Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08/05/99 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE .~_ PLANNINGCOMMISSION ~. OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Thursday, August 5, 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 prior to the Planning Commission meeting. A final agenda may be obtained from the Planning Department 72 hours prior to the meeting. 2. 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, 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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 - August 5, 1999 Page 2 (Ward 4) (Ward (Wa~ CONSENT.AGENDA ITEMS -.(marked by astedsk (*) 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 3.3 3.4 3.5 A§enda Item 4 - Master Wall & Landscape Concept Plan P99-400 (Martin-Mclntosh) Agenda Item 5 - Extension of Time for TT 5657 (Porter Robertson) Agenda Item 7.1 - General Plan Consistency Finding (Centennial Center) Agenda Item 7.2 - General Plan Consistency Finding (Edwin W. Wilson) Agenda Item 7.3 - General Plan Consistency Finding (Martin-Mclntosh) MASTER WALL AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN P99-0400 (Martin- Mclntosh) for the "Seven Oaks West" development, including design of streetscape landscaping, median islands, subdivision walls, view fences and neighborhood identification monumentation generally located between Ming Avenue (extended), White Lane (ext. ended), Buena Vista Road and South Allen Road. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Approve Group vote 5. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF TIME for Tentative Tract 5657 (Porter-Robertson) consisting of 70 lots on 31.3 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) located at the northeast corner of Kern Canyon Road and Paladino Drive. (Negative Declaration on. file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote 6. PUBLIC HEARING -VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10631 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) consisting of one parcel on 4.68 acres for purposes of developing a seniors housing project, zoned PUD (Planned Unit Development) generally located on the north side of Bernard Street, approximately 1,000 feet west of Oswell Street. (Negative Declaration on file) Agenda, PC, Thursday - August 5, 1999 Page 3 (Ward (Ward ,3) (Ward 4) = (Ward 5) 8. __.Recommendation:.. Approve Group vote GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 7.1) Applicant: Centennial Center, LLC cio Carosella Properties, Limited - General Plan Consistency finding pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code for the vacation of "P" Street between Truxtun Avenue and 17th Street and the easterly portion of the alley in BIc~ck 291. (Exempt from CEOA) Recommendation: Make Finding Group vote 7.2) Applicant: Edwin W. Wilson - General Plan Consistency finding pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code for the vacation of surplus road right-of-way on Morning Drive northerly of the intersection with Panorama Drive. (Exempt from CEQA) Recommendation: Make Finding Group vo~ 7.3) Applicant: Martin-Mclntosh Engineerin~j on behalf of lot owners in Tract No. 5428 - General Plan Consistency finding pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code for the vacation of public street right-of-way within Cormier Drive, Redbridge Way, Southport Glen and Claridge Court in Tract No. 5428 in the Seven Oaks community. (Exempt from CEQA) Recommendation: Make Finding Group vote PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. P99-0382 - Appeal by James Hughes of the Development Services Director's approval of a site plan review for the construction of a 9-unit apartment complex on a 0.5 acre site in an R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) zone district. The appeal is limited to the issues identified which includes aesthetics, density, parking and traffic. Recommendation: Approve appeal regarding unit density and Deny the appeal regarding traffic, parking and aesthetics. Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - August 5, 1999 Page 4 10. 11. 12. 13. July 26, 1999 DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING JOINT MEETINGS BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT $ " Planning Director Held Thursday, August 5, 1999 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, Chairperson MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE Absent: MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE 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 JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS Commissioner Boyle seated. Trish Harbison, SmithTech USA, representing the Church of Christ of East Bakersfield in their application for Parcel Map 10631 (Item #6) stated that they are in agreement with the memo from Public Works and the other conditions of approval and due to time restraints, she requested this item be put on the Consent Agenda, Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal Minutes, PC, August 5, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1 Acjenda 3.2 ARenda 3.3 Acjenda 3.4 Acjenda 3.5 ARenda Item 4 - Master Wall & Landscape Concept Plan P99-400 (Martin-Mclntosh) Item 5 - Extension of Time for TT 5657 (Porter Robertson) Item 7.1 - General Plan Consistency Findinq (Centennial Center) Item 7.2 - General Plan Consistency Findin§ (Edwin W. Wilson) Item 7.3 - General Plan Consistency Findin§ (Martin-Mclntosh) Commissioner Brady stated that he had some questions about Item 6 (Parcel Map 10631) and did not want it placed on the Consent Agenda. Stanley Grady, Planning Director, said that we did not receive written consent to place Consent Agenda Item 3.1 (Agenda Item 4 - Master Wall & Landscape Concept Plan P99-0400) on the Consent Agenda so it would have to be removed unless Mr. Mclntosh was here to agree to keep it on the Consent Agenda. A motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to approve the Consent Agenda items with the exception of Item 3.1. Motion carried. MASTER WALL AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT PLAN P99-0400 (Martin-Mclntosh) Staff report was given recommending approval with the conditions listed in staff report. Public portion of the hearing was open. NO one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh, Martin-Mclntosh Engineering, representing Castle & Cooke CA, stated that he had just received a memo giving them the option to either build a view fence or masonry wall along the golf course along Buena Vista Road. In addition, he said they neglected to include in their application the ability to provide lighting and up-lighting at the corner monuments. So they request that be included for approval this evening. In addition, Mr. Mclntosh stated that they have had some discussion with staff about the ability to change out the pilasters on the east side of Buena Vista Road. The original application included the ability to make the pilasters match the west side of Buena Vista Road. They feel it should not be necessary to pay an additional $800 for a new application to change out the pilasters on the east side of Buena Vista Road. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Grady if the Commission had approved a similar request by the applicant to substitute the view fence with a masonry wall for 400 feet on the east side of Buena Vista?. Mr. Grady said "yes." Commissioner Brady asked if the circumstances of this request are basically the same? Mr. Grady said that it is staffs position, the view fence really was an element of design for the applicant. Commissioner Brady asked if staff has a response to the up-lighting. Mr. Grady said they had discussed this with the Parks Department who is responsible for maintaining the wall and landscape plans and they are willing to accept a condition that lighting be granted for the subdivision I.D. signs subject to approval by Public Works and the Recreation and Parks Department prior to installation. Minutes, PC, August 5, 1999 Parle 3 Commissioner Brady also asked about the request by the applicant to extend the caps on the east side of the road. Mr. Mclntosh said that their application shows the existing wall has a brick cap and the pilasters have a soldier course. They would like to carry that all the way down the pilaster in the middle and on the top and reflect that on the east side. Mr. Grady said that these are two separate applications.. There would be no difference between this and having a shopping center on one side of the street having a comprehensive sign plan owned by the same person wanting to change the sign on the opposite side of the street. They are not the same projects. Their approvals were not the same. The way the Wall and Landscape Plan works is if you comply with the ordinance, you can submit your plans for your development project and it is approved without having to go to a hearing. If you want deviation, you are asking for particular deviation for a specified project and that project is given an evaluation and approval in the record for that evaluation and approval and action is part of a separate case. We do not co-mingle cases. Commissioner Brady asked if the fences were parallel from each other? Ms. Shaw said yes. Commissioner Brady said that he didn't see why, since it was on the same road, it couldn't be "thrown in there" but said maybe some of the other Commissioners had a different idea. He asked Mr. Mclntosh to prepare some wording for the motion. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady what it meant under "staff comments" when the staff report mentioned a deviation as stucco being a textured element on the wall? What is it a deviation from? Mr. Grady said that it was a deviation from a standard. Mr. Grady read from the staff report examples of walls not acceptable as being plain faced walls without visual relief or concrete or panel walls. Commissioner Boyle asked if this was going to be a stucco wall or is it stucco on top of a masonry wall? Mr. Grady said that it is stucco over masonry. Roger Mclntosh prepared the following wording for the motion: On Table 1 add the word east to location number 2, east and west side of Buena Vista Road and strike out under staff comments "A" the second paragraph.of the third bullet which reads "applicant intends to apply for revision to Seven Oaks Wall and Landscape Plan for the east side of Buena Vista to change the existing stucco