Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 19, 2002Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Advisory Members: Staff: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish None Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Dennis Fidler Marc Gauthier, Jim Eggert, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None Commissioner Tkac stated that he listened to the tape of the portion of Monday's pre-meeting that he had missed. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of July 29 and August 1, 2002. 4.1b Approval of minutes for Joint City/County Planning Commission meeting of August 12, 2002. 4.1c Approval of Wall and Landscape Master Concept Plan for Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6077 - P02-0743 (Coleman Homes) and corner entry treatments generally located on the north and south sides of Olive Drive, west of the Friant- Kern Canal and the east and west sides of Verdugo Lane and the north side of Riena Road. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 4) 4.1d Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the sale of property at 515 Truxtun Avenue (City of Bakersfield). (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) Commissioner Gay moved to approve the Consent Calendar of the Non-Public Hearing Items. Seconded by Commissioner McGinnis. Motion carried by group vote. Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 2 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 10902 (Mclntosh &Associates) (Agenda Item 6) (Ward 4) 4.2b Approval of General Plan Amendment No. P02-0659 (Maximus III Company & Neighborhood Empowerment & Economic Development) (Agenda Item 7.1a) (Ward 3) 4.2c Approval of Zone Chanqe No. P02-0659 (Maximus III Company & Neighborhood Empowerment & Economic Development) (Agenda Item 7.1 b) (Ward 3) 4.2d Approval of General Plan Amendment No. P02-0616 (Gregory W. Davis) (Agenda Item 7.4a) (Ward 4) This item was taken off of the Consent Calendar by a request from a member of the public prior to the public hearing being opened. 4.2e Approval of Zone Chanqe No. P02-0616 (Gregory W. Davis) (Agenda Item 7.4b) (Ward 4) This item was taken off of the Consent Calendar by a request from a member of the public prior to the public hearing being opened. 4.2f Approval of General Plan Amendment No. P02-0629 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Agenda Item 7.7) (Ward 5) The public hearing is opened for items 4.2a, 4.2b, 4.2c, and 4.2f. Barbara Holloway, manager of the Royal Palm Mobilehome park requested items 4.2b & c be removed from the Consent Calendar. There were no Commissioner comments. Public hearing closed. Motion made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. PUBLIC HEARING - Site Plan Review P02-0751 appeal by Bob and John Stevens of the Development Services Director's denial of a site plan review for the construction of an 8,895 square foot adult entertainment business on a site zoned M-1 (Li.qht Manufacturinq) located at 3900 No. Sillect Avenue. (Ward 2) Staff report given recommending the appeal be denied. Roger Diamond, attorney for Robert and John Stevens, stated they are available for questions. They disagree with staff that there is any residentially zoned property within 1500 feet of this site's location. He indicated that the mobilehome property is currently zoned industrial. No one spoke in favor of staff's recommendation. Public portion of the hearing on this item is closed. Hearing is opened for commissioner comments. Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 3 Commissioner Tragish stated the only issue has to do with whether the proposed application is within 1500 square of a residentially zoned area and his observation is that people live there and it is a residential area. He stated that he support's staff's position and interpretation of the ordinance. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt the resolution attached to the staff report with all findings denying the appeal. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Parcel Map 10902 (Mclntosh & Associates) Agenda Item 4.2a) (Ward 4) See Consent Calendar. (Consent PUBLIC HEARINGS - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, ASSOCIATED REZONINGS, AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT: 7.la&b) GPA/ZC No. P02-0659 (Maximus III Company & Neighborhood Empowerment & Economic Development) (Ward 3) Staff report given recommending approval. Opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Barbara Holloway manager of Royal Palms Mobile Estates stated they oppose the project because they do not have adequate information as to the exact planning or development of the area. They do not know the exact number of units or the exact use. The current senior residents of the mobilehone park are concerned for their security and quiet enjoyment of their investment. Opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. A representative from the Maximum II Company stated they are requesting approval to make this vacant property into some type of productive use. After some research they feel the best land use designation would be residential, and specifically senior residential living. They are willing to work with the Royal Palms Estate management and residents. Justin Wattenbarger, the current property owner, stated that he supports the project. The public portion of the hearing was closed and the hearing opened for Commissioner comments. Commissioner Sprague asked if the residents of the mobilehome park will be notified of a site Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 4 plan review hearing at which time they can find out the plans for the development. Mr. Grady said they would receive the standard notice to property owners within 300 feet of the site. Commissioner McGinnis asked if there is an overlay designating senior in a residential zoning, to which staff responded in the affirmative and that it applies to a much higher number of units than is proposed for this project. Commissioner Tragish asked where Royal Palms would have access to which staff responded that access would be off of Columbus. The parcel to the north is part of Royal Palms and access is through Royal Palms. Commissioner Gay confirmed that the maximum number of units on this project allowed by the zoning is 52 units. Commissioner Ellison stated that he views this as a good in-fill project and that he is in favor of the project. Commissioner Gay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the general plan amendment adopting a resolution making findings, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to amend the land use element designation from LMR to HMR as defined and delineated in Exhibit 2 to the Resolution and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Gay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration, approving the requested zone change to amend the zoning district from C-1 and C-2 to R-2 as reflected in Exhibit 2 attached to the Resolution and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: None 7.2a&b) GPA/ZC No. P01-0756 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 7) Staff recommends continuance of this item to October 3, 2002. Public portion of the hearing is kept opened. Commissioner Tkac made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, that this item be continued. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague. Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 5 NOES: None ABSENT: None 7.3a.b&c) GPA/ZC & Circulation Element No. P02-0609 (Soper Homes, Inc.) (Ward 4) Staff stated there is a memorandum from Ms. Shaw which revises condition number 1.2 and adds condition number 7.1, 7.2 and 7.3. Ms. Shaw stated that they have met with the developer, engineer, fire department and representatives of the planning department to discuss this site. The fire department and the traffic department have requested that there be a point of access onto Jenkins Road. The following spoke against staff's recommendation. Ray Etcheverry, who resides at 13136 Appaloosa requested a continuance because right before the meeting is the first time they have seen the proposal for Jenkins Road, and it affects the access to 40 homes on Appaloosa off of Jenkins wherein they will not be able to access their homes from Jenkins. He believes that it is important that the neighbors are aware of this and currently the residents are not aware of this. They have a scheduled meeting with the neighborhood on the 24th with David Couch, along with a City representative to hopefully explain the situation. Sarah Burnett, who lives at 13131 Appaloosa Avenue, gave a history of what has been going on. She indicated that they were notified of the subdivision because they are within the 300 foot range, and they in turn notified the other neighbors, because they felt that they were going to be affected too. She stated that they are not opposed to the project and they want to work with the builder. However, they are concerned about the traffic on Appaloosa. She indicated that because this is in the County, their children have to walk on the street to get to the bus stop because there are no sidewalks. She stated that they do not believe that it is the proper street to give access to Allen Road. They would like a continuance because they just received this map. Opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Mike Soper of Soper Homes, and the applicant, stated that the subject area is a problem property because the intersection of Brimhall and Jenkins is perhaps the most dangerous intersection in Rosedale because Brimhall has been constructed along the south half on the east of the map, and along the north half on the west side. They wanted to do something about the intersection and do something that would improve that property and area. The lots will range from 12000 to 22000 square feet with homes from 2500 square feet and up. Rowland Avenue was being used to trespass across out to Jenkins. They previously have asked the City to abandon Rowland Road as a public right-of-way and have it be a private street. This eliminated any traffic from the west on Rowland from traveling eastbound and up onto Jenkins. Now they have not had Rowland continue through this project and identified the fact that Jenkins Road in that location on the General Plan was required to be a collector street. They are requesting that Jenkins be reduced down from a collector to a local street, which would mean less traffic. Upon approval of the General Plan, the submitted tentative tract does not have Jenkins continue to the south, which was an environmental decision as well as a traffic and neighborly decision because the Rio Bravo Water Storage District owns the property immediately to the south and that eliminated Jenkins from having to cross that and the potential conflict of a collector road with the water storage district. Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 6 Mr. Soper indicated that he wants to be a good neighbor. He indicated that they did not want to align their neighborhood street with Appaloosa creating an even longer straight shot so traffic would not cut through Appaloosa to get to Allen, and/or come down Jenkins. The submitted design precludes people from turning right from within the subdivision out onto Appaloosa, and it also stops the current problem of people coming down Jenkins from Brimhall or anywhere else to get on to Appaloosa, and will prevent people who are currently traveling the road alignment from getting onto Appaloosa. He submitted that they have really approached this from a good neighbor viewpoint and attempted to obtain the neighborhood's input as well as address the neighborhood's input. They request approval rather than a continuance. Public portion of the hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis concurred with Mr. Etcheverry that they may need some more time to look at these issues. He inquired how traffic will be restricted going southbound on Jenkins from cutting across and going down Appaloosa to which staff responded that Jenkins at that point would essentially be a one way road and would be appropriately signed, and would be an enforcement issue. Commissioner McGinnis asked if staff foresees this as a problem, to which staff responded in the negative. Mr. Walker stated that all southbound traffic