Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/07/00 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1. ROLL CALL Thursday, September 7, 2000 5:30 p.m. MICHAEL DRANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice-Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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 - September 7, 2000 Page 2 m 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. Agenda Item 4) - Approval of Planning Commission minutes of July 3, July 6, July 31, and August 3, 2000. (Ward 7) (Ward 3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held July 3, July 6, July 31 and August 3, 2000. PUBEIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 5.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6006 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 309 lots for single family residential purposes, one drill site lot and one sump lot on 80.49 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); a request to allow a reverse corner lot and to reduce lot width; and a waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.3 by reserving a drill island for mineral access; generally located west of Highway 99 and north of McKee Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (continued from August 17, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote 5.2) Tentative Tract 5518 (Optional Design) (Porter-Robertson) Containing 83 residential lots and two private park lots on 21.66 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling) and R- 2 HD(Limited Multiple-Family Dwelling - Hillside Development Combining) Zones; and a waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.3 by reserving a drill island for mineral access; located on the south side of Highway 178, about 1/4 mile east of Miramonte Drive, adjacent to the Rio Bravo Golf Course. (Negative Declaration on file) Agenda, PC, Thursday - September 7, 2000 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: GrOup vote ApproVe (ward 4) 5.3) Vesting Tentative Tract 6001 (Mclntosh & Associates)' COntaining 37 lots on 15.49 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); and request for private streets, alternate street improvements, and a reverse corner lot; located north of White Lane (extended), approximately % mile west of Buena Vista Road. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote (Ward 4) 5.4) Vesting Tentative Tract 6005 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 131 lots on 33.92 acres for single family residential purp(~ses, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and to allow reverse corner lots; located on the southeast corner of Hageman Road and RiverLakes Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote (ward 4) (ward 5.5) 5.6) Vesting Tentative Tract 6007 (SmithTech USA) Containing 117 lots for single family residential purposes, sump and water well lots on 56.83 acres, zoned E (Estate-One Family Dwelling) zone; a request for private streets and landscape median in a local street; and waiver of mineral rights signatures pursuant to BMC 16.20.060 B.3 by reserving a drill island for mineral access; located on the southwest corner of Allen Road and Palm Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Group vote Vesting Tentative Tract 6008 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 120 lots on 26.76 gross acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and one sump lot. Three modifications are being requested which include 1) reverse corner lots, 2) block lengthin excess of 1,000 feet, and 3) reduced lot depth; located at the west side of Mountain Vista Drive, north of the Southern Pacific Railroad, adjacent to Earl Warren Junior High School. (Negative Declaration on file) Agenda, PC, Thursday - September 7, 2000 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Group vote Approve (Ward 4 ) PUBLIC HEARING - Zone Change P00-0519 (Lee Jamieson, Hopper Industries) Zone change from a C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone to a PCD (Planned Commercial Development) zone on 52.1 acres, for development of a 440,306 square foot commercial center, commonly known as "Northwest Promenade Phase 2," located on the northwest corner of Rosedale Highway and Main Plaza Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: Approve Roll Call Vote COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Committees 9. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. 10. ADJOURNMENT August 21, 2000 S Planning Director ~. ~ Held September 7, 2000 5:30 p.m. City Council Chamber, City Hall 1501 Truxtun Avenue Bakersfield, California. ROLL-CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice Chairperson · MATHEW BRADY MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC Absent: TOM MCGINNIS ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Assistant City Attorney JACK LEONARD, Assistant Building. Director MARIAN SHAW, Engineer IV Staff: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JAMES MOVIUS, Principal Planner PAM TOWNSEND, Recording Secretary PUBLIC STATEMENTS None Chairman Dhanens read the Notice of the Right to Appeal CONSENT AGENDA ITEM Agenda Item 4) - Approval of Planning Commission minutes of July 3, July 6, July 31, and August 3, 2000. A'motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to approve the Consent Agenda item. Motion carried. -Minutes, 'PC, September 7, 2000 Page 2 4, APPROVAL OF MINUTEs Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held July 3, July 6, July 31 and August 3, 2000. See Consent agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 5~1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6006 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) Staff reported that the applicant is requesting the item be continued until the October 5, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. Staff is recommending the continuance. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke either for or against the item, Public portion of the meeting was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to continue the item until the October 5, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. ' Motion carried. 5.2) Tentative Tract 55'18 (Optional Design) (Porter-Robertson) (ward 3) Commissioner Sprague reported that he had a conflict of interest on this item. Staff report given recommending approval with findings and conditions attached to the resolution and memorandums dated September 7 and August 31 which deletes Public Works Condition No. 5. Public portion of the meeting was opened. Mr. Parrolivelli, a nearby property owner, asked Chairman Dhanens to read a letter he wrote against the project. He had concerns about access to the project. There is no secondary access and the street is already an access to the condominiums and houses in the area. With 83 new houses proposed he is concerned about the impact that the situation can present with traffic using the same gate on Las Palmas Drive, a small private street. Mr. Parrolivelli also stated that the people living in the condominiums were not notified of the project. Randy Bergquist, with Porter-Robertson Engineering, said that he agrees with the cOnditions and the modifications t° the conditions. Mr. Bergquist said that regarding Mr. Parrolivelli's concerns, years ago when this was originally Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Page 3 parceled, Las Palmas was designed to serve all the properties within this area. They are part of a reimbursement agreement of which they will be paying about $60,000 to reimburee the construction of Las Palmas. Las Palmas is their access to the property as it is to the adjacent preperties. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Brady stated that he had reviewed the memorandum from Mr. Grady to the Planning Commission dated September 7, 2000, which responds to Mr. Parrolivelli's letter and wanted to clarify his understanding of it. Commissioner Brady stated that under the present zoning for the property, the applicant could build up to 216 units but they are only proposing 83, therefore, this is a lesser use than it could be and that the Traffic Engineer had reviewed the issue regarding the use of Las Palmas and found it to be adequate. Ms. Shaw said that that is correct. Commissioner Brady asked if staff had any further reSponse to Mr. Parrolivelli's letter that was read this evening? Mr. Grady said that staff checked the file regarding the noticing for this project and the notice that was sent out did comply with the ordinance requirements of contacting all of the properties within 300 feet. The condominium project was on the opposite side of the lake so there wasn't a large portion of that project that fell within the 300 ft. contour. Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Shaw why sidewalks are being eliminated for the project? Ms. Shaw said that one of the last tracts in this area that was heard before the Planning Commission is Trect 5515. In that tract the same engineer requested the elimination of sidewalks. The Public Works Department was neutral on.that issue and the Planning Commission did allow them to eliminate sidewalks so staff decided the Planning Commission would want to be consistent with the earlier decision so they agreed. Not having sidewalks is consistent with what is out there. Commissioner Bredy asked Mr. Grady why there is not going to be a sound wall like most developments adjacent to a state highway? Mr. Grady asked CommissiOner Brady to look at the slide on the monitor and he would see that as 178. goes past this site, it goes substantially lower than what would be the finished elevation for the pad. The applicant suggested that if the wall is for noise attenuation, that the hill and the separation between the road and the pad would provide for some noise attenuation. Staff is saying that if that in fact is true, then the aPplicant needs to provide a study at the time they submit their maps to demonstrate that is true and show staff where the wall could be eliminated based on the noise study, and we would be agreeable to that because of the extenuating situation where the road is dropping below what would be the finished grade of the pads that would be adjoining the highway. They still have to build a physical barrier, but they would not have to build a block wall. Commissioner Brady asked what type of fencing would be built. Mr. Grady said they have not specified what it would be. Mr. Grady stated that the applicant indicated to staff that because of the subdivisions proximity to the canyon, that the'homes that border this road would want to take advantage of Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Page 4 5.3) the views so you could have short fences with wrOught iron on top. Staff has not limited what the material would be. If the Commission would want to rule out some material types, they could make it a condition of approval. Commissioner Brady asked the applicant what they are planning? Mr. Bergquist said that a lot of the view lots on the east will have pilasters with wrought iron fence in between of various heights so that it preserves the view. Commissioner Brady said that he would want a high enough fence to keep · children off of the state highway. Mr. Bergquist said that if the Commission would like to put a limitation of a six foot high fence, they would agree to that. Commissioner Brady said that would be appropriate. · Commissioner Dhanens said that in the revised condition regarding the noise study, it says that a contractor's wood fence would not be acceptable. He agrees with Commissioner Brady that it be at least six feet tall and as long as it is not a wood fence or chain-link that he did not have a problem. Commissioner Boyle said that he conburred with the other comments regarding the fence and should be included in the motion. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve the Tentative Tract Map 5518 Optional Design with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the revision of Planning Department Condition No. 2 as indicated in the memorandum from the Planning Director dated September 6, 2000, with the further revision to Condition No. 15 as indicated in the memorandum from the Planning Director dated AuguSt 31, 2000, and with the further revision to Condition No. 5 as set forth in the memorandum from Marian Shaw dated September 7, 2000, and to include the additional condition that any fence to be approved by the Planning Director will exclude chain-link or wood and will maintain a height of six feet. Motion carried. Vesting Tentative Tract 6001 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward4) ~ Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Roger Mclntosh, representing Castle & Cooke Inc., CA, stated that he concurs with all conditions including the 'memorandum from Public Works dated September 7, 2000, which addressed Condition No. 6 which they had a concern with. Mr. Mclntosh stated that he would like a clarification of Condition No. 25 which has to do with the previously abandoned oil well. It was their . understanding that City Ordinance Title 15.66.080 already deals with abandonment 'or re-abandonment of existing oil wells and the way the ordinance reads is "prior to development of an area, any well shown as abandoned should ~Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Page 5 be accompanied by written verification from the Department of Oil and Gas that the well was properly abandoned pursuant to their regulations." Mr. Mclntosh said that he has h'ad some discussion with Mr. Grady and it is staff's interpretation that "development" includes "prior to subdivision." It is the applicant's request the statement at the end of the conditiOn that says "police Power based on public health, safety and welfare" should be stricken since it is staff's interpretation that the ordinance already takes care of that. Mr. Mclntosh asked for the Commission's approval. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Kemper asked Mr. Grady's opinion of Mr. Mclntosh's comment? Mr. Grady.said the information in the staff report in italics is not a condition but advisory notes that staff provides to let the Commission know what the basis of the condition is. It has no affect on the application of Condition No. 25. If the Commission decides to delete it, staff does not object. Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Shaw to exPlain the memorandum dated September 7, 2000, and asked her to explain the strikeout occurring in conditiOn No. 6. Ms. Shaw asked the Commission to refer to Page 2 of the Tract Map which shows the lotting for almost an entire section. She then stated that when they initially put this condition in to-complete Windermere down to White Lane and White Lane to the end of the tract, it was to provide another way out .for the additional lots that were being built for Phase One. However, strict interpretation of the City's municipal cOde and policies shows that it is not actually required. They do not have more than 200 lots with less than two ways out of the subdivision. Ms. Shaw said the Traffic Engineer agrees that circulation would be adequate without that connection down to White Lane for the first phase. Ms. Shaw said the roads will be built, just not with the first phase. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Mclntosh if he had some estimate on phasing?' Mr. Mclntosh said "no." COmmissioner Brady stated he is unclear What the applicant is requesting with regard to Condition 25? Mr. Mclntosh Said the request is simply to clarify the ordinance as it applies to the re-abandonment of any oil wells. They are requesting that the statement that gives police power be removed from the . condition since they have been told that it is staff's interpretation that the ordinance already covers the abandonment of oil wells. Either the statement regarding police power be removed from the condition or if the Commission would want to delete the condition is fine. Commissioner Brady asked staff if there is some difference between this condition and what is contained in the ordinance? Mr. Grady said that the section Mr. Mclntosh is referring to does not have a timing other than saying "prior to development." Because this map is being prepared, the Department of Oil and Gas is the one who is responsible for determining whether or not the well had been abandoned properly. Our standard procedure is to require that we have that information prior to recording the map so that when the final map comes in, we can determine if we have a letter from DOG or not and indicate to our Public Works Department that it is Minutes, PC, September 7, .2000 Pa~e 6 o.k. to go ahead to let this map be recorded. Without that information, and without us telling the applicant when we need it, the assumption would be that they could do it at a later development. We are saying we want it at the earliest development and for us that is the map being recorded. Commissioner Brady said that he would not be in favor of altering Condition No. 25. He would support, based on the recommendation from staff, to accept the change as outlined in the September 7, 2000, memorandUm from Marian Shaw. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Sprague, to approve and adopt the negative declaration for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6001, with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" and incorporate the change as set forth in the September 7, 2000, memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission. Motion carried. Commissioner Tkac was seated at this time. 5.4) Vestin.q Tentative Tract 6005 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Commissioner Dhanens declared a conflict of interest of this item: Staff repOrt given recommending approval With conditions attached to resolution and including the memorandum dated August 30 from Stanley Grady. Public portion of the meeting was oPened. No one spoke in opposition. Fred" Porter, representing the applicant, stated that they are in agreement with most of staff recommendations, however, there are two conditions they would liketo see modified: Conditions.7.1.2 and 7.2. They propose for Condition 7.1.2 the following: Instead of construct full width curbs and gutters, what they propose is "construct a half width permanent paved road surface." In Condition 7.2 they agree to the condition down to the tract's south boundary to construct full road improvements, however, they propose to construct On RiverLakes Drive from the south tract boundary to Coffee Road to be a two-lane permanent road . surface. They would like the condition to read: "The following shall occur with Phase 2, construct RiverLakes Drive so it will be a fully improved collector from Hageman Road to the south boundary of Tentative Tract 6005. Improvements shall include curb, gutter, sidewalk, street paving, street lights, sewer, water and .storm drain. RiverLakes Drive from .the south tract boundary Shall be constructedto a two-lane, twelve foot wide permanent road surface." Public portion of the meeting was closed. :Commissioner Brady asked staff if they have a response to the proposed change in conditions? Ms. Shaw said that regards to 7.1.2 and 7.2 she has discussed this with Mr. Porter and the only thing she would add is a four foot grade at Shoulder. Mr. Porter agreed and Ms. Shaw Said that they would agree to the change in conditions as the applicant proposed. Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Page 7 nce is that it Would affect? Ms. Shaw said his concern is that with these elOpment. You are driving down the CommiSsioner Brady asked what the dist; said about 1/4_mile· Commissioner Brad) kind of requests, we get hodgepodge del street and you go from very wide to very narrow and then very wide again and that presents hazards. If, as Ms. Shaw sa~d, there is some benefit for ater development and not having to change th~ roadway he will accept that, but he doesn't like it. Commissioner Brady asked how the transition is made so there is no significant traffic impediments? Ms. Shaw said in the improvement plans, allowances have to be made for the lane drop. There are Caltrans standards for lane dropS that they will utilize on the Plllans. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady about Condition No 11 He said that it says that certain lots with water well faciliti;es will be landscaped to arterial and collector street standards; etc. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady to identify the lots that will have water well facilities o~n them. Mr. Grady said there is no indication On the map which lots would be Ithe water well sites. It is probably a generic condition. I ' Motion was made by Commissioner Brady!, SecOnded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve and adopt the negative declara'tion for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6005 with the findings and conditions set f,~rth in attached resolUtion Exhibit "A" with the folloWing modifications: To Condition 7.1.2 it should now read "dedicate Pebble Cove Court full width to the west si~e of Pacific Grove Court and Pacific Grove Court full width to the north line of ~has,,e One and construct same to half width with permanent pavement road surface. Condition 7.2 shall be modified to read as follows: "the following shall occ[Jr with Phase Two: Construct RiverLakes Drive so it will be a full width,T~'a~ 6005' Impr°vements willi~Clude- f~llYtimproved collectorfrom Haoeman Road to the south boundary of Tentative curb and gutter, sidewalk, street paving, st~'eet lights, sewer, water and storm drain lines. RiverLakes Drive from the south tract boundary to Coffee Road shall be constructed to two permanent twe!ve foot lanes with four foot shoulders..," Also, adopt the August 30, 2~00, memorandum from Stanley Grady to the Planning Commission. Motion carried. S.5) Vesting Tentative Tract 6007 (SmithTech Staff report given recommending approval subject to the memorandum from Marian ~ dated August 28, 2000. Public portion of the meeting was opened. USA) (Ward4)-.