Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 1, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 2002 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Advisory Members: Staff: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish Commissioner Tkac Ginny Gennaro, Jim Movius, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Jim Eggert, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items: 4.1a Approval of minutes from Planning Commission meetings of June 17 and 20, 2002. 4.1b Approval of General Plan Consistency Finding (Government Code 65402) for the acquisition of property located at the northeast corner of 21st Street and "R" Street. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) Motion was made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve the non-public hearing items portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time for Tract 5829 (Quad Knopf, Inc.) located on the south side of Snow Road between Old Farm Road and Jewetta Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) 4.2b Approval of Extension of Time for Tract 5831 (Quad Knopf, Inc.) located on South Kratzmeyer Road between Allen Road and Old Farm Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Minutes, PC, August 1, 2002 Page 2 4.2c Approval of Extension of Time for Tract 5993 (Porter Robertson Engineering) located on the southwest corner of Calloway Drive and Snow Road. (Negative Declaration on file) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6110 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) located on the east side of Verdugo Lane, south of Brimhall Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 6.1) 4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6117 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) located on the northwest corner of Jewetta Avenue and Reina Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 6.2) 4.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6129 (Porter-Robertson) located on the northeast corner of Allen Road and Noriega Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 6.4) 4.2g Approval of Zone Change No. 02-0529 (Cornerstone Engineering) located on the east side of Buena Vista Road, between White Lane and Pacheco Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 7.1a) 4.2h Approval of Tentative Tract Map 6116 (Cornerstone Engineering) located on the east side of Buena Vista Road, between White Lane and Pacheco Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 7.1b) 4.2i Approval of Zone Change No. P02-0541 (Stonecreek Partners, Inc.) located on the northeast corner of Wible Road and McKee Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 7.2) Commissioner Tragish declared a conflict of interest on Consent Agenda Item 4.2f Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against any of the projects. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - Public Scopin,q Meetin,q to discuss the content of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Panama / Hi,qhwa¥ 99 Commercial shoppin,q center. The project consists of a ,qeneral plan amendment and zone chanqe to allow a 352,000 square foot shoppin,q center on 37.52 acres located on the east side of Hiqhwa¥ 99 and north of Panama. (Panama 99 Properties, LLC). (Ward 7) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given recommending the Commission refer the comments tonight to staff for preparation of the Draft EIR. Hearing opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendations. Edward Castaneda, a nearby resident, stated his concerns about whether a brick wall will be placed around the project. He requested that if a brick wall is built that some landscaping and a sidewalk be put in along with opening up the street. He also had a concern about graffiti and who would be responsible for removing it? Commissioner Sprague indicated that these are items that will be discussed tonight and when the PCD site plan comes back before the Commission. Minutes, PC, August 1, 2002 Page 3 There were no other public comments and the public portion of the hearing on this item was closed. The hearing was opened for Commissioner comments and action. Commissioner Tragish asked how the kit foxes that live in the area would be treated? Mr. Movius responded that "Bakersfield has a Habitat Conservation Plan so typically the EIR would refer to the provisions of that plan. There is going to be a biological study done for this site to determine if, in fact, there are any endangered species on the site. And, if there are that will be documented and become part of the EIR. The Habitat Conservation Plan allows jurisdictions that have those types of plans to basically take that obstacle out of the way of developers, but it also benefits the species. In Bakersfleld's particular case, that plan has acquired over 8,000 acres of habitat lands for the kit fox on the west side of the valley, and generates over 18 million dollars in revenue to support kit fox acquisitions and monitoring of the grounds." Commissioner Tragish asked if they actually take the kit fox out and find a new home for them? What does the plan basically consist of?" Mr. Movius responded that the provisions in the plan allow the wild life agencies to trap and relocate the animal if they have a place for it. Most of the time they don't have a place to take the animal. Typically what happens is there's an excavation of a den under the supervision of a biologist. They make sure the kit fox is not going to be buried in the excavation, and the kit fox is on his own to find another place to live. Commissioner Tragish asked if that is the only plan available and if there are any other plans for the EIR? Mr. Movius responded no. Under the terms of our agreements and permits with both the California Fish and Game and US Wildlife Service that plan, as long as the developer pays the fee, and goes by those excavation requirements for the known dens, is full mitigation for endangered species, including the kit fox. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like the environmental report to address what can be done with the kit foxes, other than leaving them on their own in that particular area. Commissioner Ellison asked if it would be appropriate to include a traffic safety study on Panama Lane in the EIR? Staff responded that they can definitely refer that comment to staff. It would be fair to require the EIR to assess this particular project's impact on that safety issue. But that particular issue would be focused only to this project's impacts. Commissioner Gay stated he had a concern about the three acre park and whether it would be there or replaced somewhere else? He also stated his concerns about the shielding of lights and the loading docks and if the EIR doesn't discuss these things, then hopefully the PCD will. Commissioner Gay said that at a later point they will address the block wall heights. Commissioner Blockley requested that the EIR assess and analyze the impacts and things that might inhibit or promote re-occupancy of the project, if an when, it does become vacant and not subject to the original use. Commissioner McGinnis stated that an extensive traffic study should be done including access for emergency vehicles as that is proposed to be a one entrance, one exit subdivision. He would like to see incorporated some of the previous studies, such as the Grand Canal, Promenade Study, for the feasibility of this location. He stated his concern about the number of big box stores sitting vacant around Bakersfield. He would also like to see a provision made for foot traffic. Minutes, PC, August 1, 2002 Page 4 Commissioner Tragish stated he wanted to make sure that the traffic study also takes into consideration the pattern of traffic in this particular area, and specifically the traffic that's coming off of 99, and whether or not the exits and entrances to 99, and Panama can handle the particular traffic that is going to be accelerated in this area. He said he has a great interest in the traffic, and what has already happened in this area, at least along White Lane's exit, and what could potentially also develop here where it's snarled up and there's a back up on the freeway on the exits going on to Panama. He would like the traffic analysis requested by Commissioner Ellison also be extensive to the extent that it does take into consideration the patterns of traffic in this area, and also how this application for the development on this EIR will impact the exit and entrances on Highway 99, and whether it's adequate to handle this traffic. Commissioner Gay asked if the EIR needed to consider in the noise portion if a store is going to operate 24 hours? Staff responded that it would definitely be looked at in the EIR. Hours of operation will be addressed in the EIR as part of the PCD Commissioner McGinnis asked where the closest park is since the proposed 3 acre park is being taken away from this neighborhood? Staff responded that there is one proposed about % mile to the south, but it's not developed yet. Mr. Movius did not know where the closest developed park is. Commissioner McGinnis asked if it would require crossing Panama Lane to get to the park? Staff responded "That's correct." Commissioner McGinnis stated he would like to see something examined as what can be done about a park being located there. He stated that possibly they can look at that when the environmental study comes back. Commissioner Sprague asked how things will transpire from this point forward? Will there be a PCD site plan that comes before the Commission at a later date, at which time they will have an opportunity to condition those site plans with items such as trash receptacles, lighting, signs, truck noise, delivery ramps, shielding with proper evergreen landscaping from the residences to the north? Staff responded "That is correct." Commissioner Sprague asked when that would come back to the Commission? Staff said that the draft EIR will be completed in September. The actual project and the final EIR where you could add additional conditions would be before you in December. And from there go on to City Council. Commissioner Sprague asked if there is going to be a recommendation for a block wall that separates the parking lot from the In-N-Out hamburger place and also the highway? Staff responded that there are no plans for those block wall separation ranges at this time. Just for information, from an environmental perspective I don't think it would be required between the In-N-Out Burger, or probably from the freeway for noise attenuation; it probably wouldn't be required. The applicant mentioned that they spoke to In-N-Out, and In-N-Out was eager to be somehow incorporated where people could get from that parking lot in to their site also. Minutes, PC, August 1, 2002 Page 5 Commissioner Sprague stated the reason he asked the question is that you have a certain amount of dust and noise that is generated off of that large parking lot that could blow south, into the In-N-Out area which could become a health problem for people eating outside on the patio or people driving up to the drive-in window. It may be that the applicant should look at a possible evergreen barrier there, or shelter that would give some type of shield to the dust and noise being created off the traffic that is coming through that lane adjacent to the In-N-Out. I think it is something that we should look at. The other item Commissioner Sprague mentioned was that since this runs along a major entrance to the City of Bakersfield