either from north of Brimhall or from future traffic of the project, would be decreased/calmed by traffic calming concepts. He stated that the incidents of traffic coming down from the south will be greatly reduced. Some of the disadvantages will be less convenience for travelers. Some of the current residents will be a little more inconvenienced, but he indicated that it is a question as to whether it is acceptable to the neighborhood. He stated that it is acceptable to staff from a traffic calming concept. Mr. Walker stated that he feels comfortable with the traffic circulation and that Jenkins will be a dead end street. Commissioner McGinnis asked what type of signage would be used, to which Mr. Walker stated it would be typical markings on the street to include yellow lane line, center line to direct them to make the turn as they go southbound, and making a right hand turn and going left to go northbound, as well as do not enter signs. Commissioner McGinnis indicated that he agrees with Mr. Etcheverry and would be in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Tragish asked if there needs to be an agreement and stipulation with Mr. Soper to continue this application, to which Ms. Gennaro responded in the negative because it is a GPA, however, she recommended it not be continued past October 3, 2002 because of the GPA cycle. Commissioner Tragish asked if there were any safety issues? Mr. Walker responded that this type of narrow medium is problematic, but if the current proposal did not prove to be effective it would be easy to look at in the future. Commissioner Tragish stated that he thinks the median is a good idea. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Soper why he would object to a short continuance when he indicates that he is trying to be a good neighbor, to which Mr. Soper indicated that he does not want to be out of cycle. Mr. Soper then asked staff about the timing of his tract map, to which Mr. Grady responded that the submitted tract map would not be able to be approved until after the general plan has gone through its cycle, which would mean a hearing by the Planning Commission as well as approval by the City Council. If it goes on October 3 to the Commission it would be able to stay in cycle and should not effect the processing time that Mr. Soper is under right now. Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 7 Commissioner Tragish inquired if Mr. Soper would have any objection to a continuance to October 3, 2002 to which Mr. Soper responded in the negative, other than he is not sure what it would accomplish because their concerns have been addressed. The exact design can be addressed at the tract map stage. He has no problem with having a left turn only sign out of the subdivision and allowed access to continue through southbound, and this might address their concerns created by this particular design in the condition, and then they could have an approval now if staff concurs. Commissioner Tragish stated that he thinks they should have the opportunity to discuss these issues. Mr. Soper stated that he received a revised set of conditions from Ms. Shaw concerning consolidation of the drainage from the existing tract to the west with this tract, and in the event there is going to be a vote on that, then he would like to remove that condition because the existing tract was designed in the County at a time period where the landowner at the southwest corner at issue now, was absolutely unavailable, and she would not communicate with either the County or him and they were forced to design the drainage from that subdivision which went into a sump, and the current design of that sump precludes any ability for them to recondition it back to having the ability to have it be a lot or anything else. Therefore, if they redesigned the drainage so the western tract drained into a larger sump on the eastern tract that would be a dead piece of land, and as part of a County requirement they were required to abandon access onto any lot or any residential lot from Rowland Avenue, so it would be a lot without access and without use. He indicated that they would like to avoid that situation. Commissioner Gay asked if the plan was discussed at the Monday meeting and the drawing just received the day before? Staff said the details had been worked out, but just had not been drawn up. Commissioner Gay also asked if the applicant would be abandoning the right-of-way on the west side of Jenkins Road if the intersection revision was made? Ms. Shaw indicated that she did not recall that there was any dedication for Jenkins, so it would all come out of the future tract. Ms. Shaw indicated that it was her recollection that if Jenkins remained a collector that it be dedicated, and therefore she does believe there is a dedication for Jenkins. Commissioner Gay asked if a block wall or landscaping would be required along the west side of Jenkins, to which Ms. Shaw responded that if there are double-frontage lots it would be required. Commissioner Gay stated that he would like to see the residents have a little bit of time to look at the street issues. Ms. Gennaro stated that if this is to be continued she needs the motion to include a motion that the public portion of the hearing be re-opened so that it does not need to be renoticed. Commissioner Ellison stated that he is not sure there would be a problem on Appaloosa because he thinks the traffic problem starts with the jog on Brimhall. He asked when Jenkins will be straightened out, because when that occurs it will become a more favorable route? Staff responded that Mr. Soper is working a project with the City and the County to do some additional paving on Brimhall Road that will go across the front of this acreage being reviewed and will help to straighten out that odd ball intersection at Brimhall and Jenkins, so that the two lanes will line up east and west across the intersection. Commissioner Ellison stated that the proposed median solves one problem, but creates another Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 8 and stated that he would be in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Tkac stated that while he is