pilasters." Mr. Mclntosh said that he has gone through the Wall and Landscape Median Island Landscape Concept Plan Information and Application and also Planning Commission Resolution 58-92 and found nothing which identifies what an application is or a project is that would tell him he had to come back with another application. If there is a code or ordinance on the books, he would be happy to comply with it. They are just trying to make the landscaping consistent. Commissioner Kemper asked for clarification on whether or not the Commission could change the verbiage so that the change could be made on the east side of Buena Vista? Carl Hernandez stated that he would have a concern if it was an advertised public hearing because the application would require notice to individuals and their due process rights would require that each of the properties be centrally noticed for public hearing. But since this is not a public hearing, it becomes a staff-control issue. It is a staff issue in the respect that it helps staff to track what's been approved by the Planning Commission. Mr. Hernandez said that he does not believe there is a legal issue Minutes, PC, August 5, 1999 Page 4 because there is no public noticing. Therefore, he feels, it is possible that the Commission could take a look at this issue and determine if they have sufficient information to make the decision that the applicant is requesting at this time. Mr. Hernandez went on to state that if there were two different property owners, it would be a .different thing and staff likes to have separate applications so that the projects can be tracked and analyzed as to what's being requested in the application. It would be up to the Commission's discretion as to what they choose to do. From staff's viewpoint, they do not see any potential legal problems in this case. Mr. Grady stated that if the Commission is not going to make them do a separate application, then Condition No. 7 should be deleted from Exhibit "1". Commissioner Boyle wanted to clarify his understanding of the issue. It is his understanding that there is an existing wall and landscape on one side of the road, they are going to build it on the other side of the read, they could build it to match the old one, but they'd rather modify the old one to look like the new one. If that is all the issue is, then it doesn't strike him as one where a new application is required. He would support the applicant on this issue. Commissioner Brady said he supports the issue also as it will be a mirror from one side of the road to the other by allowing the changes that have been requested. If it were a public hearing, he would not support it. Commissioner Brady made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve the Master Wall and Landscape Concept Plan for the Seven Oaks West Development including the request to have an option of either a view fence or masonry wall adjacent to the golf course on Buena Vista Road with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A". However, under the signage/lighting condition, a lighting plan for subdivision I.D. sign shall be approved by the Public Works Director and Recreation and Parks Department prior to installation and with the following changes on Table I, Wall and Landscape, No. 2 to add the words "east and" so the sentence will read "east and west side of Buena Vista Road". -Also, under staff comment to strike the sentence that says "applicant intends to apply for revision of Seven Oaks Wall and Landscape Plan for east side of Buena Vista to change existing stucco pilasters to brick to match west side" and striking paragraph seven on Exhibit "1". Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING EXTENSION OF TIME for Tentative Tract 5657 See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARING -VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10631 Staff report recommending approval, including a memo received from the Public Works Department, was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Trish Harbison, SmithTech USA, stated that as stated previously they agreed with the conditions and the memo from Public Works. Minutes, PC, August 5, 1999 Page 5 Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady asked Public Works about the sewer connection fees. He wanted to know why they are being waived. Marian Shaw said the fees were not being wavered. The condition, as written, would require them to pay connection fees whether they were connected or not. Currently, the parcel to the west of the P.U.D. (an existing church) has a septic system. The requirement would have been to provide sewer service to that parcel and would require them to pay the connection fees whether or not they connected. Public Works deleted that requirement. They would pay connection fees when they connect. But they don't have to pay them as a result of this map. Commissioner Brady asked which property had the septic tank? Ms. Shaw pointed out the property with the existing church, called "designated remainder" not in this parcel map. Commissioner Brady asked why we did not want to put them on the sewer system. Ms. Shaw said it was because they were already on a septic system. The city cannot compel