Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 21, 2002Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Sprague, Tkac, Tragish Commissioner McGinnis Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Jim Movius, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None Commissioner Gay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to move item 8 immediately behind the Consent Agenda items. Motion carried. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of October 17, 2002. 4.1b Approval of Wall and Landscape Master Concept Plan No. 02-01017 (Mclntosh and Associates) proposed for the west side of Calloway north of the Cross Valley Canal and the Rio Bravo Canal, and the east side of Jewetta for the Brighton Place development (Vesting Tentative Tracts 6111,6127 and 6128). (Ward 4) 4.1c Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for the acquisition of one parcel located at 712 Kentucky Street (7,500 sq.ft.) for the purpose of Baker Street Redevelopment Project. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 2) Motion was made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the non-public hearing items portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried Minutes, PC, November 21, 2002 Page 2 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time for Tract 5998 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) located approximately one mile south of Highway 178, 1/4 miles east of Miramonte Drive (extended). (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 3) 4.2b Approval of Extension of Time for Parcel Map 10347 (Wayne Massie) located at the northwest corner of Cottonwood Road and East Pacheco Road. (Exempt from CEQA) Hearing opened for public comment. No one spoke against the items. Wayne Massie, applicant for 4.2b, said he agreed with staff's recommendation. Motion was made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to approve the items on the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 8. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION PLANNING IN METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD Jacques La Rochelle, Assistant Public Works Director, gave an update to the Commission regarding where the city is with some of the major capital projects and then took questions from the Commissioners. PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Parcel Map No. 10923 (Frank A. Slinkard, Engineering) located at the northeast corner of Calloway Drive and Meacham Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Ward 4) Public portion of the hearing was opened. Staff report given recommending approval with conditions attached to the staff report. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Frank Slinkard, representing the owner, stated they approved the conditions but request deferral of the sidewalks until development occurs. They would like to put in the sidewalk as soon as the first development occurs so that they can produce some funds to pay for the sidewalks. Paul Andre, one of the developers of the property, said they are in concurrence with staff's recommendations but the only improvement they ask to defer at this time is the sidewalks to site plan review process as each individual lot is developed so that they can be dovetailed with the rest of the flatwork and landscaping plans at that time. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay asked if there are any school bus pickups in the area where it might be a safety issue without sidewalks? Mr. Grady said he does not have that information. They have no correspondence from the school districts that would indicate one way or the other. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Andre why they want to delay the sidewalks? Mr. Andre said part of it is an economic reason and the other is just to have it dovetail with the individual site plans as different parties go in to produce their office developments on the site. Minutes, PC, November 21, 2002 Page 3 Commissioner Tragish said that staff's comments say that there is no way to control the sequence of development to ensure the improvements will occur in an orderly fashion and the developer might have to make off-site improvements across property they may not control or own anymore. Mr. Andre said that as each party develops their lot, they would be responsible for their frontage of the sidewalk. Commissioner Tragish said he agrees with staff. The projects need to be laid all out before they start or the new owners may not be responsible to put it in. He also does not want staff to have to police this issue. Commissioner Blockley said he agrees with Commissioner Tragish. He also has a concern with the school site being nearby. Mr. Slinkard said they would be agreeable to put in all of the sidewalks with the first development. If there is a problem, it is existing. They are not changing anything. Ms. Shaw said that they are going to have to make some improvements to get the map recorded (such as putting in a right turn lane). Once they have recorded the map and put in a right turn lane, they can then sell each of the lots individually. The concern is how you can get the individual property owners to pay for their share of the sidewalk when it goes in at a later date. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Tentative Parcel Map 10923 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached revised resolution Exhibit A and A.1 and with Planning Department memorandum dated November 21, 2002. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis PUBLIC HEARING - Development Plan Review No. 02-0922 (Mark Costa) located at 2210 Ming Avenue. (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 7) Public portion of the hearing was opened. Mr. Grady said that staff is recommending this project be continued until December 5, 2002. The applicant is still in the process of working out conditions of approval with the Public Works Department. Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to continue this until the December 5, 2002 meeting. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis Minutes, PC, November 21, 2002 Page 4 PUBLIC HEARING TO AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF TITLE 17, ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING REGULATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF MULTIPLE FAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS SUCH AS DUPLEXES, TRIPLEXES AND FOURPLEXES IN THE R-2 (MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL) ZONE DISTRICTS. Staff report given recommending approval. Public portion of the hearing was opened. No one spoke either for or against the project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Blockley said that he disagrees with the committee on the nature of the exemption for the smaller lots in the older parts of town. They are generally established neighborhoods that have a character and feel that is unique to those neighborhoods and people living there generally live there because they want that and quite a few of those are zoned R-2. It is conceivable that without any sort of protection that we will have the kinds of things that were presented as things to avoid being built in those areas precisely where they are not needed simply because it is possible to do so. Mr. Grady said the Commission has the option to decide whether they want to exempt certain project sites that have existed prior to adoption of the ordinance. There are some aspects of this ordinance that would not negatively impact an infill development that could improve its appearance. Commissioner Gay said they might look at preserving the architectural integrity of the neighborhood. Hopefully, they would have that residential look on the