not sure a continuance is the answer, it would appear to him that the traffic calming devices dips on Appaloosa potentially off of Meritage and he does not see too much of a traffic problem there. He does not know if a big brick median would be the answer, or if a traffic circle could be done such as on Oleander. He questions whether there should be a continuance to look at these issues, or to at least have a condition in place stating that there is some traffic calming device in there. He stated that they can probably calm the situation. He also stated that if the applicant can come back on the 3rd without delaying the process within the cycle period it might be the thing to do. There will only be $6 lots total between the western and eastern half, so there will only be a small amount of traffic generated by the subdivision, especially when it is split between two exits. Mr. Soper further commented that they have extended accommodations to solve whatever problem they "might" have created for the neighborhood, and at the same time, 90% of the problem that exists relates to the design and construction of Appaloosa and the fact that Jenkins connects to Brimhall and eventually to Appaloosa and eventually to Allen. Mr. Soper also suggested that eventually on Allen Road there might be a design in the median there that would limit traffic turning left from northbound Allen onto Appaloosa. A stop sign will slow down the traffic on Appaloosa, or amend the median on Allen to prevent people from traveling down it, and they have really mitigated the traffic issues to help the neighbors, and he feels that they are down to the last four or five cars a day that might potentially travel out of the development. He stated that he does not really see the need to continue. Commissioner Gay concurred with Commissioner Tkac and stated that the reason he was proposing a continuance to October 3rd was that he felt that after the neighbors had the time to review they probably would not want the calming device in there. Commissioner Sprague asked if this could be approved subject to these calming devices being worked out at the meeting with Councilman Couch, to which staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sprague stated that he did speak with Mr. Soper today and he did receive a fax. He stated that he thinks the project should be pushed forward subject to the condition that the neighbors have their meeting with the developer, with staff and Councilman Couch and resolve the issue subject to the satisfaction and approval of the Traffic Engineer for traffic safety concerns. Commissioner Tragish made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to continue agenda item 7.3a, 7.3b and 7.3c to October 3, 2002 and in conjunction with this motion that the public hearing be reopened. Motion failed by the following roll call vote: AYE: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, Tragish NOES: Commissioners Blockley, McGinnis, Tkac, Sprague ABSENT: None Staff suggested that all three elements may be approved now and incorporate the memo that was prepared by Ms. Shaw, with the understanding that the memo can be modified after a meeting, and upon the approval of the traffic engineer but prior to submission to City Council. This should give enough discretion to the neighbors and the applicant and City Staff. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the agenda items were approved if it could be modified by a meeting between the homeowners, the applicant and staff because there is no incentive for Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 9 cooperation amongst the parties. He stated that he thinks that a continuance would be more of an incentive to resolving these issues and coming back on the 3rd, but since that motion has failed he suggests put the motion up or continue it. Commissioner Ellison stated that he will yield to hear the motion. Commissioner Gay moved to approve the motion with the calming devices to accommodate the neighbors on Appaloosa and give them the protection they require, but will also allow for flexibility for the neighbors to work with Councilman Couch and staff at the scheduled meeting on the 24th and get a calming device, or no calming device that is acceptable to those residents on Appaloosa. Commissioner Gay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt the resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested General Plan Amendment to amend the land use element designation from ER to SR on 20 acres, and approving the circulation element circulation map to delete Jenkins Road as a collector segment as delineated in Exhibit 2 of the draft resolution and with the understanding that the additional calming traffic devices indicated in the September 16, 2002 memo from Ms. Shaw will be submitted at the submission of the GPA/zone change to the City Council, with the understanding that the memo can be modified and that additional calming devices can be added upon approval of the City prior to the submission of the GPA zone change to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: None Commissioner Gay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration approving the requested zone change to change the zoning district from A to E on 20 acres reflected in the attached Draft Resolution as Exhibit 2 with the understanding that the memo dated September 16, 2002 from Ms. Shaw can be modified to incorporate additional calming traffic devices prior to submission of the GPA/ zone change to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: None 7.4a&b) GPA/ZC No. P02-0616 (Gregory W. Davis) (Ward 4) Commissioner Tragish stated that he has a conflict and recused himself. Staff report given recommending approval. The following spoke against staff' recommendation: Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 10 Floyd Hinsley stated that he owns the 40 acre parcel immediately south and contiguous to this parcel. He stated that he was only notified on Tuesday as he only acquired title to that property a few weeks ago. He has requested from the applicant that they sit down and discuss input they might want to have about the applicant's project. The lots being constructed are predominately 10,000 square feet, and the housing is going to be upper-moderate in nature, probably in the $200,000 range and he hopes that the apartments that would be constructed there would be something that would be compatible with the homes they propose to build. He requested that prior to approval that some approved declared amenities be in place such as through a PUD. He stated that he would like to know if there will be landscape buffers, single stories buffering the residential R-1 units, and proper traffic flows that do not encroach on the R-1 properties. He suggested a continuance to allow for him to sit down with the applicant and have some input in this project. Fred Porter, from Porter-Robertson Engineering, stated that he is Mr. Hinsley's engineer on his property. He explained that the property to the north is a 40 acre parcel that Mr. Murphy is a partner in, and he submitted a letter to staff opposing this project. This parcel has been annexed to the City a few weeks ago. Mr. Porter stated that as a condition of the property that he has purchased, and the property that he has option on he controls 140 acres of the 160 acre property bounded by Allen Road, Old Farm Road to the east, Reina on the north and Noriega on the south. As a condition of the approval for the zone change and general plan amendment he was required to do a sewer study. This study has been done, and there is a restriction in the sewer line south of the project. The entitlements that Mr. Hinsley currently has on the 140 acres of property limits him to 520 homes based on traffic. The sewer study shows that his property can be served, plus an additional 111 units above and beyond that. Mr. Porter indicated that the proposed 225 units would exceed the sewer capacity. Mr. Porter stated that there could be a buffer for the single family, and there could be a buffer of the proposed R-2, and a PCD or PUD would protect the developers' interests and still accomplish what the applicant wants to accomplish. Hearing opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Greg Davis, owner of the subject property, stated that he is a farmer, stated that he has owned this property for a number of years. He explained that after research with the City as to what he should do with this property, he was advised that R-2 zoning would be appropriate given the surrounding area of the property. He stated that he does see the need for higher density dwellings given the current rapid population growth, which is encroaching on prime agricultural land. Michelle Lamoine with Mclntosh and Associates on behalf of Greg Davis stated that Mr. Davis has provided a well planned, well thought ought progressive project that is going to be in an area that is going to provide housing to the residents of the northwest portion of Bakersfield, and also to the new Target and the ITTC development that is going to employ a huge amount of people. She indicated that the staff report does not indicate any environmental impacts associated with this project that the proposed mitigations would not adequately lesson any impacts to the environment from the project. She stated that the request for a possible PUD is not something that they would prefer to see because the product that the applicant is proposing is going to be approved through site plan review process, and in that process there are certain guidelines and policies that must be met with respect to landscaping and setback for both single and two-story units. Further, there was a traffic study prepared that has been reviewed by Public Works that addresses the applicant's pro-rata share for the TIF program. She believes the project itself can be supported well through site plan review without a PUD. She further commented that while the Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 11 sewer study has been submitted, it has not been reviewed and approved as of yet. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Commissioner Sprague stated that he thinks this project is needed in this area, and it will be put forth before a site plan review, which will be open to the public for review and comment. He states that the sewer issues will be worked out. He further stated that he is in favor of Staff's recommendation and approving the General Plan Amendment and the zone change as proposed. Commissioner Gay stated that he is in favor of the project as it stands, although a PUD might be a good idea. Commissioner Sprague stated that he does not believe a PUD overlay is needed in this situation. Commissioner Gay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the negative declaration approving the requested General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from R-1 A to HMR on 18.64 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 and make the recommendation to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish Commissioner Gay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to adopt a Resolution making findings approving the Negative Declaration and approving the zone change from A-20A to R-2 and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Sprague. NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tragish 7.5) Text Amendment to RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan No. P02-0620 (RiverLakes Ranch Master Association) (Ward 4) Staff report given. Memoranda, aerial photos and traffic information provided. Staff indicated that they received a fax this date from Mr. Bill Williams recommending the approval of staff's recommendation, and agreeing with the access to Coffee Road from his Northshore project, and does not believe that access to Northshore should be closed off to them. Public hearing opened. The following spoke for and against the project: Estey Songer, Rosetta Johnson, Cheryl Santos, Mike Callagy, Mike Woods, John Hedgepetch, Jeff Williams, Jay Rosenlieb, Mary Powelson, Ken Swift, Stan Pearcy, Hank LeMay, Deborah Howard, Rosemary Ryan, Martin Marks, Harold Sudgen and Randall Jackson. Traffic was the major issue for those in opposition to the project. They feel that there will be Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 12 more cars coming onto Coffee with the apartments going in which will make Coffee Road a raceway. Cars that will try to make a U-turn at Peanut to head back to Olive is a disaster when all of the traffic is coming off of Peanut onto Coffee Road. Sometimes it is backed up a block and-a-half waiting to get onto Coffee Road. Some concern was also expressed about parking. Residents feel that the tenants will be parking on the street and using their garages for storage. Current residents also wanted the Commission to deny access to Northshore Drive from the apartments. They feel this will bring more traffic onto Northshore Drive. Excess foot traffic was also expressed as a concern. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Commissioner Sprague stated the basic issue is traffic on Coffee Road. Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, was asked to explain the differential between the development as it stands and as an improved R-2 and the capacity of Coffee Road. Mr. Walker stated that the northbound and southbound volume on Coffee Road currently is 18,300 vehicles per day. The current volume capacity ratio is .3050 which is equivalent to a level of service A, which is for capacity of Coffee Road. The traffic volume is calculated from Northshore and Southshore developments. The Northshore as proposed as 107 units would contribute 710 vehicle trips per day. The Southshore as proposed as 98 units would contribute approximately 650 vehicle trips per day. The total increase from both developments to Coffee Road would be 1,360 trips. This would give a projected traffic volume on Coffee Road, if all multi-family access was to Coffee Road only, to 19,660 vehicle trips per day north and south. This increased the projected volume to capacity ratio to 0.3277 and still remains in a service level of A. For comparison purposes, the threshold level to go beyond service level C, which is the general plan circulation element desired level of service, is 0.800, or about 48,000 vehicles per day. Really, the capacity of the road is unchanged. What really occurs is changes in traffic patterns. Mr. Walker stated that there would be U-tums. He stated getting out onto Coffee Road will be no different than getting onto any other arterial road such as on Ming Avenue which has 35,000 to 40,000 cars per day. It can be done in a safe manner. Mr. Walker stated that regarding the speed on Coffee Road, it is an arterial and posted at 55 to 65 miles an hour, but as it gets more and more congested traffic tends to slow down. Mr. Walker concurred that if there is access to Northshore people will be using Northshore. He stated that Southshore is a little bit different because it is a public road and probably more of the homeowners would be using the access, but there will be some people who will wind through the streets to get up to Olive Drive. Mr. Walker commented that no matter what the decision is, it is going to affect someone. Staff is in favor of opening Coffee Road. Commissioner Sprague asked what Mr. Walker's professional opinion is on what the circulation issue to the RiverLakes residents would be if there was or wasn't access to Northshore. Mr. Walker responded that on the Southshore there is a potential for benefit to the neighborhood because they would have another access to Coffee. On the negative side, some may want to take it all the way to Olive. He said that on the Northshore access it would probably be less of a benefit to the RiverLakes residents, and more for people from the multi-family development that would use Northshore. He indicated that they are still discussing ways to make it less desirable to use the Northshore access. Commissioner Sprague stated that after reviewing the traffic analysis and the statistics he thinks Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 13 the best way to handle the situation is to approve both of the Coffee accesses and to also approve the accesses onto Northshore and Southshore for the safety and circulation issues. Commissioner Gay stated that currently the only access is through Northshore and Southshore and the Coffee Road access is just to help alleviate some of the issues on the Northshore and Southshore access. He stated that he is hopeful that the Hageman flyover will eventually alleviate some of the Olive Drive traffic issues. He further commented that he does not recall Mr. Stanton ever inviting the development to be part of their CC&R's so he is taking that as no invitation being made. He indicated that he will support staff's position of opening Coffee as well as allowing access on Northshore and Southshore. Commissioner Ellison stated that he is in favor of staff's recommendation. He stated that he does not think that it is appropriate to close access to Northshore and Southshore as it is not required, and it is not safe, and is not good planning. Commissioner McGinnis stated he feels a compromise has been made between the parties. He stated that he supports staff's recommendation. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Grady if the Southshore development is a gated community to which Mr. Grady responded in the negative, and that the Northshore development is a gated community. Mr. Tragish stated that Coffee Road has potential of up to 48,000 vehicles and that the impact will be minimal. He stated that he did not think that the internal traffic problems within RiverLakes would be increased with the Coffee access, but will probably be improved. He also indicated that Mr. Walker has indicated that staff is working on the RiverLakes traffic issues in other meetings. He stated that it is also up to the homeowners to try to get their fellow neighbors to rethink their driving habits. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Walker if there is any estimation as to the traffic and circulation from the homeowners of Southshore going to the apartments and going to Coffee Road in addition to the numbers already estimated, to which Mr. Walker responded that he does not have a quantity estimate. Mr. Walker stated that on average the Southshore with 98 units will produce about 650 vehicles which is 325 in, and 325 out. Which way the vehicles go is subjective. Most would probably go to Coffee, and some may go to the north and south. Mr. Walker estimates that there would probably be 200 to 300 vehicles from the Southshore neighborhood if access was available to Coffee going through the R-2 zone. It would depend on the driving habits of the neighborhood. Commissioner Tragish asked how easy it will be to cut through the development to which Mr. Walker responded that there would be some turns and not as convenient, but may have some advantage to those living in that neighborhood. Commissioner Tragish stated that he concurs with his fellow Commissioners, and sees it as a benefit to opening up Coffee Road to release the traffic. He stated that he does not think there is going to be the onrush of traffic from the Northshore apartments onto Northshore Drive because it is a gated community. He feels the same for the Southshore development. He stated that the people of this development are part of the neighborhood and they are going to have to learn how to be part of the neighborhood, as well as the homeowners. He supports staff's recommendation. Commissioner Blockley stated the median on the drawing would indicate no turns into Peanut and he would support staff's recommendation. Staff responded that there is no proposal to change the median as it exists today, which currently does have access to Peanut. Staff stated that the only proposal is to provide an access through the linear park from the multi-family to Coffee. He indicated that there is no proposal to cut any additional accesses through the median. Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 14 Commissioner Tkac stated that he is in support of staff's recommendation and that traffic can be calmed in this area. Randall Jackson made a correction to the record. He stated that they invited the Southshore development in for $5.00 a month and it was refused. Commissioner Tragish made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to adopt a Resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested text amendment to the RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan to allow vehicle access to Coffee Road for property designated HMR/R-2 between Olive Drive and Hageman Road as proposed in Exhibit A and deny the requested text amendment to the RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan to prohibit vehicle access to Northshore Drive and Southshore Drive for property designated HMR/R-2 between Olive Drive and Hageman Road and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague None None 7.6a&b) GPA/ZC No. P02-0626 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 1) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Responses to questions raised at the Monday pre-meeting have been th provided in September 19 memorandum. Hearing opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation. Bacaree Sanyu, engineer for the sewer plant, stated that he was not there in opposition but was there to talk about inquiries regarding the proximity of the sewer plant to the site of the development and how close a residential development can be to a sewage plant without the residents of that development complaining about sewage odors and flies from a waste water treatment plant. Hearing opened for those in favor of staff's recommendation. Tom Hart for the applicant stated they are trying to create a buffer. They have provided in excess of the minimum setbacks. The public portion of the hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that he likes the project. Commissioner Tragish inquired of the sewer engineer if it could be requested that no projects be located within a quarter mile of the plant, to which Mr. Sanyu responded that they would recommend a 500 foot setback from their property border. Mr. Sanyu indicated that based on experience from other plants whenever projects are within 500 feet to a waste water plant boundary there is always problems from the contiguous neighbor with odors and flies. Commissioner Tragish indicated that he would like to see some mitigation on this issue. Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 15 Commissioner Gay stated he will support the project. Commissioner McGinnis asked how many units are projected for the development to which Mr. Hart responded that there are 42 for the multi-family, which will be single-story four-plexes in linear fashion. Staff indicated that they did not notify the appropriate health agencies. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Sanyu if a 6 or 8 foot brick wall would allow for an additional buffer if placed along the sewer plant's east line. Mr. Sanyu replied that he would like to refer this question to his staff Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Sanyu's if the treatment plant receives any complaints from the industrial neighbors to which Mr. Sanyu responded that there have been complaints of odor and they have indicated that those odors are not coming from their plant. He indicated that sometimes they believe the odors are coming from the City's green waste facility. Commissioner McGinnis indicated that he thinks there should be some type of barrier whether with trees or a brick wall. Mr. Hart stated that since the sewer plant has been around the industrial neighbors for 50 years that if there were some problem there would be some documented complaints or problems. Mr. Hart indicated that the Bakersfield Adult School is in closer proximity then his current project and he is not aware of any odor complaints. Mr. Hart further stated that he is not aware of any need to mitigate anything, because the industrial buildings are buffers themselves given the way they are built, and also the wind is going to blow the way it blows. Mr. Grady indicated that notice was not given to the Health Department, but was given to Kern Mosquito Abatement Agency, Waste Management Department and to the Resource Management Department. Mr. Sanyu recommended that the Environmental Health Department and the Waste Management Department to jointly work with the applicant to come up with some amenable mitigation measures. Mr. Hart stated that he is not clear on