them to go on a sewer system. Commissioner Brady stated that he feels that if you are in the city and going to start developing, then the properties should be on a sewer system. Dennis Fidler, Building Director, stated that the ordinance states that anything commercial within a 1,000 feet has to be connected. The City can require, them to be on sewer, therefore, he recommends that the recommendation be changed and have the Commission approve it. Commissioner Brady stated that he feels the septic system should be removed and it be put on sewer. Commissioner Boyle stated that he would like to hear from the applicant to hear if they are opposing being hooked up to sewer. Ms. Harbison stated that she didn't know if they were opposing it, she thinks they would like the choice whether to stay on the septic system or if they do choose to hook onto the sewer, they would pay the sewer connection fee. Commissioner Boyle asked if there was an estimate as to cost to bring the sewer up from the middle of the street? Ms. Harbison said "no" she did not have one. Commissioner Boyle asked staff if the item were changed to require them to hook up to the sewer, if they have to hook it up now when the map is approved, or when the P.U.D. is Clone? Mr. Fidler said that the condition had to be put in now to have this because this is part of two parcels. The payment of this is not paid until they obtain their permits. The payment that's going to be collected for this will be at the time they decide to go in and start obtaining construction permits for the apartments. The sewer lines may even be in prior to that. Minutes, PC, August 5, 1999 Page 6 m Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Fidler if when the permits are pulled for the P.U.D. is when the church would have to be hooked up to the sewer. Mr. Fidler said "yes." Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw what the sewer hook up fee is. Ms. Shaw stated the sewer hook up fee is about $1,800 for single family residence. A church has to be figured on fixture units and the cost is figured about $66 to $70 per fixture unit (number of sinks, toilets, etc.). Commissioner Boyle said that he feels it should be the property owner's decision to hook up to the sewer line. All of the property in the area has been developed and he doesn't have a problem with giving the applicant his choice. Ms. Harbison said that the applicant would rather have a choice as to whether or not to go on a sewer. Ms. Shaw stated that the way the condition currently reads is that they are to pay all sewer connection fees for the structures on the designated remainder. That read by itself, doesn't actually say they have to connect. It just says they have to pay the fees. The connection fees would be the minor part of the cost of the actual physical connection. The Commission could leave it as it is and consider it to be an option. Commissioner Boyle said that in his opinion, the Commission should either make them hook up and pay the fees, or not hook up and don't pay the fees until they are ready to hook up. It feels like it should be one way or the other. A motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the Vesting Tentative T. ract Parcel Map 19631 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" subject to the memorandum of August 4, 1999, which deletes Condition 4.1. Motion carried. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 7.1) Applicant: Centennial Center, LLC cio Carosella Properties, Limited - General Plan Consistency finding pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government~ Code for the vacation of "P" Street between Truxtun Avenue and 17th Street and the easterly portion of the alley in Block 291. (Exempt from CEQA) See Consent Agenda 7.2) Applicant: Edwin W. Wilson - General Plan Consistency finding pursuant to Section 65402 of the Government Code for the vacation of surplus road right-of- way on Morning Drive northerly of the intersection with Panorama Drive. (Exempt from CEQA) See Consent Agenda Minutes, PC, August 5, 1999 Page 7 = 7.3) Applicant: Martin-Mclntosh Engineerincj on behalf of lot owners in Tract No. 5428 - General Plan Consistency finding pursuant to Section 85402 of the Government Code for the vacation of public street right-of-way within Cormier Drive, Redbridge Way, Southport Glen and Claridge Court in Tract No. 5428 in the Seven Oaks community. (Exempt from CEQA) See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARING - SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. P99-0382 Staff report was given with staff recommending denial of the appeal concerning aesthetics, parking and traffic. However, staff recommends upholding the appeal regarding density. Wording has been provided in the resolution that the applicant would have to submit a revised site plan to the Development Services Director showing eight units rather than nine and one of the conditions would have to be amended regarding parking as to what the minimum requirement is for the applicant.. Commissioner Kemper had a question on the recommendation. The recommendation states that they adopt the attached resolution approving the appeal regarding unit density, denying the appeal regarding