elevations to protect any existing neighborhoods. Commissioner Gay asked if an addition to the motion stipulating that garages/carports are one and the same when referring to landscape drive aisles help for clarification? Mr. Grady said they could remove the reference to garage and just make it a requirement for an eight foot wide landscape strip in front of the buildings which would be understood to be that portion of the building that is not occupied by a carport or a garage. Commissioner Gay said that BIA contacted him with questions regarding the park credit for the area referred to as "open space" and he thinks that they are not considering that open space to be a park amenity. Their discussion at committee level was that it is basically giving more open space or buffering between the units and that no credit would be allowed. His comment to BIA is that if they did go into the development put in pools, tot lots and other amenities, then they would have the option to discuss the possibility of a park credit. Mr. Grady said that is correct. Commissioner Tragish said they talked about this in committee and it was a great concern to him. He thought the main thrust of some of the changes were for the projects that were larger than 10,000 square feet. He has a concern for the small investors with one lot or so and the increase costs for them. He did not want to burden the small investors with the smaller lots with the type of extensive changes that are being recommended in this ordinance. He does not support deleting that exception. Commissioner Ellison said he was also on the committee and one of his main concerns was existing lots in the interior part of the city. He did not want to discourage infill development with currently existing multiple family zoned lots. He thinks this ordinance takes care of that. This ordinance places a greater demand on the lot for open space. The exception allows smaller lots in the interior of town to be developed at higher density. The masonry wall requirement is a Minutes, PC, November 21, 2002 Page 5 significant part of this ordinance. It will be mandatory for multiple family projects that abut R-l, MH, PUDs, etc. Commissioner Sprague said he agrees that there should be some continuity with existing architectural design being consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Gay asked staff if there is a way of stating it so that they keep the 10,000 foot lot exemption in the infill areas except for the architectural and trash enclosure requirements? Mr. Grady said the trash enclosure requirement is not subject to the exemption. It is not a new provision. It was merely a clarification of the intent of the existing provision but with respect to the architectural elevations, the Commission could certainly decide that is one of the changes the Commission wants the infill projects to comply with and remove the exemption from that section of the ordinance. Commissioner Blockley asked Mr. Grady if it would be possible in a single family neighborhood that exists and is zoned R-2 for a developer to purchase two adjoining lots, put a common driveway in and have two, two story with parking underneath blank facing walls facing the street? Mr. Grady said the way the ordinance is written, the exemption would allow for that to occur. Commissioner Tragish said that his concern is that on a small lot they are asking the infill developer to line up four-plexes on the smaller lots to make them be street-facing end units but he is more than happy to entertain that as an exception to the ordinance, i.e. that the exceptions will apply save and except as to the committee recommendation as found in paragraph 6b on page 5 of the staff report. His concern is that the small developer will not be able to comply. Commissioner Sprague said that it would be difficult to develop a fourplex in a 10,000 square foot lot or smaller with all the requirements. He is not sure how that problem could be solved. Commissioner Tragish said that is his concern and also that the shape of the lot will not allow a four-plex be put on it to adhere to the architectural requirement. That is why they wanted to make this exception. Commissioner Gay said not every lot will take a four-plex, sometimes a tri-plex or duplex will be necessary. He would like to go forward with the tri-plex, duplex as the only exemption taken off of the 10,000 foot lot requirement. Commissioner Ellison asked for clarification if a piece of property is currently R-1 or commercial and rezoned to R-2 that this ordinance would apply? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Ellison feels that will place a greater demand on infill projects. He feels it is an inconsistency but that you can't make an ordinance to cover everything. Commissioner Tragish in response to Mr. Gay's statement suggested that to leave the exception in but clarify that it only applies to four-plexes. Mr. Grady clarified some of the changes per tonight's discussion. They are: 1) There is a correction that would need to be made to Section 17.61.030 to make sure it is understood that the 8-foot landscaping would be required regardless if there is a garage or carport. That would require striking out "where parking is provided in garages" and striking out "to the garages." That statement would then read an 8-foot landscape area shall be provided between each building and drive aisle for multi-family projects using a common drive aisle with shared access. Minutes, PC, November 21, 2002 Page 6 2) The other one is to clarify 17.14.026 would need to be clear that the refuse container requirement that they not be located in the front yard is not subject to the exemption that is in the sentence following it. The intent is that sentence would apply to the street facing end units and the clarification that the significant difference had to be in color, in elevation and roof types and so forth. Commissioner Gay made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to adopt the resolution approving the proposed text revisions to Title 17 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code and attached Exhibit A with the following changes: The exemption for 10,000 square foot lots shall not exclude architectural requirements for duplexes and tri-plexes and including the comments stated by the Planning Director, Mr. Grady. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Tkac, Tragish, Sprague NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner McGinnis 8. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION PLANNING IN METROPOLITAN BAKERSFIELD This was presented after the Consent Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS: None 10. ~COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Tragish thanked staff for the presentation on traffic and circulation planning. Commissioner Sprague thanked the Council for upholding the Commission's recommendation on the Panama/Wible PCD/C-2. Commissioner Sprague said he will be speaking with Councilman Couch to discuss developing a committee, with a recommendation from the City Council as far as direction, to form a 3 member committee within the Planning Commissions that could meet and discuss possible agenda items (transportation and beltways, continuities with codes and ordinances, sign ordinances, traffic congestion relief planning, landscape standards for industrial and commercial) for future joint City/County Planning Commission workshops for continuity. 11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: Minutes, PC, November 21, 2002 Page 7 It was decided there would not be a pre-meeting on December 2, 2002. 12. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary December 11,2002 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director