Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/21/92MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD . -Held. ~Thursday, May 21, 1992, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Tmxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JIM MARINO, Chairperson STEVE ANDERSON, Vice Chairperson JEFF ANDREW DAVID COHN STEVE MESSNER DARREN POWERS KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Deputy City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director CALVIN BIDWELL, Building Director STAFF: Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOV!US, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner JIM EGGERT, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 2. PUBLIC STATEMENTS No one made any public statements at this time. Chairman read the notice of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Page 2 3. PRESENTATION TO COMMISSIONER BJORN Chairman 'Marino stated to Commissioner Bjorn is was a pleasure serving on the Commission with her and presented a plaque to her. Commissioner Anderson stated to Commissioner Bjorn that it was a pleasure working with her, saying she was always able to formulate the~most difficult motions. CommissiOner Bjorn stated this was one of the most worthwhile ways in which she has spent her time. 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to approve minutes of the regular meetings held April 2, and April 16, 19921 with-a change to Page 2 of April 2, 1992 minutes, last paragraph the word "he" should be changed to "Commissioner Marino". Motion carried. 5. ' PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONCHANGE - TENTATIVE TRACT 4902 Commissioner_Anderson abstained due to a conflict of interest in that his company is providing services for the applicant. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger McIntosh represented the original applicant of Tract 4902, Castle & Cooke Development Corporation, however he stated this application is City-initiated. He requested-that the following wording be added to the beginning of Condition #3: ."One year after the" in order to tie it to a specific date. Public portion, of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Messn~er, seconded by Commissioner Rosenlieb to approve the change of conditions of approva! as requested in memo dated April 20, 1992, attached to' the staff report, with the following change: Item 3 will begin with the following wording: !'One year after the" Motion carried. Commissioners Cohn and Anderson were absent. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92_ Page 3 6.1 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5594 Chairman Marino abstained due to a conflict of interest in that his employer has property bptioned 'approximately 1/4 mile from this property. Commissioner Anderson chaired this hearing. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Harold Robertson was Present speaking in favor. He stated his concurrence with all conditions except Condition #14 regarding secondary access to the tract. He stated in discussing this issue with staff they ask that the following additional statement be added: ".The improvements shall consist of 24 feet of 2 inch asphaltic concrete over 6 inches of natural ground compacted to 95 percent relative density. Eight foot shoulders graded shall be provided on each side of the pavement." Mr..Kloepper 'stated his agreement with this, however he suggested that the word "The" be changed to "Temporary". Chairman Anderson cited the change of Parks condition, of the memo dated May 21, 1992. Mr. Robertson concurred with this change. -Publicportion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Messner to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5594 (Vesting) subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the following exceptions: Page 6 of 8, Item #1 to be changed to read as follows: Walls and landscaping shall be consistent with the plans approved by the Planning Commission for the Polo Grounds. Item #14, Public Works conditions the following sentence shall be added: Temporary improvements shall consist of 24 feet of 2 inch asphalt concrete over six inches of natural ground compacted to 95 percent relative density. An 8-foot graded shoulder shall be provided on each side of the pavement. Motion Carried. Commissioners Marino and Cohn were absent. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Page 4 6.2 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5616 Commissioner Anderson abstained due to a conflict of interest in.that he is providing' services to the applicant. Staff report was given. *Commissioner Cohn was seated. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roge. r McIntosh represented the applicant. He stated the reason for this being an optional design subdivision is that the area was a part of a tentative tract approved in 1986. -This tract is covering the second and third phases of it. They are carrying on the'street pattern as closely as possible and trying to use some of - the improvements ih place. He felt there were physical constraints in topography and therefore he requested the optional design subdivision. Also when the original tract was approved landscape requirements did not exist. There is a need to widen Old River Road adding a landscape strip which pushes the rest Of the area closer, thereby not allowing them to match the existing design. He cited their proposal on Campus Park Drive being to continue Frost Way southbound into a cul-de-sac, fronting lots on the cul-de-sac up to lot 57 which would be the only lot looking into the commercial