what is being mitigated as there are no mitigation problems. Commissioner Sprague replied that there is a spreading area that the people in front don't have adjacent to them, and there is an easterly wind factor that creates dust particles and smells and flys that will roll over to the tenants or the owners or the occupants of the industrial and continue on into the high density. He would like to have a barrier that would eliminate a portion of the smell and a portion of the drift that comes off that decaying organism that's in that spread area. He believes the wind will lift it and make it airborne. He stated that he would be in favor of approving the project with some type of continuing mitigation with Kern Waste. Mr. Hart indicated that he is not sure how mitigation can be imposed on him as a developer of just this piece, when a couple hundred feet to the north there are no mitigating features at all. Commissioner Sprague stated that this property is immediately adjacent to the plant, but the property to the north is not adjacent to the plant. Mr. Hart pointed out that the northern industrial boundary that they don't own is well within 500 feet, and if there are going to be restrictions imposed on him, then he thinks that it would only be appropriate to go back on the zoning and the uses already approved for the properties adjacent to his property line and impose similar restrictions on them, because they are only a foot or two Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 16 away from his property. He stated he does not understand the penalty applied to this type of use when it has already been approved adjacent to them. Commissioner Tkac stated a little more time to discuss these issues with the surrounding neighbors might be to the developer's advantage. Commissioner Sprague inquired why not acquire a park site with access now and implement it, and then as building and development comes south there is a site that can be the park. Mr. Jones, from the City Parks Department, responded that they are currently watching the development in this area and they are looking for 10 acres. Commissioner Sprague asked what the status is of the committee review of ordinances for apartments and recreation complexes within apartment sites. Staff responded that it is still in committee. This would be subject to a site plan that would come before the planning department, and if the ordinance is changed to require recreation then that would be a requirement of this R-3 development. Staff concurred that so long as the ordinance is approved before the map is approved. Commissioner Tragish stated that an approval might be ambiguous with the recommendation for continued discussions with Environmental Health. He stated that he likes the project. Commissioner Blockley stated that the land use request is appropriate. Staff commented that what can be applied at the time of subdivision depends on what is adopted as far as ordinances and policies that are on the books at the time the map is deemed complete. Any environmental issues beyond that that require specific mitigation can be applied with conditions through the California Environmental Quality Act. Staff pointed out that the only issues Mr. Sanyu brought up were nuisance issues which can be conditioned by barriers, etc. Mr. Sanyu stated that it is a grave mistake for the Commission to make any action without any comments and guidance from the EHD. Commissioner Sprague asked that if it was left with M-2 zoning, if there would be any requirement for the developer to put in any type of buffer in to which staff responded in the negative. Mr. Hart stated that he would not accept any health teated mitigation matters on this project, because they are not proven, and are only conjecture by certain people, and there has been no evidence to the contrary. He stated that they would leave it M-2 and build. He stated that they don't need a general plan amendment and don't need a zone change. He said they would submit a site plan and then build. Commissioner Gay stated that given Mr. Hart's statement that this item should just be denied or dropped right now. Commissioner Tragish made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to not adopt the resolution, and to not approve the negative declaration, and to not approve the requested plan amendment to change the land use designation from HI to LI on 9.93 acres, and HI to HMR on 18.76 acres as shown in Exhibit A and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: Commissioners Blockley Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 17 ABSENT: None Commissioner Tragish made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to not adopt a resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from M-2 to M-1 on 9.93 acres of M-2 general manufacturing R-2 limited multi-family on 18.76 acres as shown in Exhibit B and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYE: Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: Commissioners Blockley ABSENT: None 7.7) General Plan Amendment No. P02-0629 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 5) See Consent Agenda 7.8) General Plan Amendment No. P02-0623 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 3) Public portion of the hearing is opened for those in opposition to staff's recommendation for a continuance to October 3, 2002. No one spoke for or against the recommendation. The public portion of the hearing was left opened. Motion made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to continue this item to October 3, 2002. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: None COMMUNICATIONS: None. ~OMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Gay commented about a joint session with City and County, and requested an agenda of items that can be discussed after the next joint meeting so that conditions would be compatible. Minutes, PC, September 19, 2002 Page 18 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on September 30, 2002. 11. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 10:57 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary O~ober7, 2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director