he thinks it is important that the applicant incorporate into the shopping center a good looking sign and landscape feature. Something that incorporates the landscape code and ordinance that we have that gives coverage of 50% in the parking lot over a ten year period. He wants an emphasis on making the shopping center look nice off the highway. Commissioner Tragish asked if the EIR takes into consideration any other accesses to the project?" Staff responded that there are two entry points. There's one on the far east side of the project, where they're proposing to have a fueling station, and then there's the more major one, that's right next to In-N-Out. But the EIR will definitely look at the suitability of those access points, their ability to handle the traffic both vehicular and truck traffic, and it will also look to the appropriateness of any other connections to the adjacent neighborhood. Commissioner Sprague asked if when the project came in for a site plan if emphasis could be put on provisions for a bus stop in the ingress egress areas and where the best location would be for a GET bus pickup with a kiosk for proper seating? Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to received comments and refer this item back to staff. Motion carried by group vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 6.1) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6110 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) See Consent Agenda 6.2) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6117 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) See Consent Agenda. 6.3) Approval of continuance to August 15, 2002 of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6118 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) Staff recommended a continuance until August 15, 2002. The public hearing portion on this item is opened for those in favor and opposition to staff's recommendation. No one spoke. ^ motion by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, was made to continue this item until the Planning Commission meeting of August 15, 2002. Motion carried by group vote. 6.4) Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6129 (Porter-Robertson) See Consent Agenda. Minutes, PC, August 1, 2002 Page 6 PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Map/Zone Chanqes 7.1a) Zone Chanqe No. 02-0529 (Cornerstone Enqineerin,q) (Ward 5) See Consent Agenda. 7.1b) Tentative Tract Map 6116 (Cornerstone En,qineerin,q) (Ward 5) See Consent Agenda. 7.2) 7.3) Zone Chanqe No. P02-0541 (Stonecreek Partners, Inc.) (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda. Revised PCD Zone Chanqe No. P02-0540 (Edward Gene Patterson (Ward 7) The public hearing on this item is opened. Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to the resolution. No one spoke against the project. Hearing opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Ken Sorenson, KSA Group Architect, stated they have received and reviewed the conditions and it is their understanding that with the addendum they are acceptable to the owner. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Commissioner Sprague asked if the project is a private gated community to which Mr. Sorenson responded that it is the intention of the owners to operate the cocktail lounge and restaurant and banquet facilities primarily for the gathering of group activities for nV'ers. Secondary, from a business point of view, the owners would like to operate the restaurant and cocktail lounge for the immediate neighborhood opportunities. Primarily this is intended to serve and support the RV business. Commissioner Sprague inquired if this will be a private security gated community to which Mr. Sorenson responded in the negative. Commissioner Sprague inquired if the general public can drive in and visit the cocktail lounge and then drive back out, to which Mr. Sorenson responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sprague asked if there will be enough stacking room for RVs and cars off of Wible Road into the facility without causing a traffic hazard on Wible Road, to which staff responded in the affirmative and that it will be enhanced because the canal crossing increases the stacking. Staff indicated that it actually enhances the design layout of the entrance by having to cross the canal and makes it much longer. Commissioner Sprague asked if there will be a break in the median so that vehicles can come out of that access and cross the southbound lanes of Wible Road and turn left going northbound on the northbound lane of Wible Road. Staff responded that there are provisions to allow for a north to west left turn lane. There would be no east to north left turn crossings. This would be a restricted left turn, which has very minimal number of conflict points, and is one of the safer types of access points that is allowed. Minutes, PC, August 1, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Sprague inquired if there would be any safety issues with regard to the southbound traffic and no decel lanes. Staff responded that the site is a very Iow traffic generator and is below the threshold and because of the large radius turns into the site, and the more than adequate stacking distance before a stopping point/registration point, the City's requirements are met. Commissioner Sprague asked if caution signs could be installed. Commissioner McGinnis asked what the proximity of the banquet room to the restaurant is to which Mr. Sorenson responded that the banquet room is between the patio in the main room and the pool and decking area. Mr. Sorenson further confirmed that the banquet room is strictly for the RV'ers. Commissioner Gay inquired how the banquet room agreement would be enforced to which Staff responded that these type of issues would be enforced on a complaint driven basis, and depending on the severity of the complaint there would be either code enforcement or the police department response to the complaint. Because this is a PCD ordinance, code enforcement would have the power to cite the owner as either an infraction or misdemeanor. Commissioner Gay stated that the parking issues will most likely be an internal problem. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Staff about caution signage to which Staff responded that there are several sign possibilities. Staff requested that the signage be left to their operational discretion as to where and what type of sign would be used. Staff indicated that at this time they don't feel that it is necessary to require the developer to place the sign, but is something that would be the responsibility of the City. Commissioner Tragish inquired if it could be made it a condition of the application that the developer be responsible for the placement of a sign, subject to the discretion of the traffic department to which Staff responded in the affirmative because it is a PCD. Commissioner Tragish further inquired of Staff about the language for a condition of a sign to which Staff responded as follows: "The developer shall be responsible for additional warning signs to be determined at time of site plan review" would be appropriate. Commission Tragish inquired if it would be appropriate to have a stop sign at the exit at the access where the RV's or the public comes out, to which Staff responded that there would be a stop sign because it is an implied stop through the California Vehicle Code, and would be normally something that Staff would put on. It can be added as a condition at this point. Commissioner Tragish commented that he thought he would like it to be put on as a condition. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there were any other items that would lend itself to preserve the safety of the vehicles leaving and coming in that access to which Staff responded that as part of the design considerations that are required are the large radius curb returns for ease of entry and exit onto a major street, and through the City ordinance there is a requirement for line of site for visibility of oncoming traffic when stopped. Staff indicated that they think everything has been covered. Commissioner Sprague inquired if the slowing down sign would be south of Pacheco Road on Wible Road to which Commissioner Tragish confirmed that was his intention. Commissioner Tragish inquired about the parking issue and Staff responded that the primary use of the restaurant would be for the RV users so a historical standard was used. They are assuming that all of the parking spaces will be for users coming onto the site, and there would be 55 spaces around the restaurant area. Minutes, PC, August 1, 2002 Page 8 Commissioner Tragish inquired how the valet parking would be enforced and if it would be appropriate to have a condition that there be a sign indicating that valet parking shall be at no cost to the customer, to which Staff responded that the Commission has the authority to make this condition. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like to have a sign like this about the no-charge valet parking. Commissioner Tragish stated his concern with the parking availability. Of the 71 spaces that are now required, there appears to be more parking spaces in the rear for the employees. He stated that he is not sure that the testimony and staff report takes everything into consideration. He agreed with Commissioner Sprague that you have a cocktail lounge right next door a residential neighborhood, but will be under the purview of the Alcohol and Beverage agency to decide whether a license will be granted. Mr. Sorenson confirmed to Commissioner Tragish that the banquet room will only be for the RV'ERS. Mr. Sorenson explained that this type of facility is what the RV'ERS want. The occupancies are predictable in these type of parks. Seventy to 80 percent is considered very good occupancy. This would mean that at any one time 30 or 40 spaces which holds at least four cars. The typical parking issues do not work in this situation and he stated that he does not see it as a problem. Staff indicated that the Commission wished to change a condition on the zone change PCD. W hen the determination was made that a right turn lane would not be necessary for this PCD, Condition E1 under Public Works Traffic requires a 20' minimum radius returns. When there is not a right turn lane they usually use a 30' radius minimum. Staff is asking that that condition be changed. Mr. Sorenson has indicated that this change would not be a problem. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he agrees with Mr. Sorenson because since the banquet room is no longer open to the public, there is no need for valet parking. He stated that he would not support this restriction. Commissioner Sprague asked about the secondary access on Pacheco Road and whether ot not it would be an actual gate or open route? Staff responded that it was their understanding that it would be fully gated at all times and not for free flow of vehicles. Mr. Sorenson indicated that the primary application of the access is for maintenance facility to support the RV park. It is his understanding that the Pacheco gate would be locked and closed at all times, and the maintenance people would be able to use that access if they had to get supplies, etc. Mr. Sorenson further indicated that there would be another set of gates on the RV park side that would control any RV traffic from making a wrong turn and going in there, but would have the ability to come in and out with a golf cart, etc. for internal maintenance of the RV park. Commission Sprague further inquired of Mr. Sorenson where the refuge areas will be to which Mr. Sorenson indicated that they are located close to the exits and are enclosed behind walls and all fall within landscaped islands. Commissioner Sprague inquired about the pool facilities and Mr. Sorenson indicated that the pool is completely enclosed pursuant to the ordinance and more and has a decorative, stucco-type wall that is in line with the architecture. Mr. Sorenson indicated that it is his understanding that the ordinance provides for the supervision of children, etc. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Sorenson if there is any kind of restriction on the hours of operation on the RV site, or is it opened 24 hours a day, to which Mr. Sorenson replied that RV'ERS arrive in the evening and throughout the late evening, and so the access from Wible has to be free flowing. However, anything past midnight the traffic slows way down. RV'ERS are not your"hot-rodder" type. Minutes, PC, August 1, 2002 Page 9 Commissioner Gay moved to approve zone change 02-0540 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution, Exhibit "A" and incorporating the memorandum from the Planning Director dated July 31, 2002, and adding the condition that we talked about tonight that the developer shall be responsible for additional warnings/traffic signs as determined appropriate at site plan review, and a condition requiring a free valet parking sign, also incorporating into this motion modification to the Public Works Traffic Element, Item E1 and modifying it that you shall have a 30', instead of the 20', minimum radius return, and with a 42' throat width, and recommending the same to City Council. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if Commissioner Gay would consider removing the valet parking sign from his motion, to which Commissioner Gay responded in the affirmative if Commissioner Tragish would agree to do so. Commissioner Tragish indicated that he would like to keep it in the motion. He believes that the Memorandum of July 31, 2002 makes reference to the valet so you'd have to delete that out of the Memorandum, and anywhere else that it may appear in the original conditions. He indicated that he would probably vote against this motion without the availability of the valet and the sign because of the parking. Staff clarified that the valet parking idea was from the applicant, and the condition was just placed to solidify and verify what the applicant was proposing to do on their own. Signage was the Commissions idea, but the valet parking was the applicant's idea. Commissioner Sprague stated that since it was the applicant's idea it is not a City recommendation or requirement and it's policing situation that the City probably does not want to get involved in. He stated that it is an internal situation that can be monitored by the operators of the park, and does not think that it requires a sign that says the valet parking shall be at no fee or cost. He indicated that he would support the motion without the valet sign. Commissioner Tragish asked if in the July 31, 2002 Memorandum references that valet parking be provided at all times, and if that would be deleted or be part of the motion. Staff responded that it is not proposed to be deleted by Mr. Gay, but only the reference to the signage. Commissioner Tragish indicated that he would vote for this even if the sign was not part of the motion. Commissioner Gay modified his motion to delete the conditional requirement of free valet parking, but leaving in the Planning Director's Memo dated July 31, 2002, which would include the applicant's reference to valet parking. Motion seconded by Commissioner Blockley. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac Approval of Master Wall and Landscape Concept Plan P02-0534 (Porter- Robertson) Public portion of the hearing was opened and staff report given recommending approval. No one spoke either for or against the project. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Minutes, PC, August 1, 2002 Page 10 The hearing was opened for Commissioner comments and action. Commissioner Sprague indicated that this landscape will be maintained by a maintenance district, and inquired if the homeowners in this specific subdivision will pay for that maintenance district, or if all the housing in that general area will pay for the maintenance district, to which staff responded that it was their belief that it would be added to a consolidated maintenance district, and then would be placed in a tier, and all of the homes in the general area, and all the homes in Bakersfield willl be paying into the same tier. The tier level is set commensurate with the amount of upkeep the area takes. Commissioner Sprague indicated that he feels the public needs to know the cost impact on the homeowner's tax bill, and he feels that this particular subdivision should be responsible for the cost of that maintenance district which supports the landscape along it. Staff responded that on a City-wide basis there is a consolidated maintenance district. There is one district where there are no specific zones that benefit other than that for street and median landscaping and parks. The way the differentiation is made between levels of landscaping is the tier system. The higher the tier, the more intense the landscaping in the immediate vicinity, and the higher the dollar amount needed to support that landscaping, and the higher dollar amount that the tier would pay. The entire City of Bakersfield would not pay to support the landscaping in Seven Oaks. Those areas that are more intensely landscaped, all of the tracts within about % mile of that area would be in the same tier and would pay a higher amount than the rest of the City because the landscape is more intense and needs more care. This subject area would be placed in the appropriate tier so that they dollar amount collected from this tract would pay for the upkeep of their landscaping. Commissioner Sprague indicated that he would support the landscape proposal. Commissioner Gay asked if the vegetation would be the same as the brown vegetation, to which Mr. Cronk responded that there will be native grasses and not weeds. Commissioner Sprague asked what type of fire issues there may be with the wrought iron fence, to which the Fire Department responded that there are requirements by the homeowners to clear vegetation away from their homes. A fire break would probably continue. A motion was made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Blockely, to approve a master wall and landscape concept plan for File No. 02-0534 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution, Exhibit A. The motion was passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, McGinnis, Tragish, Sprague NOES: Commissioner Gay ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac Commissioner Gay indicated that he will have to study the natural grasses further and then respond to his no vote. AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF TITLE 16, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND TITLE 17, ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING REGULATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS SUCH AS APARTMENTS, DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES AND FOURPLEXES IN THE R-2, R-3 AND R-4 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICTS. Staff reported given. This is in regards to proposed amendments to the Municipal Code concern regulations for development and construction of multiple family units for four units or less dwellings. Staff was directed by the City Council to see if the ordinance could be improved to Minutes, PC, August 1, 2002 Page 11 address the quality of triplexes and four-plex units. The PC looked at this and several changes were made and since then other issues have arose, and those include concerns regarding parking, the amount of open space around buildings, landscaping and amenities and street frontage architectural treatment. The proposed ordinance changes would require tandem parking in front of garages in these type of developments, guest parking for four-plex projects, landscaping between drive aisles and buildings, specific usable open space areas, more landscaping, including trees at each unit, architectural design, orientation to the street and staggered set backs. Tonight's hearing is to receive comments on the proposed ordinance and they are asking that the public hearing be opened, but that it not be closed, and be continued to August 15, 2002. At that time staff will have some additional information and response to any comments made tonight. No one spoke either for or against the project. The public hearing is opened for Commissioner comments and action. Commissioner Sprague asked if the receptacles will be walled in and where the locations will be, to which staff responded that they will look at this issue. Commissioner Tragish indicated his concern for the need for Iow cost housing and asked if this amendment will make if more difficult for Iow cost housing? Commissioner Gay indicated that he wanted to incorporate some points from Mr. Grady's previous PowerPoint presentation. He also concurred with masonry trash receptacles. Commissioner Sprague asked what happens to existing R-2, R-3 and R-4 lots and infill properties with reference to this code, to which staff responded that they would not apply to any projects that were under the threshold if they already had a vested map, and would only apply once the ordinance became effective and a new project came forward. Commissioner Sprague expressed his concern of hampering in-fill if there isn't sufficient area to meet the amended ordinance amenities, to which staff responded that it would need to be referred back to Mr. Grady to work it into the ordinance. Commissioner Blockley stated that he would like the staff to consider some sort of staged application of these revisions to the ordinance so that you can prevent an owner with a little lot from not doing anything. Staff is talking about exemptions. Commissioner Tragish stated that it is his understanding that these proposed ordinances only apply to a duplex, a triplex and a four-plex standing alone. Staff responded that the ordinance is intended to apply to those a plexes built on one lot and sold off to an individual. It is not meant to address the larger rental housing that is all one parcel with many units on it. Motion was made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to continue this item to the August 15, 2002 meeting. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac Minutes, PC, August 1, 2002 Page 12 10. COMMUNICATIONS Staff stated that on Monday, August 12, 2002, them is a concurrent meeting in the Council Chambers at 6:30 with County Planning Commission to consider adequacy of the Metropolitan General Plan Update EIR. County and City Staffs, legal staffs and staff support at that meeting. There will be substantial input from the public and the purpose is to take comments on the adequacy of the Draft EIR and then there will also be a meeting in the fall on the project itself. It is anticipated to be a long meeting. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS None. 12. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING. It was decided not to hold a pre-meeting on August 12, 2002. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary 09/19/2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director