Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/18/99 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Thursday, November 18, 1999 5:30 p.m. JEFFREY TKAC, Chairman MICHAEL DHANENS, Vice-Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE 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, 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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 - November 18, 1999 Page 2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off consent and will be considered in the order on the agenda. If not, the public hearing will be opened and the items acted on as a group. 3.1) A§enda Item 5 -Extension of Time for TPM 9630 Revised (Smithtech USA, Inc.) APPROVAL oF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held October 18 and 21, 1999. Ward 4) PUBLIC HEARING - Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 9630 Revised consisting of seven commercial parcels on 19.67 acres zoned C-2 (Regional Commercial), located west of Coffee Road and south of Brimhall Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote. (Ward 4) PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Revised Vestin.q Tentative Tract 5882 (Martin-Mclntosh) consisting of 569 lots on 245.21 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and R-1 CH (One Family Dwelling-Church); and a request for private streets on a portion of the subdivision, and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B. 1., located between Brimhall Road, the Kern River Freeway Specific Plan Line, Jewetta Avenue and Allen Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from October 21, 1999) Recommendation: Approve Group vote - Agenda, PC, Thursday - November 18, 1999 Page 3 (Ward 3) 6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 5929 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) subdivision to create 80 lots on 20 + acres zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) for single family residential purposes, generally located north of Panorama Drive, west of Thorner Street. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from October 21, 1999) Recommendation: Approve Group vote (Ward 4) (Ward 3) 10. 1i. PUBLIC HEARINGS - ZONE CHANGES 7.1) Zone Change P99-0692 (David Holden for Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) consisting of a zone change from R-3 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) to R-3 CH (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling-Church) on 3 acres, located at the northwest corner of White Lane and Park View Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Roll call vote. Approve 7.2) Zone Change P99-0743 (Carlos Parrolivelli) consisting of a zone change from a PUD (Planned Unit Development) to an R-1 (One Family Dwelling) on 4.63 acres, generally located on the south side of State Route 178, approximately 300 feet east of Miramonte Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll call vote. UPDATE ON THE SOUTHERN BELTWAY COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THF 12. NEXT PRE-MEETING. ADJOURNMENT November 5, 1999 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director Held m November 18, 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 STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER iRON SPRAGUE A D VIS OR Y MEMBERS: Presenh ANDREW THOMSON, Deputy City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JENNIE ENG, Associate Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Tkac read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) A~lenda Item 5 -Extension of Time for TPM 9630 Revised (Smithtech USA, Inc.) A motion was made by Commissioner Dhanens, seconded by Commissioner Kemper to approve the Consent Agenda items. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, November 18, 1999 Page 2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve the minutes of the regular meetings held October 18 and 21, 1999. Motion carried. = PUBLIC HEARING - Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map 9630 Revised See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1) Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 5882 (Martin-Mclntosh) Mr. Grady announced that the applicant would like to continue this item until the first available meeting in January. Some issues with the conditions of approval were still trying to be resolved. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition or in favor. There were no Commissioner comments or questions. Commissioner Dhanens made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to continue this item to the first available meeting in January in the year 2000 per the applicant's letter dated November 17, 1999. MOtion carried. 6.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6929 (Porter-Robertson Engineering) Mr. Grady stated that the applicant has requested the matter be continued until December 2, 1999. Some design issues are still being worked on and they are not prepared to go further on them as yet. Commissioner Boyle stated that the had a conflict of interest on this project. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition or in favor. There were no Commissioner comments or questions. Commissioner Sprague made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to continue this item until December 2, 1999. Motion carried. - Minutes, PC, November 18, 1999 Page 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS-ZONECHANGES 7.1) Zone Change P99-0692 (David Holden for Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod) Staff report recommending approval of the project was given. Public portion of the meeting was opened. Bob Braaten, a property owner located behind the site on Eagle Oak, stated that he was not in opposition of the project but did want to look at the plans prior to construction so that they don't end up with a dumpster, exit or parking lot lights shining in their back windows. Mr. Grady said that this was a straight zone change, therefore the only time Mr. Braaten could look at the site plan would be at the site plan review hearing. Staff would make sure he would be notified as to when the hearing would take place. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked a question about the initial study. Mr. Grady explained the process to him. Commissioner Dhanens asked staff if the block wall already constructed was built in accordance with the ordinance standard of six feet? Mr. Grady said he hadn't measured the wall but Mr. Braaten said from the audience that it was six feet. Commissioner Dhanens also asked if any additional parking would have to be separated with an additional landscaping setback per the ordinance? Mr. Grady stated that there may be a minimum landscape requirement but there is no requirement that the parking be maintained a certain distance away from the block wall. Commissioner Brady asked if the Commission could make that a condition of approval? Commissioner Boyle stated that perhaps the applicant could meet with the neighbors prior to the site plan review hearing to iron out any problems the neighbors might have. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve and adopt the negative declaration, and approve Zone Change P99- 0692 with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Dhanens, Kemper, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, November 18, 1999 Page 4 7.2) Zone Chancje P99-0743 (Carlos Parrolivelli) Staff report recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution was given. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. John Wilson, representing the applicant, spoke in favor. Mr. Wilson stated that they have conferred with staff on several occasions and have read the conditions and they have questions on four of them. Item two says to construct a pedestrian walkway adjacent to the reservoir to match the existing walkways. One thing he would like the Commission to understand that this is a single family residence - one house on one piece of land. If for some reason the applicant wanted to build 13 more homes, he would have to come back before the Planning Commission again. This walkway would only serve the applicant and his family. There are no easements to allow anyone to walk on this walkway. It is private land. The lake is not a public lake so continuance of the walkway would only serve himself and that should be left up to him whether or not to construct a walkway at that location. Mr. Wilson stated that in Item 3e the Olcese Water District has relinquished their rights to California Water in this issue. That requirement should be reworded to responsible party or California Water. Item six is the easement issue. Mr. Wilson stated that the applicant is not so much against the access because he would probably build the access to his house at the same location, but he wants to move it adjacent to the north property line. He asks that this access only be for emergency purposes only. There is another access with a gate that is only 18 feet wide off of Highway 178 so this would not be the only access to the property. The last item they have a question about is the 1,400 foot block wall along 178. Mr. Wilson stated that the original noise study required a block wall. But a noise study when the condominiums to the west were built in 1988 did not require a block wall. The project that was proposed for this area had the units 30 feet from the north property line. Mr. Wilson then read a portion of the report to the Commission. The report said that the block wall was required because the houses all faced to the north. Their living areas were all facing north and there wasn't sufficient room between the north property line and the buildings to attenuate the noise. With the 20-foot or larger access on the north property line and turning the house towards the lake, there shouldn't be a noise problem. They asked that the block wall not be required if the applicant can show that the attenuation of the noise is at a good level. He asked that the Commission keep in mind that this is an R-1 single family structure that the applicant wants to build for his family. He stated that he was free to answer any questions. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Minutes, PC, November 18, 1999 Page 5 Commissioner Boyle asked if the zone change were approved and the Commission made the changes the applicant is requesting, and then at a later date he comes in for a subdivison map, if the Commission could at that time put on the conditions for a block wall and the easement along the lake front, etc? Mr. Grady said that it could be done at the subdivision map stage. The emergency access is something that would be needed regardless if there is one house or a subdivision in the future. Commissioner Boyle asked if the block wall should be deferred to later? Mr. Grady said that you would need some evidence in the record to counter the noise study that was done originally that showed a block wall was needed for sound attenuation. One wasn't provided as part of the zone change. The applicant's representative states that they do not need the wall for the noise but the noise study did not differentiate between whether or not the noise would impact the site if it was a single home or if there was a subdivision. The noise still exists. Commissioner Boyle asked if noise decreases over distance? Mr. Grady said that it sounds logical that it would. Commissioner Boyle stated that if the home is located far enough away from the freeway, no sound wall would be necessary because the distance would cause the noise level to dissipate. The question now becomes what distance is required to make it dissipate to acceptable levels and then can the Commission make sure with the zone change that the applicant has an adequate setback from Highway 178 so that he meets that level of noise reduction based upon the distance? Mr. Grady said that you would need a noise study to see if that is true. The study would identify what distance the house would have to be setback in order to attenuate the noise at the same level the wall would. Commissioner Boyle asked if there are any problems with moving the easement to the northern boundary of the property? Mr. Grady said the location of the easement would not be a problem. Commissioner Boyle asked about the next question which was to reduce the easement from 32 feet to 20 feet? Mr. Grady said that the reason the easement is 32 feet, is in the event that it becomes the primary access to the adjoining- property, enough right-of-way would have to be reserved so that a street could be constructed. Commissioner Boyle asked staff if this is an easement for emergency purposes only, why would there be a street constructed? How could it become primary access to the adjoining property if the access is limited to emergency access? Mr. Grady said that because of the way the site is laid out, the only access to that property now is either through an extension of Palodino Drive or this access point. Commissioner Boyle asked if 20 feet is wide enough for emergency access? Mr. Grady said that if the Fire Department was satisfied, he would be. Jim Shapazian, Fire Marshal, stated that 20 feet is satisfactory. Commissioner Boyle asked if the sidewalk was necessary since there will be only be one house on the property. Mr. Grady said "no." Minutes, PC, November 18, 1999 Page 6 Commissioner Boyle said that he was willing to support the project and also the requested changes to delete item 2, change item 3e to put the responsible water district and item 6 to delete it to 20 feet and on item 7 based on what staff has said, he thinks the item will have to be continued until some type of evidence indicates what distance would be required to achieve the required sound attenuation. Mr. Wilson stated that the noise study already had the chart he was talking about. Mr. Grady stated that there is a table in the study that in order to get the noise contour consistent with the general plan, if the house was placed about 40 feet away from 178 that that will take care of the interior noise. However, he could not find anything in the noise study that.talks about compliance with the exterior noise. Mr. Wilson said that the 40 feet is adequate and they think the noise study they already have is adequate for this project. Commissioner Brady asked if there was only going to be one road? Mr. Wilson said "yes." Commissioner Brady stated then that is the primary access not emergency access. Mr. Wilson said it was the primary access to the house and the emergency access to the property to the east. Commissioner Brady said that once it is used as a main road, it will continue to be used that way. Commissioner Brady said that if a road is going to be a primary access, then it should be built to city standards of 32 feet. Mr. Wilson said that Lakeside Way is the primary access to the property that the applicant is merely putting in a long driveway. It doesn't seem right to make a 32-foot wide driveway. Commissioner Brady said that he does not see this as a single family residence issue. What they are talking about is a future subdivision and he has a problem about calling this a 20-foot emergency access when its really going to be the road on which all the other houses are going to have to come off of. Commissioner Brady asked staff if there was a way to reserve a 32-foot easement without requiring to pave the whole thing? Mr. Grady stated that the way it is written, they are required to record the easement now. It does not require them to pave it. Commissioner Brady said he would support the original 32-foot easement requirement. Commissioner Dhanens asked staff if they had found anything else in the noise study to indicate whether the exterior of the residence would be attenuated by the 40 feet? Mr. Grady asked for more time. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Wilson to use the overhead and explain the chart in the noise study. Mr. Wilson demonstrated that in his opinion that if the applicant builds his house at least 40 feet from the property line, the 2010 General Plan policies would be satisfied. Commissioner Dhanens stated that if the Commission were to reword number 7, they would probably want to establish some minimum setback distance whether it is 40 feet or something greater. Minutes, PC, November 18, 1999 Page 7 Mr. Wilson said that speaking for the applicant, they would recommend a minimum of 45 but that 50 feet from the north property line would be satisfactory. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if he were able to analyze the information in the noise study. Mr. Grady said "yes, it appears that the table is showing two numbers that correlate with one another. The 110 feet from the centerline should be the same as 40 feet from the north property line and that would give you a 64.3 CNEL which would be in compliance with the 2010 noise requirements." Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if the Planning Commission can require a 32-foot easement if this piece of property came back in later to be subdivided. Mr. Grady said that is correct. Commissioner Dhanens said he did not have a problem with changing the 32-foot easement to 20 feet or deleting condition 2. He stated that he was in support of the project and suggested that the house be built 50 feet from the property line to mitigate the noise. Commissioner McGinnis asked if the 20-foot emergency easement (driveway) would be gated? Mr. Wilson said that it could be. Commissioner McGinnis asked staff if we would require landscaping along 1787 Mr. Grady said not as a single family residence. Mr. McGinnis stated that he was concerned with a 20- foot easement that it may not be wide enough if cars were parked along there and a fire truck couldn't get through. Dennis Fidler, Building Director, stated that it is a state law that a residential lot has to meet 65 DNEL to that property for exterior noise. Commissioner Boyle asked the property owner if there is a strip of land between the north boundary of this property ~ind Highway 178 that's owned by another property owner? Mr. Wilson said "yes" it is owned by Wells Fargo Bank. Commissioner Boyle stated that at the time the applicant comes in with a subdivision map, then it will be the time to require a 32-foot easement. A 20-foot wide easement is more than adequate to serve one house. Commissioner Boyle also said that he would be willing to make the finding that the chart presented to them is satisfactory evidence that the noise attenuation would be satisfactory to the back lot line of the house both exterior and interior but he thinks staff has raised an issue if the entire four acres is seen as the lot, then don't they have to reduce the noise to the 65 dB not at the back lot line of the house but at the beginning of the parcel? That then becomes a legal issue for the City Attorney to advise them on. Can they legally approve a lot that does not meet the sound standards at the property line? Mr. Thomson said that he doesn't know the answer to that question at this time but he could look it up and come back to the next meeting with a more definitive answer but that his feeling is "yes" they would have to comply. Minutes, PC, November 18, 1999 Parle 8 Commissioner Kemper stated that she supports the project but she feels a continuance for the noise and wall issue is needed. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Fidler if the 2010 General Plan states that at the residential property line the noise level has to be 65 dB? Not at the residence? Mr. Fidler stated that these studies were required by the state to verify that the exterior perimeter of residential property met 65 dB on any new construction and that the interior must be 45 dB. Commissioner Boyle explained to the applicant that this is not being continued because they are opposed to deleting the requirement of the block wall but because they are not sure legally if they can. If the noise statute requires it at the property line, not at the house line, then they cannot violate the statute just because they agree with him. They need to give staff time to determine that. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Dhanens, to continue this project to the December 2, 1999, Planning Commission meeting. Motion carried. UPDATE ON THE SOUTHERN BELTVVAY Commissioner Boyle declared a conflict of interest on this project. Mr. Grady stated that this project has been the subject of three prior public hearings. The Final EIR, public testimony and comments were considered by the Planning Commission at a hearing on December 17, 1998 and January 7, 1999. The Planning Commission determined that additional alternatives should be evaluated. The Planning Commission received the report tonight. The existing environmental report has been found adequate to cover this new alternative should it be selected. The report handed out tonight and the two existing volumes and comments constitute the entire environmental record for the project. At the public hearing staff will be recommending that they certify the EIR and select an alternative. Mr. Grady also said that Ms. Shaw had some new information to present to them concerning the new alternative. Ms. Shaw stated that the document the Commission received tonight contained the analysis of the impacts of the revised preferred alignment they requested several months ago. She then highlighted two items of particular concern to the Planning Commission as they expressed in their earlier meeting. The first was impact on residences. The old alignment affected approximately 65 homes. The new alignment affects approximately the same number of homes, about 68. New traffic model runs were done based upon the new alignment and updated the other alignments as well. Based upon the new traffic model runs that were done, in the year 2030 the new preferred alignment carries only between six percent and a maximum of about 38 to 40 percent of the traffic that is carried by the old preferred alignment. Minutes, PC, November 18, 1999 Page 9 The new preferred alignment in the area between Buena Vista Road and the connection to State Route 58 carries between 7,000 and 25,000 trips. Ms. Shaw went on to say that a four lane collector at Level of Service C can carry 24,000 trips. Mr. Grady said that this information is just provided to the Commission at this time in preparation for the hearing on December 16, 1999. It is not intended that the Commission make comments on the document at this time or that any public testimony be taken tonight. COMMUNICATIONS There were no written or verbal comments. 10. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Sprague stated that they had a committee meeting that day on the PCD plan on the Buena Vista-Stockdale Highway/Coleman Home shopping center and reviewed it with several Commissioner comments and the applicant has taken the site plan back to redo it into several proposed changes and questions that were proposed and the next meeting will be on Tuesday, November 23, 1999, at which time the changes will be reviewed and another report will be given at the next Planning · Commission meeting. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. On a motion by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, it was decided not to have a pre-meeting on November 29, 1999. 12. November 30, 1999 ADJOURNMENT. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Planning Director ~ I