Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/19/00 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Council Chamber, City Hall 1~ ROLL'CALL Thursday, October 19, 2000 5:30 p.m. MICHAEL DHANENS, Chairman STEPHEN BOYLE, Vice-Chairman MA THEW BRAD Y MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER TOM MCGINNIS RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TI(AC 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 APPEAr 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 If all appeals are withdrawn prior to the City Council hearing, it will not be conducted and the decision of the Planning Commission will stand. If no appeal is received within the specified time period or if all appeals filed are withdrawn, the action of the Planning Commission shall become final.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 - OctOber 19, 2000 Page 2 4. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS - (marked by asterisk (*) These items will be acted on as a group without individual staff presentations if no member of the Planning Commission or audience wishes to comment or ask questions on a case. The items are recommended for approval by staff. The applicant has been informed of any special conditions and has signed an agreement to conditions of approval and requested to be placed on the consent agenda. If anyone wishes to discuss or testify on any of the consent items the item(s) will be taken off 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) Agendaltem 4) - Minutes of Planning Commission meetings. 3.2) Agenda Item 6) - Administrative Reviews - Northwest Promenade. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held September 7, 1'8 and 21, 2000. (Ward 4) (Ward 3) PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 5.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6012 (Porter-Robertson) Consisting of 75 lots for single family residential purposes and one sump lot on 16.25 acres, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling) and C-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) and a request to allow a reduced lot depth for lots abutting the Kern River Freeway Specific Plan Line, generally located approximately 660 feet West of Renfro Road, and 1/4 mile north of Stockdale Highway. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group vote 5.2) Tentative Tract 5998 (Optional Design) (Porter-Robertson) Containing 49 buildable lots and two landscape lots on 18.14 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling). The optional design applies to double frontage lots, block length in excess of 1,000 feet, private streets, and reverse corner lots; located approximately one mile south of Highway 178, 1/4 mile east of Miramonte Drive (extended). (Negative Declaration on file) ? RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group vote Agenda, PC, Thursday - October 19, 2000 Page 3 (Ward 4) 5.3) Tentative Tract 6016 (Optional Desi.qn) (Porter-Robertson) Containing 59 buildable lots, a common area and a sump on 9.92 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling). The optional design applies to non-radial, non-perpendicular lots lines, double frontage lots, private streets, reverse corner lots, and a reduction in minimum parcel size; lOcated at the northwest corner of Hageman Road and RiverLakes Drive. (Negative Declaration on file) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Group vote 5.4) (Ward 4) Vesting Tentative Tract 6003 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 207 buildable lots and one sump lot on 53.9 acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling); located east of Fruitvale Avenue on the south side of Krebs Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from October 5, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE Groupvote (Ward 4) 5.5) Vesting Tentative Tract 6013 (Porter-Robertson) Containing 187 buildable lots, two sump lots, and one lot for a water well on 84.75 gross acres for single family residential purposes, zoned R-1 (One Family Dwelling); Iocatedon the north side of Hageman Road and the west side of Knudsen Drive, about % mile east of Fruitvale Avenue. (Negative' Declaration on file) (Continued from October 5, 2000) RECOMMENDATION: CONTINUE UNTIL NOVEMBER 2, 2000 Group vote 6. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Report from the Planning Director on P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) Final Development Plan Modification. The report documents the Director's approval of a minor Modification to PCD Final Development Plan for buildings at the existing Northwest Promenade Shopping Center, located north of Rosedale Highway, west of Coffee Road to Main Plaza Drive. (Pursuant to BMC Section 17.54.100 D) (Categorically Exempt) A. Parcels 2, 5 and 7 of Parcel Map 10456: A request to substitute 3 buildings approved for a total of 131,000 square feet with 2 buildings totaling 139,920 square feet and garden center. Agenda, PC, Thursday - October 19, 2000 Page 4 (Ward 4) Parcels 3 and 17 of Parcel Map 10456: A request to substitute 2 freeStanding buildings totaling 37,000 square feet with 2 freestanding buildings totaling 33,000 square 'feet. RECOMMENDATION: Accept Reports as Filed. Group Vote. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written B) Verbal COMMISSION COMMENTS A) Commi~ees DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCEl i ~.TION OF THF NEXT PRE-MEETING. '10. ADJOURNMENT October 3, 2000 Planning Directbr ~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held October 19, 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 TOM MCGINNIS MARTI MUNIS-KEMPER RON SPRAGUE JEFFREY TKAC ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: CARL HERNANDEZ, Assistant City Attorney DENNIS FIDLER, 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 m CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 3.1) 3.2) Agenda Item 4). Minutes of Planning Commission meetings. Agenda Item 6)- Administrative Reviews - Northwest Promenade. A motion was made'by Commissioner-Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, to appro?e the-Consent Agenda items. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, October 19, 2000 Page 2 o APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes of the regular meetings held September 7, 18 and 21, 2000. See Consent agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps $.1) Vesting Tentative Tract 6012 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution and including the October 16 memorandum from the Public Works Department. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Fred Porter, representing the applicant, stated that they were in agreement with all of the conditions and he is available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Arthur Unger, representing the Sierra Club, wanted to remind the Commission that the Kern River Freeway has not yet been officially passed and may never be built. The Sierra Club has been working for 15 years to see that it is never built and they hope that these houses will not be built on the assumption that the Kern River Freeway or some modification of it will be part of the plan to get traffic to and from these houses. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Brady asked the Public Works Department if. they have a response to Mr. Unger's statement about the City's intention to construct an expressway along the roadway in the event that CalTrans does not put in the Kern River Freeway? Ms. Shaw said that they have a specific plan line along this alignment and the City has purchased quite a bit of the alignment. The intent of the City at this time is to follow through with construction of the freeway with CalTrans. Failing that, we will need to construct a local expressway along this same alignment to carry projected traffic for development. Commissioner Brady asked if Public Works feels there will be adequate roadways available to handle the traffic produced from this application? Ms. Shaw said "yes." Commissioner Brady said based on that testimony he feels comfortable supporting the project with the changes set forth on the October 16 and October 19 memorandums. Commissioner Boyle asked if the Kern River Freeway is not built and the expressway is, would it be within the 210 feet or would they require the 300 feet for the expressway? Ms. Shaw said the expressway can easily be Minutes, PC, October 19, 2000 Page 3 accommodated within 210 feet. Commissioner Boyle asked that since it is- unknown whether we are going to build a freeway or an expressway, why are we allowing a lower depth for the lots? If the freeway is built, the lots will disappear but if we build an expressway, then these people end up too close to it. Why are we waiving city standards? Mr. Grady said that in either case, the depth of the lots would be less than what is allowed by ordinance. There isn't a solution to the problem because of the configuration of the site based on the design that the applicant has submitted to us. There isn't an overwhelming need to achieve that depth other than the fact that the design of the subdivision could not be accommodated for the size of that parcel that the applicant is working with given the right-of-way that is going through there. Commissioner Boyle asked if it wouldn't be possible to take out a couple of lots and make those lots deeper? Mr. Grady said "absolutely." Commissioner Boyle said that his underStanding reading the staff report is that if CalTrans builds the freeway, then the lots on the north portion of the property would be condemned by CalTrans in order to make the 300 foot width so if we end up with a freeway there, those north lots won't exist. But if we end up with a parkway, those lots will exist and they will be backing up to the parkway and then we've got substandard lots backed up to a very noisy road and he wondered why we would want to do that? Why would we want to build houses that don't have enough depth~ between them and the roadway? Mr. Grady said that the applicant may have a better answer. Mr. Porter said that not only do they have rough grading completed but also the sewer line and entire storm drain system installed. It so happens that it goes along that road parallel to the freeway. There is a lot of infrastructure in already and the next step is curb and gutters. Commissioner Boyle said that he doesn't have a problem per se but he doesn't know why we are reducing the standards when there is a good possibility that these lots will be backing up to an expressway and then we force people to live close to a very noisy road. CommisSioner Dhanens asked staff if they remembered why a m°dification was granted in 1992 to 109 feet before the installation of the storm system, grading and sewer system? Mr. Grady said he would have to check the file. Commissioner Dhanens said the staff report says that CalTrans is interested in purchasing the right-of-way within the next 15 months and does that give us any indication to their sincerity or willingness to construct the freeway? Ms. Shaw said "yes, CalTrans has already purchased some right~of-way along this freeway towards Coffee Road. She said she feels they have intentions to follow through on this. Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw if that were to take place, CalTrans would probably deem the lots unbuildable, and is the local street adjacent to a freeway relationship that is going to result in something that the city would approve of? Ms. Shaw said that we have approved similar situations in other parts of town. Minutes, PC, October 19, 2000 Parle 4 Commissioner Dhanens stated that the applicant is proposing a 20-foot wide secondary access easement going easterly to Renfro Road and in the staff report one of the conditions says that one of the streets be extended south to Stockdale Highway to provide secondary emergency access. Does the applicant have a choice of either solution or are they required to extend one of the streets south to Stockdale Highway? Ms. Shaw said the condition is written to give them a little bit a leeway on how they obtained their emergency access. Immediately west of this tract is the county's jurisdiction and there is actually a proposed tract for that area and they are trying to get the county to have the owners work together to get the roadway put in. Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady if this is the first time the Planning Department has required an easement for a future masonry wall such as the one along t.he east boundary of this tract to the proposed C-1 zoned site? Mr. Grady said "no, it is not." Commissioner Dhanens asked if Mr. Grady had found out why the modification was granted in 1992 and Mr. Grady said that they do not have the case file with them tonight. Motion was made by CommissionerSprague, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract 6012 with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" incorporating the additional finding listed in the Planning Director's memorandum October 19, 2000 and the October 16, 2000 memorandum from Marian Shaw. Motion carried. Commissioner Boyle voted no. 5.2) Tentative Tract 5998 (Optional Desian) (Porter-Robertson) (Ward3) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution. Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Randy Bergquist, representing the applicant, said that there were a few conditions that he would like to address. One of them is Public Works Condition 1.6 allowing less than 500 ft. minimum radius on the local streets. Mr. Bergquist said that he talked to traffic and staff on this and what he did agree to was to try to redesign the subdivision with 500 ft. radius' which is the standard but there are times, particularly at the entrance to the subdivision, because of the configuration of the parcel, they would like to use 300 ft. in order to get balanced acreage and depth on the lots on either side of the road. He requested that the Commission approve the modification to permit the 300 ft. radius, knowing they will go to 500 ft. whenever they can within that subdivision. Minutes, PC, October 19, 2000 Page 5 Another item is Planning Department Condition No. 3 which states "subdivision shall be developed.in no more than one phase." Mr. Bergquist said they did make a statement that there would be a phased map if they choose to go ahead with it. Public Works Condition No. 5.2 says "because no phasing sequence was shown, a phasing plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer for his review and approval at which time improvement requirements for each phase will be determined." Mr. Bergquist asked that Planning Department Condition No. 3 be deleted in favor of Item 5.2 of Public Works conditions. The third item that Mr. Bergquist wanted to discuss was Item No. 6 from the Public Works Department which says that the "maximum size required for grading plans shall be 24 x 36." He'doesn't feel this is necessary and would like it deleted. Public portion of the meeting, was closed. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if the 300 ft. radius posed a problem for staff and the Fire Department? Mr. Shapazian, Fire Marshal, said they have reviewed it and there doesn't seem to be a problem with it. He said that it is his understanding that in future subdivisions Mira Monte will be extended and there will be an additional access. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Bergquist if roll curb and gutters were being placed on all the streets? Mr. Bergquist said '~yes." Commissioner Sprague asked if the roll curbs could be flattened at the driveway entrances and still maintain the drain on the gutter beCause cars going in and out of these driveways seem to need front end alignments frequently. Mr. Bergquist said he thinks from a construction standpoint it is possible but if the gutters are needed to carry drainage, you wouldn't want to do that. Mr. Bergquist said they would investigate it. Commissioner Sprague said he would support the site and the changes. CommissiOner Boyle said he supports the project bUt looking at the map he can't tell which intersection the radius is being changed to 300 ft. He would like to better understand the issue. Mr. Bergquist said the 300 ft. radius was primarily on the entrance to the westerly and southerly boundary. There are some 300 ft. radius intersections inside the subdivision to give it a little character instead of just a straight road. Commissioner Boyle asked Public Works what the concern is from a 500 ft. radiUs to a 300 ft. radius? Ms. Shaw said it is a question of site line distances and there is a possibility they would.have to restrict parking. Ms. Shaw said she has spoken to the Traffic Engineer and there is some criteria for the use of 300 ft. radii in residential subdivisions. Ms. Shaw stated that if the Commission approved his request for the 300 ft. radius, the Public Works Department needs to add some language that they would have to have approval of the Traffic Engineer. Minutes, PC, October 19, 2000 Page 6 Commissioner Sprague asked if the applicant had a problem with that? Mr. Bergquist said "no." Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw about the applicant's request to delete the sidewalks in this tract and what is the basis for Public Work's position on the sidewalk? Ms. Shaw said that generally speaking they do not like to eliminate sidewalks in private subdivisions, but in this case, this particular development has a long history with the City of Bakersfield and there just aren't sidewalks out there. This is consistent with the way it has been developing. Commissioner Dhanens asked Ms. Shaw if Mira Monte will be extended south? Ms. Shaw said she has not seen any plans to extend Mira Monte but she is not the city's expert on this development. Commissioner Dhanens said that he supports the project as long as the Traffic Engineer has the final say over the radius question. Commissioner Brady asked staff if they have a comment about deleting Planning Department Condition No. 3? Mr. Grady said that the map didn't show any phasing and if Public Works is willing to allow and review a phasing plan to allow and address the improvement'phasing, staff doesn't object to that. Commissioner Brady asked Ms. Shaw to comment on the request to delete Public Work's Condition No. 6 that grading plans shall be 24 x 36? Ms. Shaw said she would prefer to see grading plans that size but she has no objection to deleting the condition. Commissioner Brady said he would support the project with the condition changes as requested by the applicant and the requirement that the 300 ft. radius be subject to the Traffic Engineer's approval. Ms. Shaw said she had some language for the condition regarding the street radii. Motion was made by Commissioner Boyle, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Tentative Tract Map 5998 Optional Design with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the following modifications: A) Public Works Item 1.6 would be deleted and instead would read that street radii would meet the standards of 500 feet where possible, developer may utilize down to 300 ft. radii so long as the design and construction meets the approval of the Traffic Engineer, and that would include such items as "no parking;" and B) Planning .Department No. 3 would be deleted. Motion carried. 5.3) Tentative Tract 6016 (Optional Desian) (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Chairman Dhanens declared a conflict of interest on this project. Vice Chairman Boyle conducted the public hearing. Staff *report given recommending approval with the findings contained in the staff report and Exhibit "A". Public portion of the meeting was opened. No one spoke in opposition. Harold Roberts°n, representing the applicant, stated that he has read the staff report and is in concurrence with the conditions of approval with the exception of one item which relates directly back to the previous item on the agenda. regarding minimum radii of centerline of streets. They requested a modification. They have two or three radius that are less than 500 ft. in this tract and their request for a modification was denied but in light of the revised wording on the previous application they wOuld request that that condition be added that we have the option to submit a design of less than 500 ft. as long as it was approved by the Traffic Engineer to restrict parking something along that line. Mr. R0bertson said he' would be available to answer any questions the · Commission might have. Public portion of the meeting was closed. commissioner Kemper asked if Mr. Robertson's request would be agreeable? Ms. Shaw said that she has not had a chance to talk to the Traffic Engineer. Mr. Walker said he has spoken briefly with the applicant and given him some informatiOn on how to determine whether a small radius design will fit given our consideration for stopping site distance. They will have to check it out and engineer it but it looks like they might have some possibilities to do a few of them that way.' They are in agreement and a similar condition as in the previous map would be acceptable. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Robertson where the nearest park is in proximity to this subdivision? Mr. Robertson said he thinks the staff report indicated that. Mr. Grady said it was about % mile away. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Robertson if he knew what plans North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation Department has for parks in this area? Mr. Robertson said no but Mr. Bywater is in the audience and he may be able to shed some light on that. Commissioner McGinnis said his concern is that the children will have to cross Hageman Road to get there. Mr. Robertson said that he is not familiar at the current time with the traffic mitigation fee list but he assumes that RiverLakes Drive and Hageman Drive would be a signalized intersection at some point in the future. Ms. Shaw said since it is next to a high school she would assume there would be a signal there eventually. Minutes, PC, October 19, 2000 Page 5.4) Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the mitigated Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6016 (Optional Design) with findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the inclusion of deleting Public Works Item 1.5 and adding the verbage from the previous motion regarding street radii of less than 500 feet. Motion carried. Vesting Tentative Tract 6003 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) This item was continued from the October 5, 2000, Planning Commission meeting. Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to resolution including the memorandum from Stanley Grady dated October 16 and one from Marian Shaw of the Public Works Department dated October 18, 2000. Public portion of the meeting was re-opened. No one spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson, representing the applicant, stated that they are aware of the memorandums and are in agreement with those conditions. The only condition that he would like to discuss is Planning Department Condition No. 3 which reads: "prior to recordation of any phase of the subdivision an 8 foot high masonry wall shall be built by the developer between the subdivision's northern boundary and the PG&E towerline easement and between the subdivision and the three acre park site." Mr. Robertson said that in his discussion with the Planning Department the reason for this condition is because the linear park configuration along Krebbs is to be utilized for soccer practice facilities. There was some concerns about the frequency of.soccer balls going over fences. However, they feel in their design they propose to reword this condition that an 8 foot separation from the top of the wall to the play field be required as opposed to an 8 foot high masonry wall. The plan is to construct a six foot high masonry wall along the rear of the lots and the rear of the lots will be two to three feet above the level of the playfield. Public portion of the meeting was closed. Commissioner Boyle asked Mr. Grady if he had any comment about Mr. Robertson's request? Mr. Grady said staff has some revised language that would provide some flexibility if we add to the condition after masonry wall "...or combination of berming or grading in wall to achieve an eight foot separation of the park site." Mr. Grady said that would accomplish staff's and the. applicant's objective. Mr. Robertson said that wording would be acceptable to him. Minutes, PC, *October '19, 2000 Parle 9 Commissioner Sprague said south of the proposed park site there appears to be an. opening in the block wall along Mohawk Street and wanted to know if that Was a pedestrian walkway or a secondary access? Mr. Grady said it was the street connecting to Mohawk. Commissioner Sprague asked if it was open to Mohawk or is there a block wall along there? Mr. Grady said it was open to Mohawk and Mohawkis six lanes. Commissioner Sprague asked if the park site is to be fenced?. Mr. Grady said he has never heard of a park site being fenced. Commissioner Sprague said his concern is having children and balls flying and wanted to know how children can be protected from Mohawk if there is no separation? Mr. Grady said we have parks in this same situation and it has not been an issue. Mr. Grady said if the Commission put a condition on the map to that effect, then he suggests they ask Mr. Bywater since it would be their park to respond to his cOncern about whether the park should be fenced. Mr. Bywater said they normally try not to fence parks because when you fence them, you 'fence peoPle out as well as fencing them in. Berming would not be a problem butthe playground is normally set back away from. the streets. Off street parking would probably come in off of Mohawk so that would create somewhat of a barrier to children running into the Mohawk alignment. When asked, Ms. Shaw said PubliC Works has no plans to signalize the intersection of Ravana Court and Mohawk. Commissioner Sprague asked the applicant if he would consider putting up a three foot berm along the Mohawk corridor? Mr. Robertson said that they would not have a problem working with the Park's Department to create a design to create a berm as long as the Park's Department didn't have a problem with it and wasn't concerned with the maintenance of it. Mr. Bywater said that they could work with that. CommissiOner Sprague asked if the Parks and Recreation Department could study the area for increased game areas in the parks that would facilitate family outings and togetherness? I Commissioner Boyle asked if they can condition the map on the applicant to put the berm around the park site? Mr. Grady said that the park site is not a part of the'subdivision and, therefore, they can't. It's a site that is under the jurisdiction of another governmental agency, North of the River Parks and Recreation District, the subdivision is what the Commission is looking at, not the park site. Mr. Grady conferred with Mr. Hernandez and Mr. Hernandez said that the developer is being required to pay a park land dedication by either a fee or. dedicate the land in lieu of the fee. In addition, you have a developer that is required to pay a park land development fee. Those are the conditions that we impose with respect to park development.' We do not have the jurisdiction to impose any condition on North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation District, however, if the developer would agree to assist the Park District to accommodate what the Commission is requesting, the developer can agree to that as part of a Commissioner's request. Mr. Robertson said that he would be hesitant to accept the condition for Mr. Carter, who is not present tonight, but he knows Mr. Carter would not have a problem in working with the Park District to come Up with something along the lines of a berm or some other means to provide a Protection there.. But to put a condition on the tract to potentially