 7.1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5939 (Martin-Mclntosh) [Ward 4] Staff report was given recommending approval with conditions in Exhibit "A". Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Mr. Mcl'ntosh stated that he had read the staff report and conditions of approval and has no problem with them. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Shapazian, Fire Marshal, if he has reviewed this as far as the fire hydrant count? Mr. Shapazian said he had read the report. and that they could address their concerns about the project when it goes through site plan review. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if this project would be subject to the new ordinance amendments regarding rules and regulations for four-plex units that would vary their appearance that were drawn up based on committee meetings that he had attended. Mr. Grady answered in the affirmative. Commissioner Kemper made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, and to approve the Vesting Tentative Map 5939 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit"A". Motion carried. 7.2) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5944 (Hershel Moore) [Ward 6] Public hearing on this item was heard before Agenda Item No. 6. 7.3) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5936 (Martin-Mclntosh) [Ward 4] Staff report was given recommending approval with conditions in attached Planning Commission resolution and Public Works memo dated May 18, 1999. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Mr. Mclntosh, representing the applicant, stated that he had reviewed the staff report and concur with the conditions of approval and the memo dated May 18, 1999, from the Public Works Department which addresses condition No. 6 and condition No. 16.1. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5936 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A" and incorporate the memorandum from Public Works dated May 18, '1999. Minutes, PC, Thursday, May 20,' 1999 Page 9 10. 11. 12. June 1,1999 PUBLIC HEARING - Comprehensive Sion Plan No. P99-0296 (Castle & Cooke, CA) [Ward 4] See Consent Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS. Mr. Grady explained the memorandum he handed out to the Commissioners before the' meeting. It contains the contact people and phone numbers for the various departments. If'the Commissioners have a question or a problem that they need an answer to they may call the various departments and make an appointment to see someone or just call and ask the question. COMMISSION COMMENTS. Commissioner Dhanens requested that full size maps be available to the Commissioners during the meetings. Mr. Gi'ady responded by saying they are always in the case file. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to cancel the next pre-meeting. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjoUrned at 7:03 P.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary