Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 15, 2002Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish None Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Jim Movius, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items: None 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a) Approve Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6118 (SmithTech USA, Inc (Ward 4) 4.2b) Approve Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6111 (Castle & Cooke CA, Inc.) (Ward 4) 4.2c) Approve Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6127 (Castle & Cooke CA, Inc.) (Ward 4) 4.2d) Approve Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6130 (Mclntosh & Associates)(Ward 4) 4.2e) Approve Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6131 (Mclntosh & Associates)(Ward 4) Hearing opened for public comment. No one spoke for or against the items. Motion was made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to Minutes, PC, August 15, 2002 Page 2 approve the items on the Consent Calendar incorporating a letter dated June 27, 2002 from the Department of Conservation as it pertains to item 4.2e. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 5.1) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6118 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward#) See Consent Agenda 5.2) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6111 (Castle & Cooke CA, Inc.) (Ward #) See Consent Agenda 5.3) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6121 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward #) Public portion of the hearing was opened. Staff stated that the applicant has requested this item be continued until September 5, 2002. On a motion by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, this item was continued until September 5, 2002. Motion carried. 5.4) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6127 (Castle & Cooke CA, Inc.) (Ward #) See Consent Agenda 5.5) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6128 (Castle & Cooke CA, Inc.) (Ward #) Public portion of the hearing was opened. Staff report given recommending approval. No one spoke against the project. Roger Mclntosh, representing the applicant, stated that they have had some discussion with Public Works staff and they would request that condition number 6.1 be changed to read "reserve slope easements" instead of "provide slope easements." With that change, they concur with the rest of the staff report and the memorandums from the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. Marian Shaw said that the change in condition number 6.1 is acceptable. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish asked if the money received for in-lieu fees for park land is put into an account and is used by the city to purchase park land in the vicinity? Mr. Grady said that is correct. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is any land in the area that the city is contemplating putting a park in with the fees they are receiving from the developments in the area? Mr. Grady said there are two large sites. There is a 32 acre park site and a 40 acre soccer site. The funds could be used for either of those facilities. Motion was made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve Vesting Tentative Map No. 6128 with the findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and with Planning Department memorandum dated August 13, 2002 and Public Works memorandum dated August 13, 2002 and the applicant's requested change on item 6.1 that was approved by staff. Minutes, PC, August 15, 2002 Page 3 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Sprague Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Grady made a correction in his statement regarding the parks. The park site is actually in the North of the River Park and Recreation District. Their closest park would be Liberty Park. The city would collect the funds and transfer them to the North of the River Park and Recreation District. 5.6) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6130 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward #) See Consent Agenda 5.7) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6131 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward #) See Consent Agenda 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. Mr. Grady provided the Commission with a brief overview and highlighted the items that have changed since the Commission's last meeting concerning the proposed ordinance amendments. Roger Mclntosh said that he has not been involved in the development of this ordinance but he has briefly read through it and stated some of his concerns. He said that in Section 17.14.026 they are imposing a condition that requires 30 percent of the gross area of the site to be provided as open space. He said that on a typical minimum 6,000 square foot lot that means that 1,800 square feet would have to be set aside for open space. When you add in the setbacks, that is another 2,000 square feet. With parking required on-site at 1,200 square feet, that only leaves about 1,000 square feet for a duplex. That would be 500 square feet per unit. He thinks the Commission needs to reconsider how that section applies to duplex lots. Also, Section 17.14.070 doesn't read correctly. Section A mentions that "for multiple family dwelling units with five units or more per lot, the minimum lot area shall not be less than 6,000 square feet and the minimum lot area shall not be less than 2,500 square feet per dwelling unit. When a non-conforming lot has less than 6,000 square feet and was recorded in the office of the County Recorder at the time of the passage of the ordinance codified in this section, each lot or said lots shall be occupied by not more than one dwelling unit." If you have