Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/02/99 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall Thursday, September 2, 1999 5:30 p.m. 1. ROLL CALL JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BO YLE MA THEW BRA D 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. 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final..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, September 2, 1999 Page 2 (Ward 4) 4.a. 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 5 - Vesting Rights Extension of Time for Tract 5426 Phase E Agenda Item 8 - General Plan Consistency Finding APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meeting held July 15, 1999. NORTH OF THE RIVER SANITARY DISTRICT SITE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) SCOPING MEETING. THE NORTH OF RIVER SANITARY DISTRICT SITE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONF CHANGE ON 304.3 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WITHIN KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. RECOMMENDATION: Receive comments and refer to staff. (Ward 4) (Ward 4) EXTENSION OF TIME - VESTING RIGHTS Tract 5426 Phase E (Castle & Cooke) Located south of Stockdale Highway, west of Old River Road. (Exempt from CEQA) Recommendation: Approve Group vote PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 5957 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5957 containing 104 lots for single family residential purposes, and one lot for a linear park on 42.43 acres zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling), to allow private streets which deviate from city standards, located south of the Kern River, approximately 1/3 mile west of Buena Vista Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from August 19, 1999) Recommendation: Approve Group vote Agenda, PC, September 2, 1999 Page 3 Ward4) (Ward 3) 6.2) 6.3) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5951 (SmithTech USA Inc) A proposed tentative tract map for single family residential purposes containing 110 lots for single family residential purposes, 1 lot for a linear park, 1 lot for a sump on 52.32 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); and a request a modification to allow median entries on local streets; reverse corner lots and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from July 15, 1999 and August 19, 1999) Recommendation: Group vote Approve Tentative Tract 5696 Revised (Coker EIIsworth) Tentative Tract 5696 - subdivision to create 20 lots for single family dwellings on property zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling). This subdivision is identical to previously approved division of same property. The previous map expired. Located north of Highland Knolls Drive, approximately 600 feet east of Fairfax Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: Approve Group vote (Ward 6) 6.4) Vesting Tentative Tract 5958 (Porter-Robertson) Vesting Tentative Tract 5958 containing 203 lots on 45.24 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request for modification for reduced lot depth on some lots and block length exceeding 1,000 feet, and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.1, located on the south side of Hosking Avenue, and the east side of Stine Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: ApproVe Group vote (Ward 1) FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PUD/ZC P99-0350) Final development plan for a P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) zone consisting of a 250 lot single family development with two, 1/2-acre size private parks for a gated private street single family subdivision on 50 acres. (Negative Declaration on file) Recommendation: To be determined by Planning Commission Group vote Agenda, PC, September 2, 1999 Page 4 = (Ward 2) PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING General Plan Consistency finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for acquisition of a 5,775 square foot parcel located at 1015 - 13th Street (AA Pet Hotel, Lot 3, Block 389, APN #006-521-03. (Categorically exempt) Recommendation: Adopt resolution Group vote. 9. UPDATE FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE SOUTH BELTWAY 10. 11. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) 'Committees Assignment of committee and members to review proposed amendments to P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) and P.U.D. (Planned Unit Development) ordinances. 12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF NEXT PRE-MEETING. 13. August 30, 1999 ADJOURNMENT Planning Director Held Thursday September 2, 1999 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFFREY TKAC, ChairperSon MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice Chairperson MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE Absent: STEPHEN BOYLE = ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Deputy City Attorney JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS Tony Hogg requested to speak on an item he has before the City Council. He presented the Commission with a letter requesting that the Commission form a committee to address the P.C.D. regarding the general plan amendment at Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista. Commissioner Brady asked staff where in the process the P.C.D. is in respect to its approval? It is Commissioner Brady's understanding that there has already been a motion and the Commission has sent the project onto the Council in which case the Commission would not have jurisdiction over it. Mr. Grady stated that that is correct. The project has gone to the City Council. The Council has not acted on it, therefore, the Minutes, PC, September 2, 1999 Page 2 case has been deferred to the next cycle. Once the Council hears the project and upholds the Commission's decision, the P.C.D. plan will come back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Brady stated that it would be premature to form a committee until the City Council acts. Mr. Grady said that if the City Council decision is not consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation, any work done by a committee would be a lot of effort that would not be fruitful. Commissioner Brady stated that it is his position that they not form any kind of committee. Commissioners Dhanens and McGinnis announced that they were not at the pre- meeting on Monday, but they had'listened to a tape of the meeting and would be participating tonight. Chairman Tkac stated that he agreed with Commissioner Brady that since the Commission has already requested to move it forward to the City Council, it is premature to get involved with forming a committee. Mr. Hogg stated that he understood that the reason the P.C.D. was placed on the project was that the city would have more control and part of the decision to continue to the next Council hearing was because they had questions about the site such as what would be built there and how it would go down. Mr. Hogg feels that a committee could address the Commission's concerns and some of the concerns and questions that the City Council has. Commissioner Brady told Mr. Hogg that if he wanted he could make a request to the City Council to have them refer it back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Hogg asked if he could do that prior to the Council hearing date or if he has to wait until the hearing date. Mr. Grady told him he could do it at any time during the public statements section of the agenda. Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) 3.1) 3.2) Agenda Item 5 - Vesting Rights Extension of Time for Tract 5426 Phase E Agenda Item 8 - General Plan Consistency Finding Commissioner Boyle seated. A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve the Consent Agenda items. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held July 15, 1999, with a change in the order of the pages. Pages 8 and 9 were reversed. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, September 2,'1999 Page 3 4.a) NORTH OF THE RIVER SANITARY DISTRICT SITE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) SCOPING MEETING. THE NORTH OF RIVER SANITARY DISTRICT SITE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE ON 304.3 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST PORTION Sm OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD WITHIN KERN COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. (Ward 4) Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, at the request of the applicant, to continue this project until October 7, 1999. EXTENSION OF TIME - VESTING RIGHTS Tract 5426 Phase E (Castle & Cooke) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 5957 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward4) Staff report was given. Since the Monday pre-meeting, the Fire Department has provided the Commission with additional information regarding their status in working up a policy regarding gated access to private street communities. No other new information was received so staff is recommending approval with ' conditions attached to the resolution. Public portion of the meeting was open. No one spoke in opposition. Bob Smith, from SmithTech USA representing Coleman Homes, stated that they have no objections to the conditions but for the record would like to state that their understanding is that after the first of the year school fees are reduced to $1.93 because of the bond passed last year. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Sprague stated that it is his. understanding that school fees are subject to a case study by the school district so whatever is determined to come out of that study does not concern the Commission. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Tentative Tract 5957 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A"-. Motion carried. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 5951 (SmithTech USA Inc)ward 4) Commissioner Boyle declared a conflict of interest on this project. Staff report was given. Since the Monday pre-meeting, the Fire Department has contacted the applicant and a memo from the Fire Department to the 6.2) Minutes, PC, September 2, 1999 Page 4 Commission ha's been provided adding a condition to require a cul-de-sac to be extended to the collector street to the south - Astoria Park Drive. The applicant has agreed to this condition. The applicant has provided the Commission this evening with a letter and background regarding the two large residential lots that are shown on the east side of the tract. Attached to the letter shows potential lotting and street design for those particular lots. At the Monday pre-meeting Commissioner Kemper asked about the potential commercial site that is located immediately at the southwest corner of Stockdale Highway and Buena Vista Road. Mr. Grady has the wording regarding the condition'of approval attached to that general plan amendment. Mr. Grady informed the Commission that it is condition 32 and it reads that the applicant shall submit a zone change application for a Planned Commercial Developmen! zone. There were no other conditions placed on the project. Public portion of the meeting was open. No one spoke in opposition. Bob Smith, with SmithTech representing Coleman Homes, stated that they have .read the conditions and do not have a problem with them. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kemper asked about Exhibit "2" and wanted some clarification. She wanted to know if they were asking for approval with the street going all the way through or with the street turned. Mr. Smith stated that if it goes residential, the street goes a little further then turns, if it goes commercial, the street goes all the way through. At this point until the commercial is decided they are not sure how long the street is. Commissioner Kemper asked Mr. Grady if there is anything the CommisSion could do to realign the street if the commercial is approved? Mr. Grady stated that the Commission has the authority to make recommendations with respect to the plotting of the map and if it goes commercial there will be another map submitted and the Commission can revisit the street at that time. Commissioner Brady said that he will support the project since the applicant has 'stated that since the commercial property is a PCD it would be coming back to the Commission for further approvals. Motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, Seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Tentative Tract 5951 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "^" with the inclusion of the condition as contained in the August 31, 1999, memorandum to the Planning Commission from Jim Shapazian, Fire Marshal, City of Bakersfield. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, September 2, 1999 Page 5 6.3) Tentative Tract 5696 Revised (Coker EIIsworth) (Ward 3) Staff report was given. There has been no new information since the Monday pre-meeting and staff is recommending approval with conditions as shown in the attached resolution. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Wiley Hughes, with Alta Engineering/Hughes Surveying, representing Mr. EIIsworth, stated they agree with the conditions. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Tentative Tract 5696 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A". Motion carried. 6.4) Vesting Tentative Tract $95R (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 6) Stanley Grady said the Planning Department received a letter requesting this item be continued until October 7, 1999, because of negotiations regarding selling the tract. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to continue this item to October 7, 1999. Public portion of the hearing was left opened. FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN (PUDIZC P99-035n (Ward Commissioner Sprague declared a conflict of interest on this project. Staff report was given. There has been no new information since the Monday pre- meeting and staff stated that approval of the final development plan is at the Planning Commission's discretion and if the Planning Commission desires to require any of the design items discussed in the staff report, staff has provided conditions of approval attached to the resolution to address the applicant's concerns. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh, representing the subdivider/owner, Thomas and Leslie Hardt, stated that they were asked to develop, a final PUD plan and bring it back to the Commission. One of the tasks they were directed to look at was, to come up with a tot lot within the family park area. Mr. Mclntosh stated they had done a substantial amount of research and have developed a program identifying facilities similar to this type of equipment and found the cost to be about $25,000. That did not include the handicapped accessible Minutes, PC, September 2, 1999 Page 6 material that is required to go around the playground equipment. Mr. Mclntosh showed the Commission a sample of what kind of material is allowable as far as handicap accessibility. Mr. Mclntosh stated that if the wood chips are used, they are required to be one foot deep and they are a very loose material and hard to maintain. The cost of the wood chips is $1.30 a square foot under the playground facility. Total cost on that would be $700 to $1,000 plus the on-going maintenance. The other material Mr. Mclntosh showed the Commission was recycled tire, shredded, placed in a liquid form over a bed of concrete. With the concrete and material placed, the cost is about $12.30 a square foot. It is a very expensive material. Mr. Mclntosh stated that the cost of the tot lot alone is practically as much as the whole park would cost with landscaping and' maintenance and requested the Commission not require the tot lot. Mr. Mclntosh stated that the second issue that was brought up was there was a request for larger trees to be planted within the two parks and he suggested an alternative so that when the trees get planted, they would put in a faster growing species to give more shade sooner. He showed some overhead projections of different types of trees and their growth. The applicant suggested instead of a Live Oak tree that they be allowed to put in a Chinese Pistache which has a much faster growth rate. They requested that no additional size requirements be applied either to the perimeter landscaping or the trees in the private park. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Kemper stated that she was in favor of the applicant and Mr. Mclntosh's request and recommendation. She feels that this is a first time buyer's subdivision and increasing the costs of their homeowner's association in any way is not in the best interest of this particular socio-economic group. She is in favor of the faster growing trees and is in favor of deleting requirement 1.a. on Exhibit 1 and deleting item 2. Commissioner Boyle stated that his idea of a tot lot is some swing sets and monkey bars. He did not want an elaborate playground. Commissioner Boyle asked if there was a cost estimate for a simpler tot lot. Mr. Mclntosh said that it has to be handicapped accessible meeting ,ADA requirements which requires the surfacing material that he showed the Commission. Mr. Mclntosh showed an example of the smallest tot lot that he could find that a manufacturer makes and tl'ie prices quoted were for that type of equipment. Commissioner Boyle said that one of the reasons the Commission was requiring a tot lot was because of the size of the lots and the public's concern about the children having adequate room to play. Commissioner Boyle stated that as far as the size of the trees is that they were requesting larger trees be put in because smaller trees may not survive and the association may not maintain them. If the trees get broken, they might be costly to replace. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Mclnt0sh if there are provisions in the homeowner's association to replace any trees that might get destroyed? Mr. Mclntosh stated that there would be a provision for maintenance of the park and probably a sinking fund for repair damage and insurance would be purchased for that type of thing. ,A good staking program or a small chainlink fence wrapped around the trunks until the trees are established for the first two or three years would probably be done by the owner. Minutes, PC, September 2, 1999 Page 7 Commissioner Brady asked if staff has an estimate of construction of a tot lot and if that was within the whelm of reason? Mr. Grady stated that Planning staff has no experience with the costs of constructing parks. Commissioner Brady asked if there was anyone from the Parks Department in attendance. Mr. Grady said he did not see anyone. Ms. Shaw stated that she has had limited involvement with the construction of. tot lots but that they are extraordinarily expensive. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Mclntosh if the staff report was an accurate representation when it stated that the cost of a home would increase by $100 in order to put in a tot lot. Mr. Mclntosh said that he thought that was calculated by taking the additional costs and spreading them over the number of lots in the tract. Commissioner Brady said that this would be amortized over 30 years, therefore, the homeowner will not suffer a huge increase in the amount of his monthly payment. Commissioner Brady stated that in small lot subdivisions the parks in the area are heavily used and because this is a gated community and the area of town it is in most of the people that live in the area and being in the nature of starter homes there will be a lot of people with young kids and they will need a place to play. He feels that the cost of the tot lot when passed on to the homeowners over the whole development will be inconsequential in light of the benefit that would be brought to the overall development by having a place for the young children to play. Commissioner Brady stated that he would like to see a tot lot put in and as far as the tree issue, he was willing to go with the applicant's recommendations. Commissioner Dhanens asked staff if condition 1 regarding the tot lot could be reworded so that the tot lot apparatus as shown in the exhibits is not necessarily the one they have to put in? Mr. Grady said that it could go from specific language to general language. Instead of specifying the one in the staff report, the Commission could require the developer to "put a tot lot in." He feels that other equipment could be purchased from other sources that would be less expensive and perhaps a tot lot would not have to be as large as this one is. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Mclntosh about the surfacing of the tot lot and stated that to his knowledge it did not have to cover the entire playground. It is only in certain designated areas to provide access to certain pieces of equipment. Commissioner Dhanens stated that Mr. Mclntosh nodded in the affirmative in response to this question. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Mclntosh if in the cost analysis this was considered? Mr. Mclntosh said "yes." Mr. Mclntosh stated that Mr. Hardt would be happy to put in simpler equipment such as a swing set and slide for a 10 child capacity, Commissioner Dhanens stated that he didn't want to see the tot lot go away entirely but something of the magnitude for 30 to 40 kids he doesn't feel is necessary. Commissioner Dhanens also stated that he is still in favor of increasing the size of the trees. He is satisfied with the tree ratio that staff is recommending and would be in favor of the project if a compromise could be reached for the tot lot equipment. Commissioner Boyle stated that he is in agreement with Commissioner Dhanens. He agrees that scaling down of the tot lot could be left up to the developer's discretion. His original vision had been something on a much smaller scale. Minutes, PC, September 2, 1999 Page 8 = Commissioner Brady asked staff that since we are requiring that parks be put in as part of this development and requiring equipment, is the applicant entitled to any waiver of park fees? Mr. Grady stated that the applicant is entitled to the .7 per acre credit and it was granted as part of the P.U.D. and there are no other fee waivers available. Commissioner Brady requested that instead of leaving the tot lot up to the discretion of the developer, if the Commission could make it to the approval of the Planning Director? Mr. Grady said that it would be better to make it to the approval of the Parks Director as that is his specialty. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Mclntosh if it wouldn't be better to put the tot lot at one end of the park instead of the middle to increase the usable remainder of the field. Mr. Mclntosh said that it did not matter if they wanted to move it one way or the other. Commissioner Brady said that his recommendation would be to modify the language in Exhibit la and to strike as shown in the attached Exhibit 3 and 4 as approved by the Director of Parks and Recreation. Mr. Mclntosh said that they would rather have the Planning Director approve changes rather than the Parks Director as that is how the ordinance reads. Commissioner Dhanens suggested that the Commission pick a number, such as 15, for the size of the tot lot rather than leave it open ended. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve the final development plan with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the modification to Exhibit 1, paragraph la to read: The developer shall include the tot lot playground apparatus in the family park to be approved by the Planning Director with a suggested size of not less than 15, and the family park shall be constructed with the fourth phase recorded with the tract or sooner and the location of the family park can be moved at the discretion of the applicant and also modify the exhibit to allow the applicant to substitute Chinese Pistache for Live Oaks. Mr. Mclntosh asked if Commissioner Boyle's motion was to make the tree size 15 gallon Chinese Pistache instead of 24 gallon Live Oak? Commissioner Boyle said that his motion was that they could substitute the trees for Chinese Pistache but to leave it at the 24 gallon size. If someone wanted to change the motion they could. The motion was not changed. Motion carried. · PUBLIC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY FINDING General Plan Consistency finding pursuant to Government Code Section 65402 for acquisition of a 5,775 square foot parcel located at 1015 - 13th Street. See Consent Agenda Minutes, PC, September 2, 1999 Page 9 9. UPDATE FROM THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE STATUS OF THE SOUTH BELTWAY 10. 11, Commissioner Boyle said to Mr. Hernandez that he had a conflict of interest if this was a public hearing to consider any line and wanted to know if he had to conflict his self since this is not a public hearing? Mr. Hernandez said that it would be the city's opinion that if he feels he has a conflict of interest that would affect the decision when its made, then he should conflict out here because you can't participate in any way that would appear to influence the decision of the Commission. Commissioner Boyle said that in that case he does have a possible conflict of interest. Ms. Shaw stated that just this week she received an updated schedule from the environmental consultant regarding the preparation of the document and it will be in a form where a copy can be given to the Planning Commission for their review in mid- November. The plan is for the Commission to act on the general plan amendment in December. Ms. Shaw stated that what has been happening in the meantime is that city and county staff have met several times on the alignment the Planning Commission requested, the Engle 2 alignment. The county has met with several interested parties at the eastern end of this proposed new preferred alignment. Ms. Shaw showed the Commission how to pull up the proposed alignments on the City's Web page. Commissioner Sprague asked Ms. Shaw if the new Engle Road alternative had a connection to Highway 99? Ms. Shaw saidall the proposed alignments had connections to Highway 99. COMMUNICATIONS There were no verbal or written communications. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Brady stated that a memorandum dated August 25, 1999, has been prepared from the Subdivision Committee Chairman on the subject of special notice of potential freeway alignments on subdivisions. The committee was to look into at what point is a line significant enough that it is to be reported and then if it is not adopted, how do you undo the notification requirements. The committee decided that the best way to handle this for the time being is that when a proposed map comes before the Commission, staff will include in the staff report that it is near an alignment or that an alignment may effect it and, therefore, it would be a matter of public record that the alignment is there and being considered. ^ proposed purchaser.would then be on notice and it would be on record. The other recommendation was that we get the proposed alignments out to the public via the Web site which was just demonstrated by Ms. Shaw. Minutes, PC, September 2, 1999 Page 10 12. Commissioner Sprague thanked staff for being so helpful in assisting in committee meetings and Mr. Hardisty for giving the committee the idea of puffing the alignments on the Web site. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE 13. NEXT PRE-MEETING. Because general plan amendment items will be heard at the next meeting, it was decided to hold a pre-meeting on September 13, 1999. ADJOURNMENT- There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. October 4, 1999 Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Planning Director