Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/01/99 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, July 1, 1999 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN B 0 YL E MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE NOTE: Agendas may be amended up to 72 hours prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. 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 of hearing, addressed to the City Council, cio 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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 - July 1, 1999 Page 2 (Ward 4)5. (Ward 4) (Ward 4) 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 con~ent 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) 3.3) 3.4) 3.5) Aqenda Item 5 -Tentative Parcel Map 10611 Aqenda Item 6.1 - Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 5943 Aqenda Item 6.3 - Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 5947 Aqenda Item 6.4 - Vestinq Tentative Tract 5950 A.qenda Item 8.1- General Plan Consistency Findinq - Acquisition of property APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held June 3, 1999. PUBLIC HEARING -TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10611 - (Simpson, Lusich & VanCuren, Inc.) consisting of 3 lots on 1.02 acres on property zoned E-10 (Estate- 10,000 square feet minimum) and a modification to allow a reduction of the rezoned lot depth (16.28.170.C.1) and width'(16.28.170.D.1) for lots adjacent to "A" zoned property located on the west side of Rich Springs Court, north of Branch Creek Street. (Ca!egorically exempt) Recommendation: Approve Group vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Vestin.q Tentative Tract Map 5943 (Optional Design) (DeWalt Corporation) consisting of 40 single family lots on 19.53 acres on property zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) located at the southwest corner of Links Drive and RiverLakes Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote. 6.2) Vestin~l Tentative Tract Map 5946 (Martin-Mclntosh) containing 63 lots of 34.5 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and'R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling), including a request for private gated streets and deviation from the street standard; for block lengths to exceed 1,000 feet; reverse corner lots; and double frontage lots on a local street; and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1. located west of Buena Vista Road and approximately % mile south of Ming Avenue (extended). (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday - July 1, 1999 Page 3 6) 6.3) (Ward 6) (Ward 3)7. (Ward 2) (Ward 4) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5947 (Porter-Robertson) consisting of 59 residential lots on 12.2~acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), and a waiver of mineral rights owners' signature pursuant to BMC Section 16.20.060 B. 1 located on the west side of Wible Road, south of McKee Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote. 6.4) Vesting Tentative Tract 5950 (Delmarter and Deifel) containing 48 lots on 19.5 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 - 10,000 (One Family Dwelling-minimum 10,000 square feet lot size), and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1 located on the southeast corner of Hosking Road and Akers Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GPA/ZC P98-0991) (Church of Christ of East Bakersfield) for review of the final development plan of a PUD (Planned Unit Development) zone for the 5.02 acre senior citizen housing project located generally along the north side of Bernard Street, approximately 1,000 feet west of Oswell Street. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 8.1) General Plan Consistency Findin~ pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for acquisition by the Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office of 10.1 acres located along the north side of Truxtun Avenue between Sonora Street and Tulare Street for use as a community school and for remodeling of existing commercial building as a charter school. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Adopt Resolution Group vote. 8.2) General Plan Consistency Findin.q pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for acquisition by the Norris School District of an 8.52 acre parcel (Lot 3, Tract Map 5363) located on the east side of RiverLakes Drive, north of Northshore Drive, for an elementary school site. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Adopt Resolution Group vote. Agenda, PC, Thursday - July 1, 1999 Page 4 9. PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Amendment P99-0087 - Porter Robertson 10. 11. 12. Engineering requesting to delete Condition of Approval No. 7 of General Plan Amendment 4-90, Segment IV regarding minimum residential lot sizes on 51.32 acres located on the west side of Renfro Road, south of Johnson Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from June 17, 1999) Recommendation: Deny Roll call vote. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE 13. June 28,1999 NEXTPRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT Held Thursday July 1, 1999 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. = ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Presen¢ JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE ADVISORY MEMBERS: Presenh CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STEVE WALKER, Traffic Engineer Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director MARTIN ORTIZ, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) 3.2) 3.3) 3.4) 3.5) Agenda Item 5 -Tentative Parcel Map 10611 Agenda Item 6.1 - Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5943 Agenda Item 6.3 - Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5947 Agenda Item 6.4 - Vesting Tentative Tract 5950 Agenda Item 8.1- General Plan Consistency Finding - Acquisition of oror)erty Minutes, PC, Thursday, July 1, 1999 Parle 2 Commissioner Sprague requested that Agenda Items 3.3 and 3.4 be removed from the Consent Agenda so that discussion of the South Beltway alignment could be had before the items were reviewed. Commissioner Boyle declared a conflict of interest on Item 3.5 of the Consent Agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve Consent Agenda items 3.1, 3.2 and 3.5. Agenda items 3.3 and 3.4 were removed from the Consent Agenda. Motion carried. Commissioner Dhanens declared a conflict of interest on Item 3.2 and abstained from the vote. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve the minutes of the regular Planning Commission meeting held June 3, 1999. PUBLIC HEARING -TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10611 - (Simpson, Lusich & VanCuren, Inc.) (Ward 4) See Consent agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5943 (Optional Design) (DeWalt Corporation) (Ward 4) Commissioner Dhanens declared a conflict of interest on this project. 6.2) See consent agenda. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5946 (Martin-Mclntosh) (Ward 4) Mr. Grady mentioned that this item was removed from the Consent Agenda so that staff could answer a question about the golf cart path. There will be an underground passage so there will not be a conflict with traffic. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh said that questions had been raised by the block length. Also, a CUP has been approved by the Board of Zoning Adjustment for the golf course construction. The CUP outlined the various golf holes along with lake facilities. All of the area north of Chamber Boulevard is gated which sets up the sub areas for subdivision purposes. Mr. Mclntosh stated that when the alignment of Chamber Boulevard and the golf course was established, there was only so much room between the two and the only way to plot this out was to have a long block length. Mr. Mclntoshfeels that the majority of traffic on Chamber will only be residents. Minutes, PC, Thursday, July 1, 1999 Page 3 6.3) Mr. Mclntosh stated that they agreed with all conditions in the staff report and added that the streets being narrow and curved will tend to make traffic go slower. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Mclntosh about the purpose of four blocks of property that he pointed out on the map. Mr. Mclntosh stated they would be greenbelts to provide for a view into the golf course area. The golf course would maintain the greenbelts. There will be no request for park fees. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Mclntosh where the underground tunnel for the golf carts would be? Mr. Mclntosh said that it comes from hole number 15 on the east side and under Buena Vista Road. Commissioner McGinnis asked if this nine holes would be integrated into the present golf course and if the golf carts would be mixed with traffic on the private streets? Mr. Mclntosh stated that there is no law against golf carts being on public or private streets and pointed out the golf cart crossings on the private streets. Mr. Mclntosh also stated that the first seven holes of the original golf course would be renumbered so that access to the club house will be through the golf course. Commissioner Brady stated that he requested this item be taken off of consent because of his concern for the length of the street. Commissioner Brady stated that he talked with Mr. Mclntosh during the week concerning this and he now supports staffs recommendation that there be an exception for the length of Chamber Boulevard. Commissioner Dhanens thanked Mr. Walker for the information he provided the Commission on traffic and how narrower roads support the notion that traffic flows slower. Motion by made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5946 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A". Motion carried. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5947 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 6) Mr. Grady stated that this Tract Map along with 5950 were pulled off of the Consent Agenda because there was a request for additional information regarding their proximity to the proposed South Beltway. There was also a question raised about whether the Commission could place a notice type condition on the subdivisions giving a potential buyer notice that they would be within a certain distance of a proposed freeway. Mr. Grady said the City Attorney stated that the Commission was allowed to do that. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Minutes, PC, Thursday, July 1, 1999 Page 4 Jim Murphy, owner of the subject property, stated they were in agreement with all the conditions. But, he also had a question for the Commissioners as to what exactly they wanted the homeowners to be told? Where its going to be? How far? It is his understanding that it has not officially been adopted yet. Commissioner Tkac stated that the Commission has concerns that people from out of town and not aware of the proposed alignment should be informed. Mr. Murphy stated that if he is going to make mention of any item or issue like a proposed freeway, he would like to include a statement that there has been no adopted route as yet and any proposed route will be subject to noticed public hearings. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Boyle stated that his concern is with Tract 5950 which is somewhat adjacent to the proposed freeway alignment. Tract 5947 is over one- half mile away. Commissioner Boyle stated that he would not support a condition whereby homes over % mile away have to be notified. Commissioner Kemper said that she thought some kind of wording should be put in because it is possible the tracts will fall either south or north of that corridor. Commissioner Kemper feels the Commission ought to keep in mind that the proposed alignment may not be the one adopted. Commissioner Sprague read a memo from the attorney's office stating how the condition at issue should read: "The developer shall show the proposed south beltway freeway alignment on the approved tentative map and disclose to buyers of property within 300 feet of said alignment the possibility of its adoption." 'Commissioner Sprague said that he would change the wording to read "or adjacent within one-half mile of a proposed route." Commissioner Sprague stated that he feels that any subdivision within one-half mile of a proposed beltway should have something on the tentative map that indicates there could be a beltway there in the event that someone is interested in the tract. Commissioner Brady stated that when the South Beltway came before them there was a preferred route but there were also various routes and potentially if you are talking about one-half mile around each proposed route that could be a. lot of property and may create more confusion that it enlightens. Commissioner Brady said that at this time he sees no need to put that type of condition on this tract as it is far enough away from any of the proposed freeway alignments. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he feels that it would be a difficult imposition on the developer to have to show an alignment of a proposed freeway before it has been adopted on an approved tentative map and disclose that to buyers. Commissioner Dhanens feels that until there is a final alignment the discussion to him is pointless just because the City can put a condition on the map like this, he doesn't think the Commission should do it at this time. Minutes, PC, Thursday, July 1, 1999 Page 5 6.4) Commissioner Boyle said he was also concerned about making people show alignments on maps that have not been subject to any kind of public adoption process. Commissioner Boyle thinks, however, that it is appropriate to inform people that under the 2010 General Plan that this is the proposed alignment and there is a possibility that it may someday be approved. For that reason he is not in favor a making it a condition of this map. Commissioner Sprague stated that he is not asking for it to become a condition but a statement of information only for the general public. Commissioner Brady asked staff if the 2010 General Plan had the route for the South Beltway near Hosking or Panama? Mr. Grady referred the question to Mr. Walker who stated that the broadstroke line that represents a South Beltway corridor on the 2010 General Plan is anything south of White Lane would be considered a corridor area and that as the process proceeds there are alternates and the one along Hosking is the preferred staff alternate for the actual alignment. Commissioner Brady stated that if we had an exact alignment, he would be in support of puffing notices on maps. Jim Murphy said that he had no objection to telling future buyers that there is an adopted alignment for a beltway but feels that he doesn't see how the Commission can tell him to tell people of all the various proposed alignments and asked if the Commission had anything he could show people that could be a legitimate proposed or adopted site. Mr. Grady said "no" there is nothing. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if there was a proposed date that the South Beltway would come back before the Planning Commission? Mr. Grady said they hoped to have it back for the December general plan cycle. The city has hired an environmental consultant to do the updated field survey work for the alignment options that were presented to the Planning Commission that the Commission asked staff to consider. Commissioner Sprague feels that Tract 5950 being near the preferred route should have an additional statement stating that it is the City's preferred route. Motion by made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner McGimnis, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5947 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A". Motion carried. Vesting Tentative Tract 5950 (Delmarter and Deifel) (Ward 6) Stanley Grady stated that this map was pulled off the Consent Agenda also because of the same concerns expressed on the previous map regarding the location of the proposed beltway in relationship to this subdivision. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Jim Delmarter, representing the applicant, spoke in favor. He expressed the same concerns as Mr. Murphy expressed about his tract. Since there is no Minutes, PC, Thursday, July 1, 1999 Page 6 adopted alignment and one of the proposed alignments being considered is south of Taft Highway, it would be more than a mile from this tract if it were adopted. Mr. Delmarter requested the Commission approve this tract without adding any statements or conditions requiring notification to potential buyers. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady told Mr. Delmarter that most of the Commissioners have faced'people at the podium complaining that they were not notified of certain changes or proposed freeways, therefore, the concern is that the Commission hears that from the audience so often that they want to make sure the future potential buyers know what's going in near them when they purchase their home. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Grady if there was a preferred route for the South Beltway at this time? Mr. Grady said that the Hosking alignment has always been the preferred alignment. At the Commission's direction and working with the County, they are looking at an alternative alignment. Mr. Grady said that the city's preferred alignment will not necessarily be adopted. Commissioner Brady said that he would not support any notice of pending freeway alignments put on this tract. Commissioner Boyle stated that since the City does not have a preferred alignment he would not support having to notify everyone on this map but would like to suggest a committee be formed to look into coming up with some kind of policy for notification of the proposed property owners regarding things of interest to them and their surroundings. Motion by made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 595 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit "A" and in addition to the memorandum dated June 27, 11999. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (GPA/ZC P98-0991) (Church of Christ of East Bakersfield) (Ward 3) Staff report was given recommending approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Patricia Harbeson with SmithTech/USA representing Church of Christ of East Bakersfield stated that they have addressed all of the concerns the Planning Commission had at the last meeting but that she is available if the Commission had any further questions. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Harbeson what the difference in elevation is. Ms. Harbeson stated that she thought it was about four feet. Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Harbeson if the drawing SmithTech provided shows the actual amount of steps depicted in it. Ms. Harbeson said "no" that is just a schematic drawing basically showing Minutes, PC, Thursday, July 1, 1999 Parle 7 that the existing wall is one foot into the adjacent property. The drawing basically is to show how the wall will be built within the property that SmithTech is working on. She did not know at this time how many steps will be 'needed to get from the senior development up to the promenade. Commissioner Brady asked if SmithTech has worked out access with the adjacbnt property owner? Ms. Harbeson said that to her knowledge the developer of the senior residential has not spoke with the owner. 'Commissioner Brady asked staff if an access agreement were necessary with the adjacent property owner? Mr. Grady stated that he believes that this is a condition that the Commission asked to be placed on the P.U.D. Commissioner Brady asked staff that if the Commission puts this as a condition and the applicant can't work it out with the adjacent property owner, is the city looking at a condemnation proceeding that the city will have to become involved in? Mr. Hernandez responded by saying that that is correct. Commissioner Kemper made a recommi~ndation to include a wheelchair access ramp. Commissioner Dhanens stated that on the original submittal there were 124 parking spaces and the revised submittal has 112 parking spaces and there have been three trees added to the interior parking lot. Commissioner Dhanens questioned where the parking spaces went as the addition of three trees do not account for that much of a reduction in parking. Ms. Harbeson responded by saying the architect added some landscaping but she is not sure where or where else the parking went. Commissioner Dhanens asked if a landscape plan had been submitted. Ms. Harbeson said that the final landscape plan and grading plan is in the works at this moment. Commissioner Dhanens said that he would not be able to support the project as presented tonight without a final landscape plan so that he may see where the changes in parking and landscape are. Commissioner Boyle asked staff that if the Commission put a condition on the project that the applicant construct a block wall on the north side of the project which may include a gate provided that: 1) the applicant obtains consent of the adjoining land owner for access, 2) approval of the Public Works Department on the design of the ramp per ADA requirements and 3) approval of the Police Department for the design of the ramp for safety purposes, if this would be sufficient so that if they couldn't meet these conditions that they could still build the project with a solid block wall and delete the gate? Mr. Grady stated that with a condition worded like this, they could build the wall without the gate. Commissioner Brady asked staff if what has been presented as a concept landscaping plan meets the requirements of the ordinance. Mr. Grady said "yes" it meets the intent of the ordinance but may not meet the concerns the Planning Commission has over the design. Commissioner Brady stated that the even though the applicant did not meet what the Commission requested he would support