Minutes, PC, October 19, 2000 Parle 10 prohibit the recording of one phase of the tract until that portion of the park is developed is restrictive on this tract. Commissioner Boyle said that they could draft a condition that would only apply when the North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation Department is ready to proceed building the park at the time the appropriate phases are being built. Mr. Robertson said that that would prebably work and as long as the cost for doing this is within the scope of those fees that are set aside that are imposed upon developers at this point in time. Commissioner Kemper stated that they have paid their park fee. This is the North of the River Parks and Recreation Department. The developer is paying their fee, the North of the River Parks and Recreation Department knows what they are doing, they know their job. They have been doing it for years and years. The have adequate knowledge and experience to design a functional park that will protect the kids in the park. Commissioner Kemper said she feels that it is best to leave this in the hands of the park people. This is not our normal area of decision making and she is not in favor of a resolution of this type. She doesn't want to set a precedent and have this carry on into the future. Commissioner Kemper said she thinks they are getting off base and she said she is ready to make a motion with the addition of the two memorandums attached. Commissioner Sprague said it wasn't his intent to add fees to what the developer is already paying. They are paying enough and in many cases more than they should pay. Commissioner Sprague said that it was his intent for the North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation Department to work with the developer to place a berm or some type of area around the fast corridor to protect the children that will be playing there. That was his goal. Not to increase the costs, force the developer to pay more money and not to condition his tract. Commissioner Sprague said that it is his feeling that this could be worked out with the applicant and Parks and Rec and there wouldn't be any additional charges or conditions. Mr. Bywater said he thinks that is true. They have worked with Kyle before and a reasonable solution can be worked out. Commissioner Brady said that he doesn't think the City of Bakersfield should impose conditions on the applicant to try to control how a separate government entity designs its parks. He is sure the North Bakersfield Parks and Recreation Department designs parks with the safety of children in mind. Commissioner Dhanens said that he agrees with Commissioners Brady and Kemper. It is not their place to put conditions like that on this project. The parks they design are safe for children to play in. Commissioner Dhanens also said that with respect to Mr. Robertson's suggestion regarding the 8 foot high masonry wall combination of some wall and berm that would achieve a 8 foot grade separation at that location is not a problem. He did have a question about the tower line easement. If that is the primary place where the practice fields are going to occur, would that be the extent of the 8 foot separation between the playfield and the top of the wall or Minutes, PC, October 19, 2000 Parle 11 woUld it also be adjaCent to the 3 acre park site to the east? The way the condition is written it is applicable to both the linear park area as well as the 3 acre park site: Mr. RobertSon said that he would question the need for an 8 foot separation adjacent to the park. He understands the need for the separation along the linear park because of the width of the park and the type of use it is going to be predominantly used for. However, the park area is a larger area with a Iotmore room for the kids to play. They are not going to be up against the back of the homes as frequently. He doesn't think the condition-is required because residential subdivisi°ns are backed up against schools or parks in a ' normal rectangular shape. He thinks a six foot separation is sufficient. Commissioner Dhanens said that he would support the motion for a reduction to a six foot high masonry wall without any berming betweenthe park site and the half a dozen homes there. Commissioner McGinnis said he supported Commissioner Kemper's thoughts and feels like there should not be any further restrictions or requirements pUt on the applicant.' Commissioner Brady asked staff about the canal shown near the projectl Mr. Grady said there is a canal that runS along the project area and showed the Commission where the fencing had to take place. Commissioner Brady said they have a committee that is meeting to consider how far away off-site an applicant should be required to provide fencing for canals to protect the residents living near the canal. Commissioner Brady asked what would be the distance between the park and the nearest open canal if the map gets approved? Mr. Grady said it is somewhere between 900 to 1,000 feet away frOm the furthest edge. Commissioner Brady asked if there is some reason staff did not recommend a requirement that the canal be fenced to 1/4 mile away from the site? Mr. Grady said the ordinance does not require 1/4 mile fencing off-site. There was further discussion about the canal with Mr. Robertson. Mr. . Robertson said that the canal is a dirt-lined ditch that does not carry water year around. It is approximately 4 feet deep and 8 to 10 feet wide at the top. The design of the residential portion of the subdivision is that there is no access to this canal. There are no streets that go across it. The park