- tvith conditions attached to resolution 'haw of the Public Works Department Bob Smith, representing the applicant, said they have reviewed the conditions and are in agreement with them. Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Page R* John Gradhurst, a property owner in the area, said that his house backs up to the Allen Road corridor. Mr. Gradhurst stated that noise abatement there is not. adequate. He cannot have a normal conversation in his back yard with someone sitting next to him. The six foot concrete fence they have is not adequate for noise abatement. Traffic noise is going to be there but they are requesting that this item be continued until some studies can be done of the homeowners along the corridor. The traffic on Allen and COffee Roads just keeps getting worse. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked staff about drill island requirements and the. ordinance, He wanted to know what the acreage is required for drill islands in a subdivision similar to this? Mr, Grady said it is 2 acres, Commissioner Sprague asked if it is the same for Industrial and Mr. Grady said "yes, it is the same regardless of the zone." Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Shaw about her memorandum and asked her to explain the change she is proposing. Ms. Shaw said there was some discussion about Dover Way on Allen Road and its off-set from the existing Old Town Road on the opposite side so they added the condition to align Dover Way with Old Town Road to take care of any left turn over lap problems. It is one of three options that the developers presented. Either a landscape median" island to control the turning movements, redesign the tract to move Dover Way north or south to align with Old Town Road. Commissioner Brady asked if the map before them has to be altered before it can be finaled? Ms. Shaw said that if that is the option they choose to pursue, yes. They 'will either move Dover Way north or south. Commissioner Brady asked staff about noise studies and noise abatement. He asked if staff is relying on numerous noise studies for determination for putting up block walls that the noise is attenuated by the time it gets to the property line? Mr. Grady said that is correct. Commissioner Brady asked if there has been any new information that the pre-existing noise studies are wrong? Mr. Grady said "no." Commissioner Brady said he sympathizes with Mr. Gradhurst but this area is growing and so will the noise. He does not believe that the traffic increase with this subdivision is going to be so great as to cause this applicant to have to build block walls at other locations other.than around his property. Commissioner Brady said that he is willing to support'the project without requiring another noise study based on the historic use of noise studies that determine that block walls are adequate. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady if the subdivision immediately to the north have block walls on the street along Allen Road? Mr. Grady said he has not been out to the site so he does not know for sure. The studies in the past have indicated that a block wall and a ten foot landscaping area reduces 'noise to 65 Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Parle 9 dB which Commissione~ Boyle recalls to be about as noisy as a dishwasher which is not an overly noisy situation. He, therefore, agrees with Mr. Brady and suppOrts the project without any additional noise studies. Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6007 with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" including the memo dated AugUst 28, 2000, from Marian Shaw and the memo regarding noise attenuation that was previously mentioned. Motion carried. 5.6) Vestina Tentative Tract 6008 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 6) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution. Public portion of the meeting was opened. Mr. Roger HOlder, a resident of the area, stated that he had a few problems with the.proposed development. He feels that 120 lots on 26 acres is too many. It is not in concordance with the Black Oak tract that he lives in. The Black Oak tract has lot sizes from 7,000 feet to 16,000 feet. They are against having small lot homes with the density of those homes being very similar to densities of apartment and condiminium complexes. They also are against having long 1,000 foOt blocks. The traffic going to the Jr. High School with no other access is terrible. The street needs to extend to Pacheco before this development is considered. The streets that are talked about being second access roads are not there at this time. Reduced lot depth is also a Problem. He hopes the Commission turns down this project until the landowner comes up with a better Plan to get traffic in and out around a Jr. High School and having less density of people in {he area. Roger Mclntosh, representing Castle and Cooke Inc., CA, said that he is not there to oppose the project but does want to clarify a condition. Condition No. 4 from the Public Works Department calls for the subdivision to be within a proposed planned drainage area. They are assuming the detention basin is immediately across Mountain Vista and the property line of the 80 acres to the south. If that is the case, that detention basin would be on Castle and Cooke's property and they want to make it clear that any capacity used for this tract WOuld need to be purchased from Castle and Cooke. Also, Mr. Mclntosh had a question about the at grade crossing. He was invOlved in the zone change for this particular piece several years ago and he recalls there was a requirement to pay a mitigation fee for the percent share of this properties' contribution to the at grade crossing that is proposed at the railroad tracks and Pacheco Road and he did not see that in the staff report. Minutes, PC, SePtember 7, 2000 Page 10 Harold Robertson, representing the applicant, stated that they have reviewed the conditions of approval and met with Planning staff and Public Works Department andthey do not have any problems with any of the conditions, however, he wanted to address a few of the comments that have been made and present a sketch of the cul-de-sac at the southwest corner of the subdivision. The sketch directly relates to Mr. Mclntosh comments about the - proposed drainage area. Mr. Robertson stated that in meetings with the Public Works Department, they were told the proposed planned drainage area is currently under design and formation and the drainage will end up in a temporary drainage detention basin on the east side of Mt. Vista. They wanted to make the Commission aware that the conditions of approval on this tract allowed for the elimination of their sump which encumbered lots 46, 47 and 48. If the pDA is successful then they will no longer be utilizing the sump in that area and there will be three additional lots gained. As far as the purchase of a temporary detention basin on the east side of Mt. Vista, the fees for the PDA would go toward the payment of acquiring that detention basin. -Mr. Robertson stated that he wanted the Commission to address one other question.. Mr. Grady indicated earlier that they requested a modification for lot depths of less than 100 feet. It listed certain lots and did not list a modification for lot 48 and that would need to be taken into consideration should the PDA come to fruition and the sump that is now shown on the tract is no longer needed. · Mr. Robertson, in addressing Mr. Holder's comments regarding the design of the subdivision and the size of the lots and the access in that area, said that with the development of this tract Mt. Vista Drive will be constructed at a full half-width collector from the railroad tracks north to the north limits of this tract and there is also a condition being imposed on this tract to add an additional 'lane from the north boundary of this tract to Campus Park which will ease the traffic burdens that are out there already. Mr. Holden said that the condition that they are going to increase the street size does not satisfy the access down the street. If something happens at the Jr. High School he is concerned that help will not be able to get there if the street is blocked off. He also said that the homeowners in the Black Oak Development do not want a small lot subdivision nearby. It will decrease the value of their houses.- He requested the Commission deny this application. Mr. Robertson stated the long block modification is in fact for Alcove Spring Drive which is the east/west street on the north end side of the development not Mt. Vista. Susan McNeish, a property owner in the area, stated that she is the closest house to this development and has been there for five years. She stated that she doesn't have a problem with the single family homes going in the area, but she does have a'problem with the reduced lot depths. She feels that her property value will decrease. She requested the Planning Commission Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Page 11 recOnsider'the lot sizes to a size in accordance.with homes that already exist in the area. Ms. McNeish stated that her daughter goes to the Jr. High and the traffic in and out is a disaster. Sarah McNeish spoke and reiterated her mother's Statements. Public portion of the meeting was closed. CommisSioner Brady stated that he is not happy with where the school district put the school either. The Commission had nothing to do with putting the school there but is having to deal with the consequences. Some of the consequences is there is a piece of property around the school that is not developed and unless it is developed, it will alwaYs be a dirt lot. Because of the unique area, the ordinances allow applicants some ability to tweak their project because of the strange nature of the land. With regard to Alcove Spring Way, it is more than the 1,000 foot length that the ordinance allows but we have. approved blocks much longer than this when there is a constraint like there is for this property. Commissioner Brady does not believe it is overly long. When the project to the north develops, there will be a connection to it. Mr. Robertson said that there will be other local streets that will access out onto Mt. Vista Drive. Commissioner Brady asked Jim Shapazian (Fire Marshal) if he looked over the proposed map? Mr. Shapazian said the fire department had no concerns over the secondary access. They will be required to conStruct the secondary access before the first building permit is issued. Mr. Robertson saidthat Trail Blazer Drive on the south side of the school is constructed half-Width. The secondary access will connect from that around the corner to Black Hills Drive. Mr. Brady asked if there will be a secondary access that does not involve Mt. Vista Drive during the construction of the first phase? Mr. Robertson said "no." Mr. Brady asked Mr. Shapazian if that was satisfactory. Mr. Shapazian said the way they look at it is if one intersection is closed, as long as there is another way out, and in, it meets the Fire Department's condition. Commissioner Brady said that he believes Mr. Holder's concern is that if Alcove Springs Way and Mt. Vista Drive were to be blocked, if -the Fire Department would still have appropriate access to this project? Mr. Shapazian said that if Mt. Vista were a full width collector they would have less concern. ^ half-width would cause more of concern. Ms. Shaw said that it was half-width in front of the school. Commissioner Bradysaid that the lot Sizes d° not concern him. The project to the west has lots 7,000 to 16,000 sq.ft, and this project having lots 6,000 to 13,000 is appropriate. It is not a huge difference. Commissioner Brady asked staff if they remembered when the project to the east came th_rough there was a requirement, based on orderly development, that the applicant build out their half of Mt. Vista Drive to Campus Park? Ms. Shaw. said the former PUD to the east, that was rezoned recently, is required to Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Page 17 build their frontage but the piece that they do not own (the southeast corner of Mt. Vista and Campus Park) are required to add one additional northbound lane on Mt. Vista. Commissioner Brady asked if we are requiring this applicant to do something similar? Ms. Shaw said "yes." This applicant.has to build one additional.lane on the west side of Mt. Vista from the north boundary of their tract all the way to Mt. Vista. Commissioner Brady said that Mr. Mclntosh raised an issue about the "at grade crossing" for Mt. Vista drive crossing the railroad tracks and a requirement on . the-property to pay fees and asked if staff had some response as to why that condition is not on this project? Ms. Shaw said that it was her understanding that it was a condition of a zone change, which is generally an ordinance, so it · does not have to be a condition but they can add something which could say "conditions from the previoi~s zone change will be carried forward with regards to mitigation." Commissioner Brady asked staff to respond to the comment that was made about-the drainage and the fact that we put in a requirement that drainage would occur to a location off-site that, from what he understands, to a property that this applicant doesn't own? Ms. Shaw said that that is correct. We are requiring that this tract participate in a planned drainage area. We have put this condition on other tracts in the area. We are putting together a planned ' drainage area for almost this entire section. We are requiring that tracts as they develop participate in the planned drainage area: One of the things that we are looking at is draining the storm water into the canal. It would probably be a temporary sump until we can pump the water into the canal. Commissioner Brady asked about fencing for the canal and asked if there is a condition that addresses canal fencing for this project? Mr. Grady said "there is not.". He believes that there should be something in place that before the first building permit is issued within 1/4 of a mile of a Canal, that