Mr. Boyle's position on how to deal with the block wall. Commissioner Brady asked staff if there was a requirement for actual tree size. Mr. Grady said that he did not recall one. Commissioner Brady asked if it was too late to place a requirement on tree size now. Mr. Hernandez said this has already Minutes, PC, Thursday, July 1, 1999 Page 8 received a zone change and there was a preliminary development plan in which there was an opportunity to state on the record and before the applicant what the Commission wanted to see in the final development plan. The issue then becomes whether the final development plan is in substantial compliance with the preliminary development plan. If it is, it needs to be approved, if it is not, there is an opportunity the Commission could make a request that their previous concerns be addressed. If that requires a continuance, then that could be granted. Mr. Hernandez stated that he believes Mr. Boyle's condition would be in substantial compliance with the preliminary development plan requirement. Ms. Harbeson said that based upon all the concerns that have been expressed, that they would agree to a continuance so that they and the architect can get together and get some more detailed information for the Commission to be able to say "yes, they have addressed our concerns, and in what way?" Commissioner Boyle asked staff if this was approved if the Commission can then require the applicant to bring back the landscape plan? Or, once this is approved, the Commission loses jurisdiction over it. Mr. Grady said once it is approved, it goes back to staff. Other than a continuance, the Commission would not be hearing this project again. Commissioner Boyle said that he would support a continuance. Commissioner Kemper stated that she was in favor of a continuance also. Motion by made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to continue this item until the next Planning Commission meeting of July 12, 1999. Motion carried. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 8.1) General Plan Consistency Finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for acquisition by the Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office of 10.1 acres located along the north side of Truxtun Avenue between.Sonora Street and Tulare Street for use as a community school and for remodeling of existing commercial building as a charter school. (Categorically exempt) (Ward 2) See consent agenda. 8.2) General Plan Consistency Finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for acquisition by the Norris School District of an 8.52 acre parcel (Lot 3, Tract Map 5363) located on the east side of RiverLakes Drive, north of Northshore Drive, for an elementary school site. (Categorically exempt) (Ward 4) Commissioner Dhanens declared a cOnflict of interest. Staff report was given recommending ,approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague stated that he had read the Norris School District Minutes, PC, Thursday, July 1, 1999 Page 9 memorandum that was given to the Commission regarding Mello Rous increases and is satisfied with the explanation from Mr. Sandrini and now supports the project. Motion by made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to adopt a resolution making findings pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 that the proposed acquisition of the site is consistent with the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - General Plan Amendment P99-0087 - Porter Robertson Engineerin._q (Ward 4) (Continued from June 17, 1999) Staff report recommending denial was given. There was no additional information from staff regarding this project. The applicant was present to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. William Bailey spoke in opposition. He said that he had expected a call from Mr. Robertson explaining the project during the last two weeks but had not heard from him. Harold Robertson, spoke in favor of staff's recommendation. Mr. Robertson said that he did fail to contact Mr. Bailey as Mr. Robertson was notified of a meeting with the neighbors very late and didn't have an opportunity to contact Mr. Bailey. One of the neighborhood concerns is the traffic along Johnson and Sunnybank Roads. Mr. Robertson said that instead of deleting Condition No. 7, they would like to amend it with the recommendation that they construct a block wall and landscape around the perimeter and that they limit density within this piece of property to 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Public portion of the hearing was closed.' Commissioner Boyle asked staff if the Commission approved what the applicant is requesting, does that guarantee that there will be houses facing or accessing onto to Johnson Road? Mr. Grady said if that condition was placed on the project, it would guarantee it. Mr. Bailey, a resident in the area, said there is no such thing as Johnson Road. It is just a farm road that people use all the time and raise dirt on his property. Mr. Robertson said that when a development comes in to the area the south half of Johnson Road will be dedicated to the city and be approved to city subdivision standards. The standards are that Johnson Road is a collector and there will be 34 feet of paving with curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Commissioner Kemper asked about the north side of the road. Mr. Grady said that the applicant will only be required to put in half street width. Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, said that the north half of the road is in the county and that subdivision was allowed to be developed without any improvements on Johnson Road. The applicant is only responsible for the south half but there would be connections to the existing streets. It would remain as a 34 foot wide street until such time as the county or the residents who live on the north side decide to put in a road. Minutes, PC, Thursday, July 1, 1999 Page 10 Mr. Robertson said that there is enough room for two lanes of traffic on a 34 foot wide street. There won't be any driveways or anything along Johnson Road that would conflict with that traffic. Commissioner Dhanens stated that he feels from a planning standpoint that it is not a good idea in an area that has some existing development to start changing it and switching it around and a portion of it going to a brick wall with houses backing onto Johnson Road. He feels that this is a rural area with large lots and a brick wall would be out of place. Commissioner Dhanens feels that changing the lot size, reducing it, turning inward to the street, being inconsistent with what is to the west on Heath Road is not in the best interest to the neighborhood. He supports staff's recommendation to deny the project. Commissioner Brady agrees with Commissioner Dhanens in theory but feels that there should be some better separation between the residents living there and to the north and the only thing he knows about is the block wall. Mr. Robertson responded by saying that he agrees with Commissioner Dhanens comments about the characteristics of this area. But to the east there are residential subdivisions that are being constructed. Commissioner Boyle stated that he would not support the project primarily because there has been a political compromise worked out previously. Commissioner Boyle feels that when there has been a political compromise made that has been negotiated by the City Council and the then owners of the property, he is reluctant to change it without the City Council giving its'. blessing. Commissioner Boyle feels that the City Council should decide what the political compromise should be. Commissioner Sprague said that he supported staffs recommendation but that this project is a prime example why joint workshops between the city and county could be useful. Motion by made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens, to adopt the resolution approving and adopting a mitigated Negative Declaration and denying the requested General Plan Amendment based upon findings Present in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "E-I") and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Brady. ABSENT: None Motion by made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens, to adopt the resolution approving and adopting a mitigated Negative Declaration and denying the requested Zone Change as requested based upon findings present in said resolution (see attached Exhibit "E-I") and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Minutes, pC, Thursday, July 1,1999 Page 11 10. 11. 12. AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Dhanens, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac NOES! Commissioner Brady ABSENT: None COMMUNICATIONS Stanley Grady mentioned that there was a City Council agenda item regarding Planning Commission appointments and that the item was referred to the Urban Development Committee. It would be a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and Urban Development Committee and, therefore, tonight the Commission needs to appoint three members as a committee to meet with the City Council: The meeting is scheduled for July 12 at 1:15 p.m. There is also a pre:meeting that day. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to not have a pre-meeting on that day in light of the importance of the Urban Development Committee meeting. Motion carried. '- Commissioner Tkac appointed Commissioner Kemper, Boyle and himself to attend the Urban Development Committee meeting on July 12 with Commissioner Boyle being the Chairman. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Brady stated that since there will be no pre-meeting on July 12 and since it was a fairly large agenda, he requested that if any additional communications were received prior to the July 15 Planning Commission meeting, if those items could be hand delivered to the Commission prior to the meeting? Mr. Grady said that could be arranged. Commissioner Sprague asked if the City and County Planning Directors could communicate regarding furthering the possibility of a joint City/County Planning Commission workshop so that some of the City/County issues could be resolved.? Mr. Grady said he would call Ted James to set something up. Commissioner Tkac, at the request of Commissioner Boyle, set up a committee regarding the South Beltway Freeway and verbiage notifying possible residents of its possible placement. Commissioner Tkac appointed Commissioners Sprague, Brady and McGinnis as members with Commissioner Brady the chairman. Mr. Grady said the secretary would call the members of the committee to set up the first meeting and then after that regular meetings can be set up. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. It was decided earlier under Item 10 there would be no pre-meeting. Minutes, PC, Thursday, July 1, 1999 Page 12 13. August 9, 1999 ADJOURNMENT. 'There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. ~'STAN/~Y GRADY, Secretary P~ing Director