five units or more, you will not be able to put them on a 6,000 square foot lot. Five units or more in realty are 7,000 square foot lots or greater - 10,000 square foot lots - so something doesn't feel right with that part of the ordinance. He urges the Commission to revisit these two items. Minutes, PC, August 15, 2002 Page 4 Steven DeBranch, with Castle & Cooke, commented that under Section 17.14.026, the additional requirements under H, brought a question to his mind regarding a wall height of four feet. He understands that this is part of the building ordinance for front yard setbacks, but this mentions also along the front yard setback. You could have a project that has a front yard and that front yard behind that wall for instance has a pool, safety ordinances require a wall higher than four feet. Some thought needs to be given to that. Perhaps it should not say "minimum" height. Mr. DeBranch said the Commission might want to look at that. Mr. DeBranch suggested that the Commission might want to get some input from the BIA. He would like to know what the building community thinks about this. He feels most of the builders may not be aware of the changes to the ordinance. Commissioner Tkac said there are a lot of builders in town and he thinks they would benefit greatly if the Commission sat down with the BIA and a few of the developers around town. Commissioner Tkac suggested this go to a committee. Commissioner Tragish said that he thinks Mr. Grady did an outstanding job and he feels like it is an excellent proposal but he agrees with Mr. DeBranch and Commissioner Tkac about sending this to a committee. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Grady if notice was given to the community. Mr. Grady said he sent a copy of the ordinance to the BIA before he sent it to the Commission. He received an e-mail back stating they had received it and would send comments if they had any during their normal course of business. There has been a notice in the paper and it has been through the public review process. Responding to the comments made about the wall setback, Mr. Grady said they are talking about an existing condition that does not allow you to put more than a four foot high wall in the front yard setback. We would not be anticipate a swimming pool being in the front yard setback as you cannot put structures in the front yard setback. The idea is that we are continuing with the multiple family the same requirement that we have on single family with respect to the front yard. Regarding the 6,000 square foot minimum lot size the reason the language is in the ordinance as proposed is that they don't expect that you would be able to put a four-plex on a 6,000 square foot lot and accomplish the setback requirements and the open space that we are talking about and keep everything one story. If you end up with a 1,000 square feet, you may have to go multi-story in order to put more space on the ground which is a design option. We expect that in order to accomplish the setback requirements for these projects, that you would get lots 10,000 square feet and greater which is the lot size that the Commission sees in the four-plex subdivisions that come in front of them. Mr. Grady said that these meetings are televised and a public discussion of this is better than a committee. Not being able to have the results of the discussion aired is one thing and also there is no hurry. They could request additional comments and try to get more comments from the Board of Realtors and BIA and staff could provide those comments to the Commission for discussion in a public forum. But, if the Commission desires, staff will work with them in a committee. Commissioner Sprague asked Mr. Mclntosh, as a member of BIA, if he is aware that the BIA received communication from Mr. Grady and made no response to it? Mr. Mclntosh said that he is the Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the BIA and he can't say he remembers the ordinance coming in front of them. But that they haven't had a meeting for a few months because of summer vacations. Commissioner Sprague said they have two options: 1) go to a three person committee or 2) Minutes, PC, August 15, 2002 Page 5 continue this item until the next meeting and let the industry come forward to debate this issue. Commissioner Blockley said he was taken back by the 30 percent requirement at first and felt that you could not fit multi-family on there until he re-read it and realized that you can use the rear setback if that doesn't front a street as a portion of the open space. He is very much in favor of the proposed changes. He stated that he had contacted several architects that do these kinds of projects for their input and has not received a response as of yet today. Commissioner Gay said that he has talked to Mr. Grady and several architects and thinks there are some things that could be looked at and feels that it should go to a committee to be "tweaked" so that it could be a little better for the community at large. Commissioner Ellison said that he agrees with the intent of the revised ordinance. He did an analysis similar to Mr. Mclntosh and concluded that for a 10,000 square foot lot 4-plex and even giving up one side yard setback for open space, he ended up with a very thin, short drive aisle. He suggests continuing this and perhaps sending it to a committee. He feels that a committee would be a better forum to conduct some analysis. Commissioner Tragish said that apparently Mr. Grady has given enough public notice but he would like to continue the project and he would like to have a public forum on it so that staff will be available to respond to the comments. Commissioner Blockley said he agrees with Commissioner Tragish's comments. Commissioner Blockley said you can characterize the