canal fencing be put up. CommisSioner Sprague asked what the actual pipeline location is to the first residential lot on Mt. Vista Drive (lot 4 and 5)? He wanted to know if the gas line traversed through the center of the 60 foot easement. Mr. Grady said the map does not show the location. Commissioner Sprague said he.was worried about the pipeline for safety sake and wanted to know the size of the pipeline before this issued was decided. Commissioner Sprague asked Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, if he was satisfied with the street configurations? Mr. Walker said that this is a very typical development. There is nothing unusual about it. They are requiring additional lanes on Mt. Vista which will be a 90-foot street. The traffic is a result of the school being sited there which we had no chOice over. The future development that is proposed for that is adequate and for the interim the width of streets that we have shown should be satisfactory. Minutes, PC, September 7~ 2000 Page13 Commissioner Boyle asked if there are limitations about how close a school could be located to PG&E gas transmission lines and pipes? Mr. Grady said the school district does have siting criteria but we are not involved in it so we do not know exactly what the separation requirements are. Commissioner Boyle asked Ms. Shaw if she had anY idea how long it would be before Mt. Vista would be completed to the south and cross Pacheco Road? Ms. Shaw said she believes that there is something in the works for crossing the railroad but she expects it will be at least two years before anything is constructed there. Commissioner Brady said that the railroad crossing is a different grade (higher than the roadway) and he asked if at some point they will raise Mt. Vista to the railroad crossing grade and whether that will interfere with the access point at Mt, Vista and Trail Blazer Drive? Ms. Shaw said that condition No. 5 requires a design study for the horizontal grade of the road and to provide to the city any necessary slope easements to accommodate getting Mt. Vista up over the railroad traCks. Public Works will be working with Porter Robertson on this study. Commissioner Brady asked if the slope study says that Trail Blazer is not going to be at grade with Mt. Vista what would happen? Ms. Shaw said they will have to do a little grading to get the street up. It should not be a problem. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Robertson about putting in block walls or changing the design ofthe streets around the school. Mr. Robertson said that in completing a design like that you would have a street along the north and west side and you would have extremely deep lots that would run the full width of theproperty. The lots fronting on the school would be over 200 feetdeep. It creates a problem when you consider the size of the lots and the marketability of the lots. His client has done their marketing studies and based on the current land use designation and the zoning and the use for this land along a jr. high or elementary school this type of lot is more marketable than .the large estate lots. Roger Mclntosh stated that he was involved in the siting of the jr. high about ten years ago and also processed the zone change. At the time the school was sited at that location, the school district wanted to site the jr. high school here and an elementary school further up the road at Campus Park Drive and Mt. Vista. They specifically placed it at this location so that there would be enough room to have two rows of lots on the north side and the west side with a street that ran not adjacent to the school, because the school at that time didn't have funding to put in the streets that fronted the school sites. They had funding for one local street - Mt. Vista Drive in front of their school. They put in the two streets on the east side and south side and the property was left in this configuration to be subdivided in exactly the way it is shown here. The school site was specifically at this location because at the time the criteria for setback of the gas lines was four hundred feet to habitable structures. Now that has changed: All school sites have to go through the Department of Hazardous Materials and the criteria has'changed. That is wh'y it was put'where it is and. the school district.didn't want those streets fronting on its sit~. Minutes, PC, September 7,* 2000 Parle 1~. commissioner Boyle said that his main concern is noise and they should try to do something to make .sure the neighborhood has. as little noise impact as possible. But Commissioner Boyle said his primary concern has to do with the extension of the street through to Pacheco and he would like to see this project developed at the same time that intersection goes through. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if they have come up with any answers on the gas line? Mr.. Grady said they have no information on the size of the line. It is possibly a 36" line. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Robertson if he had any information on the gas lines adjacent to this subdivision? Mr. Robertson said not specifically with this subdivision. The only experience he had with these gas lines Was the development of Ridgeview High School which is an extension of this line. It is a 34" high pressure gas line. Whenever a school or residential development is built near a gas line, PG&E is responsible to go in and lower that. line-and they are also.responsible to replace it and increase the gauge which is the thickness of the wail'of the pipe. Commissioner Sprague said that he would like staff to look at easements and our ordinance and to work with the Fire Department to see what they feel would be a safe distance for eXplosive materials adjacent to residential subdivisions? Maybe do some comparisons with other cities. Commissioner Sprague said that he has a safety iSsue regarding the gas line that needs to be dealt with tonight. Commissioner Brady asked staff if there is a standard that it has to be 50 feet from the centerline of the pipeline to the nearest strUcture? Mr. Grady said that is the standard we have been applying to projects. Commissioner Brady asked the Fire Marshal if based on the map showing where the pipeline is in relationship to the residences if he believes the 50-foot setback requirement has been met? And if he had any safety concerns? Mr. Shapzian said that gas pipelines have an excellent record and because of their safety record he does not have a problem with this. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6008 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached re§olution Exhibit "A" and adding one condition that prior to pulling the first building permit, any canal within 1/4 mile have fencing placed on it to protect the residents of this subdivision. Motion carried. A five minute recess was taken. PUBLIC HEARING, Zone Change P00-0519 (Lee Jamieson, Hopper Industries) (Ward4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution and include the memorandum dated January 19, 2000 from Marian Shaw of the Public Works Department, Public portiOn of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Page 15 Lee Jamieson, representing Ropper Industries, stated that they agreed with the staff report and the conditions of approval. He said that he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public portion of the meeting was closed. COmmissioner Sprague said that he would like to increase the evergreen trees from 30 percent to 50 or 60 percent. He feels that they should be a bigger standards. The water tree well around the parking lot sites should be 36" instead of 18" to allow the' capability for the trees to grow. Commissioner Sprague said that he is concerned about the PG&E area in back of the center. Promenade one is partially developed into a grass area and he would like to see that continued on. Another good use would be a commercial nursery put in there with some fencing. Commissioner Sprague said that he is requesting this go to a committee to consider PCD conditions similar to what they have done in the past. They could work with the applicant and come back in two weeks with some conditions and then move forward with the project. Mr. Jamieson said that he would like to point out the differences in the Coleman project and the Church project on Ming Avenue that Commissioner Sprague mentioned. The specific plan requires him to come to the Commission with a PCD plan. It was contemplated in the specific plan to try to set out all the terms and conditions for development. Not only his piece but the other commercial pieces and residential areas in the RiverLakes area. There is berming detail, size of plants, coverage ratios and he feels these issues have been dealt with and that was the purpose of going through the process of a specific plan as opposed to other areas where there is a C~2 piece of property where they are trying to change the use on and starting from scratch. This area has been designed and planned. They are trying to do something user friendly. The PG&E easement behind the property does present problems and one of his goals is to find a commercial nursery to go in there. There are so many restrictions from PG&E about what you can do that he is going to try to find a use that is complementary. Commissioner Brady said that he spoke briefly with Mr. Jamieson on his way in tonight about the issue of the wireline easement. Commissioner Brady said that he has seen the problem and been out to the property and doesn't feel like the wireline easement is a problem, but an opportunity. The community has a problem with wireline easements throughout and they present a problem everywhere. Commissioner Brady feels that using the easement as a pedestrian access would be beneficial to the surrounding property owners. Commissioner Brady said that he is unclear about how they are going to prevent people from dumping on the property and asked staff if there is some requirement for fencing or gating along the edge? Mr. Grady said there is a condition that requires a gate or physical barrier at the end of the site next to Granite Falls. Commissioner Brady asked if the fencing would prevent pedestrian access. Mr. Grady said that unless they climbed it it would. Mr. Jamieson said that it was. his ' Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Page 16 understanding that the condition required him to build a block wall along the area where the sump is from the neighborhood Until it reaches the commercial property. He would be willing to make that a condition if it is not already one. Commissioner BradY had a problem with the freestanding pads and the condition being applied to allow them to be switched around without coming back to the Planning Commission. He asked staff why they are making that condition? Mr, Grady said that our history has been that when those proposals are made to the Commission, that they didn't present any technical problems for. traffic or the Commission so staff sees it as an opportunity to provide more flexibility with the siting of those facilities by predetermining the numbers of them but not assigning them to specific pads. Commissioner Brady said that on other shopping centers those pads usually end up being fast food restaurants that present problems with sqUack boxes and where the vehicle holding areas will be and that is a significant concern with him. This particUlar site doesn't ~ present quite a problem as it has such a big parking lot and doesn't have a lOt of houses on that side of it but Commissioner Brady asked how the issue of squack boxes will be handled if they are swapping these around? Mr. Grady said that if this was in an area where the I°cation of those could have some impact on residences, they would have a different opinion. The pad closest t° the residences is still a considerable distance. Staff feels that the proximity of those pads are not close enough to any residence to create a potential problem in the future if they were switched. Mr. Grady said the condition they are proposing is "site specific" only. CommiSsioner Brady said that this shopping center is over-parked as it has a huge parking lot but when the pads are switched around will the Traffic Engineer be involved looking at traffic patterns within the parking lot to see how those are affected and approve those as part of the site plan review? Ms. Shaw said that the Traffic Engineer will review the site p!an when it goes through Site Plan Review. commissioner Brady asked Ms. Shaw to go through her memorandum and asked if the date is correct? Ms. Shaw said "no" it should be dated this morning - September 7, 2000. Ms. Shaw explained her memorandum to the Commission. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Jamieson if he was in agreement with those modifications? Mr. Jamieson said "yes." Commissioner Brady said that he wanted to make sure the project is conditioned so that all lighting stays on the project that they are not lighting the adjacent properties. Forty foot high lighting standards may be inappropriate on the edges of this project. Mr. Grady said that the parking lot is a sufficient distance between the buildings and the adjoining residential that is behind the towerline easement. Using the existing standard may.not create a problem at all. Commissioner Brady asked if there is any condition that would preclude the applicant from placing lights on the buildings that might shine on properties to the north? Mr. Grady said they do not have a condition that addresses that specific issue. Commissioner Brady asked Mr. Jamieson what their plan for lighting is behind the buildings to the north? Mr. Jamieson said that the issue is non- existent on the piece behind the existing center because of the existence of Granite FailS Drive which is a foUr lane street. He said that he has no problem with a condition with the lighting so that it stays on the back portion of the property. Commissioner Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Page17 Brady said he would be more comfortable with a condition that limited the lighting to prevent spillage of the light onto the property to the north. Mr. Jamieson clarified that the property Commissioner Brady was talking about was the property directly behind the PG&E eaSements? Commissioner Brady said "yes" and Mr. Jamieson said that would be acceptable. Commissioner Sprague asked about the tree size and wanted to know what a 15 gallon tree size is? Mr. Grady said that there is a standard based on the diameter of the trunk which separates a 15 gallon from a 24-inch box. Commissioner Sprague asked how they are going to guarantee there will be some shade trees in the parking lot? Would the applicant be amenable to having an increase in the 30 percent required to 50 percent evergreen or more in the parking lot? Mr. Jamieson asked if 40 percent Would be agreeable? Commissioner Sprague said that savings would be made in maintenance. Mr. Jamieson said he would be agreeable to adhering to his comments while still trying to maintain the theme of the shopping center. Commissioner Sprague said ~that they still needed to look at the tree wells. Eighteen inch would not allow the trees to grow and expand. Commissioner SPrague said that Condition No. 11 states that the applicant will be responsible for maintaining the PG&E easement for weeds and trash. He asked how we can police that issue? Mr. Grady said it would be done by Code Enforcement. Commissioner Sprague asked if the sign issues will be addressed by staff? Mr. Grady said the applicant, will be submitting a comprehensive Sign Plant which would come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Boyle asked if the Commission can approve the project but asked if the landscape pOrtiOn could be looked at in committee? Mr. Grady said they could do that because this is a PCD project. Commissioner Tkac said that a 24-inch box tree is generally a minimum of a 12 foot by two inch tree. Commissioner Tkac asked Mr. Jamieson if he would agree to approving the project tonight but have the landscape come back to .the Commission? Mr. Jamieson said that his main goal is to move the project forward but if the Commission would like to separate out the landscape issue he doesn't have a problem with that as long as the zone change is approved. Commissioner Sprague asked if an EIR was ever done on this site? Mr. Grady said that he thought there was an EIR done along with the Specific Plan. Mr. Grady said that the property as it stands now does not involve a land use change or a change in zone other than a C-2 to a PCD as required by the RiverLakes Specific Plan. Commissioner Dhanens asked if a site plan review had already been done on this? Ms. Shaw saidyes it has. Commissioner Dhanens asked the Traffic Engineer if he was satisfied with internal circulation? Mr. Walker said that the site plan review conditions attached to the staff report covers traffic issues unless there is. a major change in pads. Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Page 18 Mr. Walker said that all of the major entranCes have a very long throat of entrance before they have a cross aisle or parking and that is part of the design that they work out with the developer while viewing plans. Commissioner Dhanens asked about two intersections to Main Plaza Drive with local' traffic aisles that do not appear to have a deeper throat dimension than any other parking lot relationship and there are several locations that cars are backing into drive aisles that are perpendicular to the next set of parking stalls so that they are backing into a drive aisle as opposed to another car. Mr. Walker said that the backing issue is quite a ways from a public street, its all internal, its away from the major area of conflict but it's amuch reduced opportunity of conflict. With regards to the driveways off of Main Plaza,.they are approximately 70 to 80 feet off of the roadway before you have the centerline of the intersecting aisle. Commissioner Dhanens said that it still doesn't seem to be a very big throat dimension. Mr. Walker said that in the application its not the throat dimension that is a concern, it is the turning movements. The potential for . turning movements'- left turns in, left turns out. The operation of the intersection itself, notthe throat of the adjacent drive aisles. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Jamieson if they utilized diagonal parking in the Phase 1 project? Mr. Jamieson said "yes." Commissioner Dhanens said that this project is 700 cars over parked and a parking ratio of 6 per 1,000 square feet and wondered if they considered diagonal parking for this phase? Mr. Jamieson said that the standard for commercial shopping centers in higher impact areas is somewhere around 4.5 per 1,000. The City of Bakersfield starts at 5 per 1,000 and goes down from that point. The industry standard they most like to see if 5 to 1,000. In this case, they had originally designed angled parking. 'The rather large box on the map that says No. 5 on it requires parallel parking and since we did not have a parking issue or any where close to a parking issue, that was easy enough to accommodate the standards. Commissioner Dhanens asked if the separation between the parking lots with a continuous landscape strip is as narrow as it is on the map? Mr. Jamieson said that he does not believe that the larger strip there is as narrow as it is on the map. That had something to do With the design and the PG&E property as'it ran through on a north- south trajectory in front of that property. Commissioner Dhanens said that since the project is over-parked, he would like to see angled parking, adding some additional landscaping or adding width to the existing landscape strips that are there to separate the parking to reduce the total number of spaces and also to provide more of a breakup of that parking lot. Commissioner Dhanens said that if they have to sacrifice some parking spaces to increase the landscaping it would be a benefit to the project overall. Mr. Jamieson said that he has * never had a client Complain about too much parking especially during the holiday season. Excess parking is a benefit to the project. Commissioner Brady said that he is comfortable with the landscape plan as proposed and would support the project. He does not feel it is necessary to go to a committee for landscaping and site plan review can handle the traffic issues. Minutes, PC, September 7, 2000 Pa~e 19. = '10. Commissioner Sprague said that he would go along with Commissioner Brady if the applicant would guarantee 36" tree wells for watering and expansion of the trees and he would like to see Item 8.4 go to 40 percent evergreen instead of 30 percent. Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Brady, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Zone Change P00-0519 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" and recommend same to the City Council with the inclusion of Planning Condition No. 5 to prevent the lighting from going onto the residential areas and including the September 7 memo which was previously dated January lg from Marian Shaw. Motion was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Kemper, Sprague, Tkac, Dhanens NOES: ABSENT: None CommiSsioner McGinnis COMMUNICATIONS There were no written or verbal communications. COMMISSION COMMENTS There were no Commission comments. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Because'the next meeting is scheduled for general plan hearings, it was decided to have a pre-meeting on September 18, 2000. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording 'Secretary Planning Director / October 4, 2000