Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 3, 2002Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tragish Commissioner Tkac Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Jim Eggert, Jennie Eng, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Minutes from Planninq Commission meetings of July 15 & 18, 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General Services Division) (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 3) 4.1d General Plan Consistency finding for the vacation of the superseded portion of Patrick Henry Drive at the northwest corner of Liberty High School.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) 4.1f 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) Minutes, PC, September 3, 2002 Page 2 4.2 Public 4.2a 4.2b 4.2c Commissioner Tragish asked if in item 4.1b the easement will be narrowed down or removed in its' entirety? Ms. Shaw said the easement is being diminished so that parcels 7, 8 and 9 of Tract 6016 will have a little more area to put the buildings on. Instead of the existing 15 feet it will be made narrower to 10 feet. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is a utility line through there now? Ms. Shaw said she didn't know for sure but thought so. Commissioner Tragish asked how diminishing this line is consistent with the general plan? Mr. Grady said that the general plan provides for the provision of easements only to the degree necessary to protect access to the utility improvements. This would be consistent because it is determined that diminishing the size of the access easement would not diminish their ability to have access to any improvements that would be placed in that easement. Commissioner Tragish asked if making it more narrow raises any safety or health issues? Mr. Grady said not that has been determined. There were no other Commission comments. Items will be voted on Thursday night. Hearing Items Extension of Vesting Rights on 3rd Revised Tract 5882, Phases 2C, 4C and 5C (Mclntosh and Associates) (Ward 4) Extension of Vestinq Rights on Revised Parcel Map No. 10465, Phase D (Mclntosh and Associates) (Ward 5) Site Plan Review 02-0653 (Jim Ward Architecture) (Agenda Item 7.2) (Ward 4) Staff report given. Commissioner Ellison asked about item 4.2c. He noticed a hole had been flagged and covered with a board and wanted to know if this excavation was on the site and whether or not it was a water well and if so would it be properly covered? Mr. Eggert said he is not aware of this excavation but would find out and answer the question by Thursday night. Regarding item 4.2c Commissioner Tragish said that there are four accesses off of this project onto RiverLakes and wondered if that may be excessive for purposes of traffic ingress and egress? Ms. Shaw said that since the traffic division did not comment on this during site plan review, her assumption is that four driveways would be safe. Mr. Walker said that this is a collector street and it is designed to have multiple access points and this is a desirable use for this street. Commissioner Sprague asked if for Thursday night, the Commission could receive a projected buildout of the homes, condos and apartments that were in the original specific plan for RiverLakes and compare that to what they have before them now? He also asked for an overlay of the original street plan that was the concept for RiverLakes and the current and/or actual streets that are in or going in that would change that original plan. Mr. Grady said that he understands the request and it would not be a problem for Thursday night. Commissioner Tragish asked for a map of the RiverLakes area bordered by Calloway and Coffee Roads, showing the street names. Minutes, PC, September 3, 2002 Page 3 These items will be voted on Thursday night. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Parcel Maps 5.1 Vestin.q Tentative Parcel Map 10897 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions as shown in Exhibit 1 of the staff report. Commissioner Sprague asked if a six-foot wall is customary for this type of development to separate the residential and commercial or can they require an eight foot wall? Mr. Grady said the ordinance requires a six-foot wall. Commissioner Ellison said there appears to be an abandoned well on the project that may need to be looked at. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. 5.2 Vestin.q Tentative Parcel Map 10898 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions as shown attached to the staff report. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission could put a PUD overlay on these parcels? Mr. Grady said not at this stage of the development review. The zoning has already been put in place. Commissioner Gay asked if the traffic signal would be put at Downing Avenue now or a year or two down the road? Mr. Walker said the condition requires that they install a traffic signal at development of the project. Commissioner Blockley asked if the linear park continues across RiverLakes Drive? Mr. Grady said yes. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS- Tentative Tracts 6.1 Vestin.q Tentative Tract Map 6121 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions, however, the applicant has contacted staff saying he is considering a redesign of the tentative tract map. If so, they will need to readvertise for a different meeting. The Commission will be informed of the status on Thursday evening. Commissioner Blockley asked if staff has any knowledge of whether the whole orchard would be removed at once or in phases? Mr. Grady said that staff has no knowledge of that but can contact the applicant through his representative and find out what their intentions are. Commissioner Blockley asked about the existing farm operation building which is zoned Minutes, PC, September 3, 2002 Page 4 R-2 and if it would be a problem in the future if they develop it and wouldn't it create the same problems the Commission has been facing with Estate zoning being next to Multiple Family Residential? Mr. Grady said they would be facing the same problem but the owners going in will know that the property is zoned R-2. Commissioner Blockley asked if a condition could be placed on the project to force the salespeople to advise the prospective buyers that there may be offices at that end and apartments at the other end and that the offices back onto the street? Mr. Grady said that although the public has shown at times concern about multiple family and offices next to them, the vehicle for advising them of what's going on around them is the zoning on the property. It is their responsibility to find out what the zoning is around them when they seek to purchase a piece of property. We do not have any basis to decide that R-2 is an offensive use. Commissioner Sprague asked if the Planning Department could make a request to the subdivider to include in their public report application to DRE to include these items of C- 2 / R-2 just as a public notice to the homebuyers of these properties that there are recorded zonings that are not compliant to residential? Mr. Grady said he would not recommend they do that. If the Commission wishes to pursue that then the Commission should deliberate on that and come up with some ordinance to support requiring that a notice be given to single family homes adjacent to whatever the Commission deems to be offensive. Commissioner Sprague said that he feels the public report would be the venue to try to explain under public disclosure statements. He