Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 5, 2002Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish None Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Jim Eggert, Jennie Eng, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None Commissioners Tkac and McGinnis stated they had listened to a copy of the tape from Monday's pre-meeting and were prepared to participate tonight. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Minutes from Planninq Commission meetings of July 15 & 15, 2002. 4.1b. General Plan Consistency finding for the vacation to diminish widths of the public utility easements (P.U.E.'s) in Lots 7,$,9 & 10 in Tract No. 6016. (Porter- Robertson) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) 4.1c General Plan Consistency finding for the vacation of the public access road (Co. Road No. 1949) between Church Avenue and the Kern County communication facility. (County of Kern, General Services Division) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 3) 4.1d General Plan Consistency finding for the vacation of the superseded portion of Patrick Henry Drive at the northwest corner of Liberty High School. (Liberty High School - Kern High School District) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) 4.1e General Plan Consistency finding for the vacation of the alley on the west side of Owens Street southerly of State Freeway 178 (at 1716 Owens Street). (Mamdouh Eldib) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) Minutes, PC, September 5, 2002 Page 2 4.1f 4.1g General Plan Consistency finding for the vacation of a portion of the public utilities easement adjacent to the west line of Lot 21, Block 5 of Tract No. 1472 close to the southwest corner of 30th Street and "H" Street. (Delmarter & Deifel) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) Extension of Vesting Rights on 3rd Revised Tract 5882, Phases 2C, 4C and 5C (Mclntosh and Associates) (Ward 4) 4.1h Extension of Vestinq Rights on Revised Parcel Map No. 10465, Phase D (Mclntosh and Associates) (Ward 5) Motion was made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve the non-public hearing items portion of the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 4.1b which has been withdrawn by the applicant. Motion carried. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Site Plan Review 02-0653 (Jim Ward Architecture) (Agenda Item 7.2) (Ward 4) 4.2b Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6125 (Stone Creek Partners (Agenda Item 6.2 ) (Ward 7) Hearing opened for public comment. No one spoke for or against the items. Motion was made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the items on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Parcel Maps 5.1 Vestin.q Tentative Parcel Map 10897 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with the findings and conditions set forth in the resolution including a memorandum dated September 5, 2002 from the Public Works Department and memorandum from the Planning Department concerning condition number 15 regarding landscaping. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against the project. There were no Commissioner comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10897 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A including the Planning Department memorandum dated September 5, 2002 and the memorandum dated September 5, 2002 from the Public Works Department. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague. NOES: None Minutes, PC, September 5, 2002 Page 3 ABSENT: None 5.2 Vestin,q Tentative Parcel Map 10898 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with the findings and conditions set forth in the resolution including a memorandum dated September 5, 2002 from the Planning Department concerning condition number 26 regarding the chain link fence requirement and a memorandum dated September 5 from the Public Works Department concerning condition number 11. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against the project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay asked why we are requiring a chain link fence against a park instead of a block wall? Mr. Grady said that that is a requirement from the RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan. Motion was made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10898 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A including the Planning Department memorandum dated September 5, 2002 and the memorandum dated September 5, 2002 from the Public Works Department. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: None 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS- Tentative Tracts 6.1 Vestin,q Tentative Tract Map 6121 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with findings and conditions in the attached resolution and the memorandum dated September 4 from the Planning Department concerning the deletion of condition number 29 and 31 and including the memorandum dated September 5 from the Public Works Department concerning conditions 4, 5 8, 9, 11 and 19. Public portion of the hearing was opened for those opposed to staff recommendations. Mary Bogacki voiced her concerns about dust during the construction and whether screening will be used. Ms. Bogacki and her neighbors asked if the block wall could be built at the time of grading to help ease the visual impact and to cut back the noise and dust from development. She also stated a concern about landscaping and hopes that some careful consideration will be given to the type of landscape used along the wall. Ms. Bogacki asked at what point would a traffic survey be done on Jenkins Road to determine any changes in the speed limit? She understands that this is a collector and Minutes, PC, September 5, 2002 Page 4 will be going to four lanes. Harold Robertson, representing the applicant, stated they have reviewed the staff report and the updated memorandums and they are in agreement with the conditions of approval for this subdivision. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay asked if there are dust control methods required by the city when someone starts developing? Mr. Leonard, Assistant Building Director, stated there are mitigating measures and generally during the grading process they are required to water down the site or use a different type of dust binder. If they fail to do that, his department receives a complaint and they send their inspectors out to make sure the dust mitigating measures are followed. Commissioner Tkac asked Mr. Robertson if Phases 1, 2 and 3 will be built all at once? Mr. Robertson said that currently they plan to build in the sequence with minor modifications. The first phase would be the one with the main entry off of Brimhall. Phases 2 and 3 will not be graded until the sites are ready to be developed. Mr. Robertson said that the trees in the orchard will be coming out anyway as they are past their maturity date. Commissioner Tkac asked when the block wall will be going up? Mr. Robertson said that the wall along Jenkins would be the second phase. Based on the current market he guesses that construction on the second phase would begin toward the end of next year. Commissioner Tragish asked if there are any other state or county offices that would monitor dust control? Mr. Leonard said the County Air Pollution Control Board in some cases, where the contractors have failed to mitigate the dust problem, will come out and also cite the contractors to help mitigate those problems. Commissioner Tragish asked if there has been any analysis done for the traffic on Jenkins Road or that particular area? Mr. Walker said there has not been any specific analysis done because this is entirely within the realm of the zoning in place. ,All of the applicable mitigations are designed into the development through either the traffic impact fee or existing projects. Commissioner Tragish asked if Jenkins and Allen Road will have enough capacity when this project is completed? Mr. Walker said that as far as he can tell from the modal runs for the years 2020 and 2030, those streets should be adequate for traffic. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is any kind of safety concerns with this tract coming in and its' impact with the adjoining streets? Mr. Walker said the impact of development is normal on streets like this. They are going from a two lane road to a four lane collector road. It is not a change or an unanticipated hazard to traffic. Most of the road is in the county and the county has jurisdiction over the speed limits. If most of the road is in the county, the county sets the speed. If most of the road is in the city, then the city takes the lead in setting the speed limits. Whether it is in the city or county, he said that when the street is widened to its ultimate width, there would be an adjustment of the traffic speed limit to meet the standards for the California Vehicle Code for radar enforcement. Minutes, PC, September 5, 2002 Page 5 Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Robertson if the block wall around the project will be built out as it is phased? Mr. Robertson said yes. Commissioner Tragish asked if the trees will be taken out as it is phased? Mr. Robertson said it is his understanding that they will be taking the orchard out at one time but he does not know that for a fact at this time. Commissioner Tragish asked if Mr. Froehlich is going to do something to control the dust before the site is constructed? Mr. Robertson said that only those mitigation measures that would be required by the UBC and the city ordinances would be used to prevent the dust. If, for example, the orchard is removed it is his understanding that the land is not cultivated until construction starts. So, unless there is a dust storm, the dust shouldn't be too bad. Commissioner Tragish said that he has a concern with Valley Fever and would like to see Mr. Froehlich take the trees down in phases rather than all at once. Commissioner McGinnis asked, that in referencing the 1,135 foot straight street, what engineering standard applies to allow it to exceed the 1,000 feet? Ms. Shaw said primarily because it is a private street and would not be a public issue. Commissioner McGinnis asked if it would be within the scope of the Commission to require a condition that the trees be removed as the phases are developed? Mr. Grady said that if the Commission can make a connection between the timing of the removal and some environmental impact they could perhaps, through CEQA, apply a condition because there is no ordinance that requires the trees to be taken out according to the phase. This is a vesting tentative map so the Commission is limited in terms of what you can apply as far as conditions of approval and the only avenue is to find there is some environmental connection that would warrant some conditioning on how the trees are taken out. Commissioner McGinnis asked if they have the ability to do that with the information they have now? Mr. Grady said that is a deliberation the Commission has to make as a group and determine if there is information sufficient to support a position that there is an environmental impact that is not mitigated that requires some condition to be applied to the project. That is a deliberated decision for the Commission to make based on the information they have in front of them. Commissioner Sprague said that it would be difficult to do on a phased basis because of the irrigation factors. It would be more expensive for the applicant. He said that by pulling the trees out and removing them and then with