traffic, parking and aesthetics. If the Commission goes with that, can the applicant proceed with the project? Mr. Eggert said that the applicant could proceed after the 10 day appeal period. Public portion of the hearing was opened. James Hughes who lives directly opposite the proposed buildings spoke against the project. The parking along the streets are already filled up at night from the residents who already live in the area and he has concerns about adding nine more units with a potential of 18 more cars to the area. He has no problem with developing this property concerning the aesthetics. It will keep down the dust but he does protest a two story unit being built on the site. There are no other two story units in the area and he feels that property value will go down and would not look good in the neighborhood. Also, he objects to having a line of garage doors. Brian Smith, owner of the property at 201 Quailridge, spoke in sUpport of the site plan review committee's recommendation and the Development Services Director's previous approval of this project. Mr. Smith stated that he had worked closely with city staff over the past few months to ensure the project was within the city's requirements. Staff was cooperative and after a few minor revisions determined that this project does meet all the required codes, policies and standards for development in this area. They have not requested any variation from the existing zoning, CC&R's, or any other policies currently in place. Mr. Smith quoted Page 3 of the staff report under Environmental Discussion - Transportation - says "the proposed project will generate additional vehicle movement but would not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relati.on to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, and will not substantially affect existing transportation systems. The project will not significantly alter present patterns of Minutes, PC, August 5, 1999 Page 8 circulation or movement of people and/or goods. The City Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and determined that the traffic generated is less than significant to the existing transportation system." The next item is Parking - Staff reports "the proposal will increase the demand for parking, however, present city ordinances require that the project contains sufficient on-site parking based on the specific uses so as not to adversely effect existing parking facilities in the area. Therefore, this effect is not considered significant." The next item is Traffic Hazards - Staff reports "there will be no non-significant increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians from the proposed project." Land Use - Staff reports "the existing land use surrounding and adjacent to the property site are identified in Table "A". These uses are compatible with the proposed project. Approval of the proposal will not conflict with adopted environmental plans or goals of the community." The last item on Page 4 - General Plan and Zoning - says "the site is presently designated High Medium Density Residential and zoned R-2. The proposal will not result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of the area as no land use amendments or zoning changes are proposed with the project." Mr. Smith said this is a very attractive upscale project and believes that it will be an asset to the neighborhood. Mr. Smith said that he is not sure about the density. He was told he could build nine units on the site and is now told only eight so he is not sure where to go from here. He doesn't have the information that tells him he can only have eight. Mr. Grady told the Commission that they only have authority to approve eight units. That is all that is allowed for density on the site. Once the square footage of the site was checked after the applicant's appeal, itwas determined that the original application was incorrect and that only eight units are allowed on the site. Mr. Smith said that he had not reviewed any figures and would like to make an appointment with the city after the meeting to see how the eight units were determined. Mr. Eggert said that perhaps he could answer the question now in that the original application included half the alley width which is a public street or public right-of-way. In the City's code, density is calculated on lot area which is defined as the boundaries of the lot lines. This is the most recent information we had on the project which is a lot line adjustment recorded in 1992 which gives the city the actual square footage of the lot in the lot lines, excluding any public road right-of-ways. That number is less than the original number the applicant provided and we needed to go with this number to calculate the density. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kemper said that she is in support of the City's recommendation approving the appeal which includes the density change from nine to eight because of the issue with the lot area initially including alley right-of-way and denying the appeal regarding traffic, parking and aesthetics. She said that this improvement is within the zoning and is not overlooking Mr. Hughes property in any way. Commissioner Brady asked if the City's four-plex ordinance applies to this application? · Mr. Eggert said no it does not. It only applies to triplexes, duplexes and it does not apply to anything over five or more units. Minutes, PC, August 5, 1999 Page 9 Commissioner Brady said that he would support staffs recommendation in-regard to the denial of the appeal on those first three issues and to grant the appeal on the additional ninth unit. The CC&R's are not enforced by the city. The property owners are the only ones who are bound by them and the only ones who can enforce them. Commissioner Sprague asked the developer if he had contacted the architectural committee regarding the CC&R's. He said "no" that he did not. Commissioner SpragUe asked staff how many units are allowed in an R-2 zone. Mr. Grady responded by saying 2,500 square feet per unit so it depends on how large the parcel is. Commissioner Sprague said that at 8.6, the property was very close to being allowed nine units and if there was anyway to gain the ninth unit on the Property? Mr. Grady said not without adding more land. Commissioner Boyle said that he noticed in the CC&R's there is a distinction in the types of buildings based upon the lot numbers but this parcel has been subject to a lot split so, therefore, there is no lot number given but instead it is Parcel A of the lot split. Do we know which lot this used to be? Mr. Eggert said that this was Lot 14 and that Lot 13 would go around the corner to the east. Commissioner Boyle said the reason he asked this question is because the city does not have the ability to enforce the CC&R's, but he would advise the appellant that in paragraph A.3. on density it says Lots 1 - 14 are entitled to one unit for every 2,500 square feet. That's the same density as the city standard. Also, the CC&R's allow two story on Lots 15 - 23 but doesn't say anything about Lots 1 -14. Commissioner Boyle said that he would support staff that would deny the appeal with the exception of the density and approve the appeal as to eight units instead of nine. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to adopt the attached resolution approving the appeal regarding unit density and denying the appeal regarding traffic, parking and aesthetics. Motion carried. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING JOINT MEETINGS BETWEEN THE CITY AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS. Mr. Grady told the Commission that he had provided them with a memo covering the conversation that he had with Mr. James, Director of Kern County Planning Department, concerning a joint meeting. Mr. James did not have any great concerns over it but had some logistical questions. Mr. Grady brought to Mr. James' attention as he had to the Commission that the City Council is planning a joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors and Mr. James had conveyed to Mr. Grady that the way they do things at the County is the Planning Commission would request that the Board direct them to meet with our department. Mr. James also suggested that we might want to check to see if this would cause any conflict with the planned meeting that the Board of Supervisors and City Council is going to have. Mr. James also asked Mr. Grady what was the Commission wanting to meet about? Was there some specific items they wished to discuss? Mr. Grady said that he told Mr. James he would ask the Commission . and then get back to Mr. James and let him know what the Commission decided to do. Minutes, PC, August 5, 1999 Page 10 10. Commissioner Sprague said that one item he wanted to discuss in a joint meeting with the County Planning Commission was some unity within the County and City. Many times you have County on one side and City on the other and they each have their own requirements to enforce. He said that it seemed like if once or twice a year a session could be arranged with joint Planning Commissions that some of those issues could be resolved that faced both Commissions. By getting some of the same language together, the same codes together, and the same zoning together or even policy matters and work in unison with each other for the betterment of Bakersfield. Mr. Sprague said that communication is a way to make Bakersfield better and it was his way to try to get to that point. Commissioner Kemper said that in theory it is a good idea but they shouldn't waste anyone's time - theirs or ours - and it would only be a good idea to get together when it was really needed. Ms. Kemper said that she would rather wait until after the joint meeting between the Board of Supervisors and City Council and maybe put it on the agenda as something they could discuss. How they would like to approach it? What they would like to have discussed? Maybe a small committee would be appropriate. Ms. Kemper said she thinks they need a specific direction from the City Council and Board of Supervisors with a specific agenda. Commissioner Brady said the city and county have been chided in the press about cooperation and there is a certain feeling on his part and other people's part that maybe they should meet and shake hands to appease the media and criticism. He doesn't feel there is a specific need to meet for that reason but