said that this is going to be an on-going problem as more development occurs. Commissioner Ellison asked if the drill site, being 1.5 acres without the sump, would be a problem for the Commission to grant waiver to the mineral rights signatures since it is actually less than two acres? Mr. Grady said he would have a response to that on Thursday night. Commissioner McGinnis asked if there is a period of time that the person with the mineral rights has to effect his use of those? Mr. Grady said if it is not acted upon in ten years, the property owner can submit the map and subdivide the property. Commissioner Gay asked if that is why it was taken from being a "drilling island" to a "drilling site" so that it will not be held out forever? Mr. Grady said that one is a designation and one is a zoning. Commissioner Tragish said that he is in agreement with Commissioner Sprague about giving some kind of notice to new owners but feels that we need input from an attorney before it would be implemented to make sure they have the power to do it. Commissioner Sprague said that currently the city has an ordinance that says that on sales of properties adjacent to agricultural properties that the seller of that property must identify and/or disclose to the buyer that there is adjacent agricultural operations that could cause a nuisance to the property. One thing they might do in-lieu of putting it on a deed or public report is to expand that ordinance to include the idea that for other residential property that the seller discloses what is adjacent to it besides agricultural, such as industrial or commercial, etc. We might consider going to committee with it down the road. He requested staff to take a look at adding something like that to the ordinance. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. Minutes, PC, September 3, 2002 Page 5 6.2 Vestin.q Tentative Tract Map 6125 (Stone Creek Partners) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions including the staff report from the Public Works Department dated August 30, 2002. The applicant has agreed to the memo and conditions and has requested this item be placed on the Consent Calendar for Thursday evening. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Huey if he has reviewed this project? Mr. Huey said that they have reviewed the project but at looking at the map now, he has a question about the number of residences around the cul-de-sacs. He would like to have the opportunity to review that before Thursday and get back to the Commission. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. PUBLIC HEARINGS -Site Plan Reviews 7.1 Site Plan Review 02-0484 (Jim Ward Architecture) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending upholding the decision of the Development Services Director in denying the project. Commissioner McGinnis asked if it would be possible to have a no left turn sign on Waterfield going onto Southshore Drive? He feels the basis of the denial is the traffic issue. Mr. Eggert said that the City Council has requested a study for possible solutions to the problem and initiated a Specific Plan Amendment to look at access onto Coffee Road from this site and the Southshore site. That will be heard by the Planning Commission on September 19, 2002. The director could not mitigate because it is being done by another body. He could not be assured that anything is going to happen until the City Council acts on both of those items. Commissioner McGinnis left the hearing at this time. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Walker if in his opinion a traffic safety study is needed for this area or should they wait until they get some indication from staff regarding access onto Coffee Road? And, if they get access to Coffee Road, are they getting into some county jurisdictional problem? Mr. Walker said that as far as a traffic operational study of how the road is being used and the problems that have been created, studies are being done now. Coffee Road is entirely within the city. Putting access onto Coffee does not have county conficts. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Walker that based on his professional opinion, based on the original plan that was submitted for traffic and how it was to flow out of this site, does he see where there is a traffic safety issue coming out of this site in one access point or two access points and going off into Olive Drive? Mr. Walker said that there has been sufficient public testimony and determination and concurrence by staff that there exists a problem now with the way the residents of Northshore/Southshore (the whole area) are using the various streets and intersections and conceded that additional traffic Minutes, PC, September 3, 2002 Page 6 by a development like this would aggravate the problem. Commissioner Sprague asked if it would ease the safety concerns if they have another access to the apartment unit on 7.2 Northshore? Mr. Walker said probably not because the concern is not the number of access points from the development to Northshore. It's the fact that there is any access to Northshore that is of concern. That is why it is necessary to see what is going to happen at the Council meeting. Commissioner Blockley said his concern with the Coffee Road access isn't the access but the notion that somehow that they will cut the residents of the apartment complex off from access from anything other than an arterial. He said he would be opposed to children walking to school along Coffee Road. Commissioner Gay asked if Northshore would only be a secondary access if access was made to Coffee Road? Mr. Eggert said the plan showed there would be an access on Northshore and an access on Coffee. They would like to have access off of Northshore especially for the school three blocks away. Commissioner Gay asked Ms. Gennaro if the Commission had anything before them that could justify overturning Mr. Hardisty's denial? Ms. Gennaro said that the Commission's purpose on Thursday night is to look at the record as a whole and decide whether or not the director's denial of the negative declaration should be appealed. The Commission can go either way on it based on their interpretation of the record. Commissioner Sprague asked if this were R-l, how many homes could be built in this area versus the 106 apartment units? Mr. Grady said they would answer that on Thursday night. Commissioner Tragish said that he has read the minutes from the Site Plan Review hearing and agrees with Mr. Hardisty's reasoning. He thinks the area is designed for the R-2 but it is a poor design with streets shooting off at 90 degree angles. It is very dangerous. Commissioner Tragish asked if the director's decision is upheld can the applicant come back later after the City Council has made its decision? Mr. Grady said that is correct. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. Site Plan Review 02-0653 (Jim Ward Architecture) (Ward 4) This was heard on the Consent Calendar. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED STREET NAME CHANGE FROM TRUXTUN PLAZA WEST TO CANCER CENTER DRIVE (Ward 4) This item was withdrawn by the applicant. 9. COMMUNICATIONS: Minutes, PC, September 3, 2002 Page 7 10. None ~COMMISSION COMMENTS: None 11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: This will be discussed on Thursday. 12. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:40 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary September 23, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director