is approximately -500 feet from its southeast corner to the canal and children from the park would have to travel the length of the park plus cross a major highway to get to it. Mr. Robertson said that in their Opinion any further'fencing is not necessary. Commissioner Brady said that 500 feet is not a long way with children and bicycles. In is his mind there is sufficient danger with regard to canals that it would be appropriate to condition the applicant that in light of the fact that he is putting in housing that is going to have children in it, there is sufficient evidence to suppOrt, to makea finding that for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of this prOject that the applicant should provide fencing up to a 1/4 mile away from the project site. Minutes, PC, October 19, 2000 Pa~e 12 Commissioner Dhanens asked Mr. Grady about Planning Department Condition No. 4 which states: "prior to filing a final map on any phase, the subdivider shall construct .... "With that timing placed on this map, would there ever be a single residence out there in this subdivision that would be occupied prior to the canal being fenced? Mr. Grady said "no" there wouldn't be anyone out there. Commissioner Kemper said that she is also serving on the canal fencing committee and in this instance she is not in favor of fencing the adjacent canal 1/4 mile to the east for the following reasons: It appears that there is an adequate area between the park and the canal as shown on the map and the current city code doesn't require it be fenced. Commissioner Kemper said she feels its an additional undue expense to put on the developer at this point in time. Since the arterial is bisecting the area between the park and canal, she feels fencing is not necessary. Commissioner Boyle said he supports Commissioner Brady's comments. If the new ordinance goes into effect some time in the future, then all we would be imposing on him is what would be imposed upon people in the future. Commissioner Kemper said that this is a seasonally used dirt canal which typically has no more than 18 inches of water. If it was a concrete canal, she would have no problem requiring fencing. Commissioner Tkac said that he agrees with Commissioner Kemper in the fact that this is a really narrow, shallow canal that looks like an overflow. It may be an evaporation type of canal. Commissioner Tkac said that this type of canal probably poses the least amount of hazard of all the canals. This is not cement sided and not so hard to climb out of. While doing research for the canal committee, they have found that the majority of deaths that have occurred in the last 12 years were in fenced canals. Motion was made by Commissioner Kemper, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6003 with the findings and conditions set forth in attached resolution Exhibit "A" with the inclusion of the memos dated October 16 from Stanley Grady and October 18 from Marian Shaw and regarding Planning Department's Item 3 combination of grading and wall height to achieve six feet in the area between the easterly side of the subdivision and the westerly side of the park and eight feet between the north side of the subdivision and south side of the towerline easement. Motion carried. Commissioner Brady voted no. Minutes, PC, October 19, 2000 Page 13 5.5) Vesting Tentative Tract 6013 (Porter-Robertson) (I/Vard 4) Mr. Grady stated that they have not had an opportunity to meet with the applicant to discuss the concerns, therefore, staff will not be ready for the November 2 meeting so they are asking the item be continued until November 16, 2000. Public portion of the hearing was reopened. No one spoke against the project. Harold Robertson stated that they concur with staff's request and have no objections to the item being continued until November 16, 2000. Motion was made by Commissioner Brady, seconded by Commissioner Kemper, to continue this item until the Planning Commission meeting of November 16, 2000. Motion carried. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW - Report from the Planning Director on P.C.D. (Planned Commercial Development) Final Development Plan Modification. (Ward4) See Consent Agenda COMMUNICATIONS There were no written or verbal communications. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Boyle gave a report about the Landscaping Committee. He said the committee met and had some recommendations that were sent to the Urban Development Committee for the City Council to take a look at. He asked the other Commissioners to submit any comments they may have regarding long range landscaping issues. Commissioner Brady gave a report about the Canal Fencing Committee. He said that the committee has met twice and have had discussions with representatives from the industry and water districts and they have made some headway about finding out about the numbers of drownings that have occurred. They have given some recommendations to staff and they will come back to the committee on the first Thursday 'in November. Those items will be sent to the industry and water districts requesting some input before the committee moves forward with making a recommendation to the Commission for trying to address the problem of canal fencing. Minutes, PC, October 19, 2000 Page14 DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE-MEETING. Mr. Grady stated that the agenda for November 2, 2000 was light. A motion was made by Commissioner Sprague, seconded by Commissioner Boyle, not to have a pre-meeting. Motion carried. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Plannin~ DirectoR November 6, 2000