non-cultivation and letting natural vegetation take place until such time as they are ready to do the phases, that the dust will be cut down. Commissioner Sprague said his recommendation would be to allow him to go ahead and take the trees out but maybe conditioning that there would not be a non-tillage or non- cultivation feature put back in as a condition until such time as they develop each phase so that natural vegetation took place on the property to cut down dust. Commissioner Blockley asked about condition 15 and if it would be appropriate to ensure the entire block wall and all the street improvements are completed with phases one and two which are the total of the street frontage? Ms. Shaw said that from the map they have in front of them and the phase lines that are drawn, it appears that all of the improvements on Jenkins and Brimhall will be completed with Phases 1 and 2 and Phase 3 will have some interior street improvements that will have to be done plus whatever wall that will be required along the northern boundary. Ms. Shaw said this condition is put in to make sure the later phases do not have an onerous burden to Minutes, PC, September 5, 2002 Page 6 construct more than is necessary. This will be looked at by her and her staff when the improvement plans are looked at. Motion was made by Commissioner Tragish to approve and adopt the negative declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6121 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A including the Planning Department memorandum dated September 4, 2002 and the memorandum dated September 5, 2002 from the Public Works Department plus adding a condition that the applicant would be able to remove the almond grove and do non-cultivation letting natural vegetation take place during the phasing. Ms. Gennaro said that if the Commission is going to apply any conditions regarding this, that the Commission should get the applicant's approval since this is a vesting map and the city doesn't have an ordinance or policy in effect in regard to a non-cultivation policy or one where the trees are removed at certain phases. This is something the applicant would have to agree to. Mr. Robertson said he thinks the applicant will agree but would like a clarification. Commissioner Sprague said that he could remove all the almond trees from the orchard but that he would not cultivate the ground until such time as he started his site plan construction in the different phases so that natural vegetation could grow to reduce dust emissions from the property. Mr. Robertson said that he believes that would be acceptable to Mr. Froehlich. Mr. Robertson said that there will be a significant amount of improvements built with the first phase. Based on the record and Mr. Robertson's agreement, Ms. Gennaro said the language is sufficient for the motion. Commissioner Tkac seconded the motion. Motion passed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.2 Vestin.q Tentative Tract Map 6125 (Stone Creek Partners) (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda PUBLIC HEARINGS -Site Plan Reviews 7.1 Site Plan Review 02-0484 (Jim Ward Architecture) (Ward 4) Minutes, PC, September 5, 2002 Page 7 Mr. Grady said that the Commission has received a memo from staff with a letter from Mr. Ward attached to it requesting that this matter be continued until November 7. This will provide time for the Planning Commission and City Council to hear the general plan and circulation element amendments to the RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan concerning access through the linear park along Coffee Road. Public hearing opened. No one spoke either for or against the continuance. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Planning Commission has to hear a project within a certain time once it has been appealed? Ms. Gennaro said that there is no limit but it has to be reasonable. On a motion by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, item was continued until November 7, 2002 by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: None 7.2 Site Plan Review 02-0653 (Jim Ward Architecture) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda 8. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGE FROM TRUXTUN PLAZA WEST TO CANCER CENTER DRIVE (Ward 4) This item was withdrawn by the applicant. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Grady told the Commission they have two items from staff. One of them is the Draft EIR for the Gosford Village project. The public review period begins on September 3 and ends on October 17, 2002. Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on this item on October 3. The second item is a memorandum responding to request for information regarding disclosure practices in connection to requests to provide disclosure between residential and other non- residential uses on property Commissioner Sprague said that he has read the memorandum regarding that issue and he is tempted to turn it to a committee but at this point he will talk to Planning Commission liaison Councilman Couch and review it with him to see if he feels that is a necessary item and have him make a request through the City Council, get it approved and bring it back to the Commission for action. At that point, they can form a committee and try to expand on the agriculture disclosure that many of the realtors have been using in the city and the county for Minutes, PC, September 5, 2002 Page 8 adjacent property. 10. ~COMMISSION COMMENTS: None 11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: Because it of it being a general plan cycle meeting, it was decided to hold a pre-meeting on September 16, 2002. 12. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary September 23, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director