if a meeting is going to happen, his recommendation would be that there be a joint staff presentation on the general plan amendment, how it effects us and how it effects what they do. Mr. Brady said that perhaps a workshop on the 2010 plan would be helpful because it effects so much of what they are doing. Commissioner Boyle said that since there is a joint meeting coming up between the City and the Board of Supervisors that it would also be appropriate to let the City Council know that to the extent that if there are issues that they would like to have some kind of joint meetings on and they don't want to add to their own already busy schedules, he thinks they ought to communicate that the Planning-Commission would be happy to meet with the County Planning Commission to work on any items that they thought were appropriate. COMMUNICATIONS. Commissioner Brady said there was a written communication from Marian Shaw to the Commission regarding Pacheco Road. Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Shaw if she wanted to make any statement or is she just submitting it to them? Ms. Shaw said that it was just for their information and if they are interested she would keep them posted on the action of the City Council next Wednesday. Commissioner Brady asked staff if it would be appropriate to comment on the memo at this time? Mr. Grady said it would. Minutes, PC, August 5, 1999 Page 11 11. Mr. Hernandez told Mr. Brady that he may give a response but the COmmission could not get into any deliberation. He may. ask for information or clarification of the communication but since it is not agenized, the Commission cannot get into full blown deliberation of the issue. Chairman Tkac asked if everything is transmitted to the Council-from these meetings or is it something they might request be transmitted to the Council prior to their meeting? Mr. Hemandez stated that he thought the issue of concern has already gone on to the City Council for consideration. It is a general plan amendment that was heard here at the Commission and staff has just informed him that the recommendation that staff is making is contrary to that which was recommended by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brady said that what he wanted to convey, if it is possible to get into a staff report at this point, that the new information misses the point. What the problem is that you have a road immediately adjacent to a rail crossing and this read is going to be used for east/west traffic and its going to intersect major arterials which are going to carry a lot a traffic north and south. There is going to be a design problem intersecting those major arterials, which are now only two lane roads because there are no houses around them, but eventually will be six lane roads and there will be a problem at those intersections. Commissioner Brady feels that Pacheco Road needs to be eliminated or moved away from the rail crossing or the rail crossing needs to be moved away from Pacheco Road. Commissioner Brady said that he was worried about the interfacing of Pacheco Road with the major arterials that are north/south and because Pacheco Road dead ends into Gosford - again a very close distance to the rail crossing. It is too close to put in a signalized light. There is just not enough distance between the rail line and Pacheco Road. He stated that his concern is there is a problem with the road due to its proximity with the rail line and making it a two lane road instead of widening it at other locations doesn't solve the problem and for that reason he feels that it is an inappropriate fix. He would like that conveyed to the City Council. COMMISSION COMMENTS. Commissioner Brady stated that the subdivision committee met on Wednesday. There was a representative from the Building Industry Association and another community member. The City Attorney responded with a memorandum regarding the legality issues of requiring notice on maps when there is going to be a freeway or other major Public WOrks type project like that in an area. 'The committee is moving forward with some ideas on how to do that and they will be working at the next meeting about the wording on the notice and how it will be attached and also the triggering mechanism for it. Also, they have found out that once the line has been adopted, an ordinance is already in place for the noticing requirements. What the committee is talking about is before there is an actual adoption while the study is in progress. Minutes, PC, August 5, t999 Page 12 12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF NEXT PRE-MEETING. It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on August 16, 1999. Carl Hernandez stated that Commissioner Kemper asl~ed him to update the Commission regarding the proposed ordinance for appointments of the Planning Commission and he has provided a copy of the ordinance which had first reading at the last Council meeting and will haVe second reading at the next Council meeting. What they have before them is what the Council has decided to adopt. 13. ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m. August 26, 1999 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary '~ · Planning Director I