open space as being secluded, behind fences. Each unit has a little yard area and he does not know how this ordinance fits in with that. Would you just have to increase the lot area to provide the requisite open space and the private yard? He is not sure how it would affect those kinds of residential designs. Commissioner Tkac said he feels like it should go to committee because this isn't something that the general public is going to be as concerned about it as the development community. One of his thoughts is if it can go to committee and have a report come back for discussion by the entire Commission. Commissioner McGinnis said he is in favor of forming a committee and inviting BIA and the real estate industry and anyone else who wants to participate to see if they can come up with something that will be agreeable to everyone. Commissioner Sprague said he agrees with Commissioner Tkac and Commissioner McGinnis and several of the other commissioners. He feels a committee would be beneficial. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to continue item 6 for the appointment of a committee and further study and invite the appropriate and interested parties. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, August 15, 2002 Page 6 Chairman Sprague appointed the following to the committee: Commissioner Gay (Chairman), Commissioner Tragish, and Commissioner Ellison COMMUNICATIONS None COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Tkac said that the advent of television in our meetings has been a great idea and he thinks it is a great way to get the public involved. Commissioner McGinnis said that this evening they have taken action on over 660 new homes in Bakersfield and not one of those has a provision for any kind of public transportation. We are talking about building new highways, new streets and pollution and it seems like we are shooting ourselves in the foot with approving new housing where each one will have one or two cars. None of the things they hear at the Commission has public access as far as transportation goes. He asked if there was something they could do such as sit down with staff and possibly the GET people and try to come up with a possible solution? Ms. Shaw stated that the Commission does not see the informational conditions that goes to the developers because they are covered by ordinances. Public Works sends out the map to GET and they tell Public Works whether or not they want a bus stop. Public Works has standards and policies that cover the provisions for providing a bus turnout. Those are taken care of administratively for each tract when GET deems it necessary to have a bus stop. They do take public transit into account in the design of the subdivisions. It all depends on what GET wants them to do. Public Works tries to coordinate with GET as much as possible. Commissioner Gay said Commissioner McGinnis' comments are well taken. The issue he has thought of is the Westside Parkway is greatly needed. He has heard they are going to be able to reduce the width of the Parkway and he hopes they will keep the full width and perhaps they would include maybe reserving part of it for future light rail mass transit. He also wanted to comment on the consent items that were on the agenda tonight. He noticed that 5.2, 5.4 & 5.4 were related to some comments from different departments where recommendations were made and he hopes that if they have some developments that come up that may have public concerns down the road that staff will make recommendations that developers notify the public that there is either a canal, or pumping station nearby, or that there is the Westside Parkway nearby and maybe give a recommendation on the Planning Commission's behalf to pass that information on to the public. Commissioner McGinnis said in response to staff's comments, he appreciates the fact that there are some preliminary things taking place but that still doesn't answer the question. If someone has to walk 5 or 6 blocks to catch a bus, he doesn't feel that people will use public transportation. He feels that GET doesn't have the complete view and he feels that it needs more study than what we are doing. We keep having meetings to cut pollution and ease traffic but that doesn't seem to be working very well. Commissioner Sprague asked staff if there is anyway to get a reply from GET regarding Commissioner McGinnis' questions and if we can get a letter of input to the Commissioners that would explain their parameters?. Minutes, PC, August 15, 2002 Page 7 Mr. Grady said they would contact GET to see what information they have along those lines and provide it to the Commission. Commissioner Sprague stated that Monday night they had a joint meeting with the County Planning Commissioners and he noticed that there was very little input from the County Planning Commissioners and learned that they had only received the document the night before and did not have time to read it He thinks this is very poor planning on the part of the County. This is a general plan update for the City of Bakersfield and County and Kern and he thinks it is an extremely important document that needs to be reviewed by the industry, by the general public and both the Commissions and Planning Departments so that we get a proper update that is set in place that they can work with to approve these projects to make Bakersfield a better place to live. He believes that by working hard together at this, it will be accomplished. 9. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING. It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on September 3, 2002. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:34 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary September 23, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director