area. He stated they are requesting optional design subdivision becaUSe they-are proposing single family homes on 3,600 square foot lots. Regarding condition #2 of Public Works, construction of standard arterial street improvements he did not feel it should be the responsibility of this subdivider to provide the landscape requirement of the westerlY, parkway area asking that this portion be deleted. Mr. Kloepper said since the subdivider in this situation was involved in the original improvement of White Lane and since the commercial property to the west does not front on Campus Park Drive they .wOUld not be required to provide the landscape improvements along the westerly parkway, between White Lane and Thoreau. He recommended it remain as proposed. ConcurrenCe_with this. Regarding Condition #4, Page 1 of 7, Exhibit "A" he asked that the w~ord "submittal" be changed to "approval" because they plan to submit all the plans at the same time. Mr. Kloepper was agreeable to this proposed change. Regarding Condition #17, Page 2 of 7; he asked for the same wording change, to which Mr. Kloepper was agreeable. Regarding Condition #5, Page 7 of 7, Planning Department conditions he asked for deletion because sufficient park land has been dedicated for Tentative Tract 5623. Mr. Hardisty agreed. Regarding Condition #6 presented during staff report, Mr. McIntosh stated they are in Condition #7, Page 7 of 7, Mr.. Mclntosh asked that it be Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Page 5 changed to read as follows: "Subdivider shall rename the following street: Salanger Street shall be changed to Salinger Street." Mr. Hardisty was in agreement with this change. Regarding Condition #8, Chairman Marino stated the recommendation from staff is that subparagraph e. be deleted in its entirety, to which Mr. McIntosh concurred. Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr, McIntosh Concurred with the change to Condition #2, Page 5 of 7 regarding the maintenance district number as outlined in memo from the Parks Division. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner R'osenlieb stated she discussed her concerns from the pre-meeting with Mr. McIntosh, saying she appreciated the proposal brought at this hearing to ensure that residential will not be fronting against the commercial. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. McIntosh stated they propose an addition 5-foot landscape easement which would bring the total to 8 or 9 feet from the back of sidewalk, with a block wall along the side of the lots. Commissioner Rosenlieb felt this is a better proposal. She said she would like to see a consistency in requiring optional design, stating she did not see physical constraints or extraordinary amenities as required in the memo. She concurred · with the suggestion of elimination of items 5 and Se., of. Page 7 of 7 and language for revision of item #6, however she stated her disagreement with Item #8.d. for exception which would allow a 5 foot setback on Lot 1. Regarding the applicant's request of Item #2 of Exhibit "A", she asked why the landscaping requirement could not be borne by the commercial property. Attorney Marino responded if the cOmmercial property encroached into the canal area for parking a nexus could be found. Mr. Kloepper responded saying the developer of subject tract developed the area and paved the road without landscaping. Mr. McIntosh clarified because the landscape requirements were changed since the approval of Tract 4863 on subject property, additional landscaping required on Old River Road and they were required to give up five feet to meet those standards.. This created a-situation in which they need a five foot side yard setback. He asked that Condition #2 be revised to only require half street plus 12 feet of paving because this is typically required as well as the deletion of landscaping along the west parkway up to White Lane. Mr. Kloepper said these improvements are required by ordinance and may not be deleted. Regarding the size redUction on the lot Commissioner COhn stated he understood Mr. McIntosh's.point, however he felt this contradicts the ordinance recently passed. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Page 6 Responding to a question by Commissioner Andrew, Mr. McIntosh said the 10- foot side yard setback still exists on Campus Park Drive. He stated he was in faVor of the new design with added landscaping and felt it is fair to allow the five foot setback on Lot i. Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hardisty said the wall would drop down to a 4-foot height respecting the front yard setback and sight distance requirements of traffic. Chairman Marino felt as long as the wall is not going to wrap. around he stated he would agree with Commissioner Andrew's comments allowing the reduction in setback. CommisSioner .Powers stated he had' no problem approving the reduction in side yard setback on Lot 1. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Cohn to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, including all findings in the memorandum from the Planning Department dated May 20, 1992 and approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5616, as amended in the presentation to the Planning Commission on May 21, 1992, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the following exceptions: Page 1, Exhibit "A", Item #4 the word "submittal" in the first line shall be changed to "approval" Page 2 of 7, Item #17 the word "submittal" in the' first line shall be changed to "approval" Page 5 of 7 item #2 maintenance district number shall be changed to 3. Page 7 of 7, Condition #5 shall be deleted, Condition #6 shall be modified to read as follows: Subdivider shall obtain Planning Commission approval of conceptual plans for landscaping and walls prior to recordation of the final map only if subdivider fails to be consistent with existing walls and landscaping to the north. Item 7 shall be amended to read as follows: Subdivider shall rename the following street: Salanger Street shall be changed to Salinger Street. -Minutes, PC,' 5/2i/92 Item #8)e. Shall be deleted Page 7 -FOr clarification the understanding is the amended tract map presented at this hearing will show .a wall along the lots as shown between the landscaping and those lots with at least 5 feet of landscaping. Responding to :question by CommiSsioner Powers, Chairman Marino stated he' agreed this is a modification and not an optional design. He stated he would be more comfortable if this were the motion and the findings recommended by the Planning Department memo, Page 2 were made. He felt this would justify the approval of the tract and modification as opposed to optional design~ Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she objected to side yard setback reductions, however has made this motion because she feels it is onerous to ask the developer to provide the landscaping required and because of the agreement on this-amended design. Commissioner Powers stated he would support the motion, .however stated he felt the commission cannot adequately demonstrate a nexus between the landscaping requirement north of Thoreau Drive and this tract. Commissioner Messner stated for clarification that the map submitted at this hearing depicts Frost Way ending ina cul-de-sac and the lots along Campus Park Drive backing up to ~the commercial development are the lots which will require the wall and landscaping. 6.3¸ Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson was absent. P-UBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5623 Commissioner Anderson abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he is providing services to. the applicant. Staff report was given. Public portion the hearing was opened. Olivia Rosales, '8505 Bellows Avenue, spoke saying she is not opposing this development, however requested that Littleport Way be eliminated because of traffic problems and vehicular lighting. She asked that'consideration be made for allowing Laborough Road to continue through to Gosford Road for access purposes. She also requested that Kilterbury be revised to cut through White Lane only. Regarding the north side of Bellows possibly being used by residents of the new development as a parking area she asked that sufficient parking area Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Page8 be provided for the residents and that "no parking" signs be posted on the north -side of Bellows. She also requested that the development of the structures be. constructed with an. aesthetically pleasing architectural design. - Richard Rosales said regarding the P.G.&E. easement he wanted tO ensure that this would not be an area for vehicle access. He asked that an access-be OPened up on the eastern area of the complex to allow for vehicular access. Roger McIntosh was present representing the applicant. He stated this is a 'difficult area to 'develop. He stated they are aware and sensitive to the s. urrounding area. He submitted photos of the existing area. He said the proposal-is for a 20-foot landscape strip for those lots fronting on Bellows'with no access being provided to Bellows through the units, all access coming from Laborough. They will try to make the rear of units look like the front. They are also proposing that Laborough go all the way through to Gosford with a deceleration lane southbound on Gosford for all right turns into the subdivision. He agreed that Littleport Way is not necessary stating it is only there because of the city standard requiring block lengths of less than 1,000 feet. He stated a hedge was planted on White Lane which was effective both physically and visually to keep people from looking into the towerline easement, however after the freeze it was removed. In speaking with P.G.&E., they were told a fence would not be allowed within their easement, however they allow landscaping. They are proposing to have the hedgerow installed again to wrap around on Kilterbury bringing it south of .White Lane up to the north line of Lot 8. Regarding Condition #1, Page ! of 8 regarding grading of the easement area he stated they are proposing to set uP a homeowners association to maintain the towerline and powerline easements and request that this sentence be deleted. Mr. Kloepper had no objection to this. Mr. McIntosh asked that the word "submittal" be changed to "approval" in Condition #3, also asking that the last sentence regarding-grading plan be deleted. Mr. Kloepper was agreeable to these changes. Regarding Condition #7~ Mr. McIntosh said if Laborough is connected to'Gosford Road this condition is unnecessary. Regarding Condition #10 he clarified the easenients along White Lane have been set aside by a previous Parcel Map shown as Parcel C of Parcel Map 7394. He asked that the word "submittal'''be changed to "approval" in Condition #16. Mr. Kloepper was agreeable to this. He proposed an .additional Condition #20 as follows: "Littleport Way shall be deleted and replaced with a lot to reduce traffic into the R-1 area south of the tract." Mr. Kloepper had no objection to this. Discussion continued regarding a condition requiring the continuation of Laborough to Gosfor. d Road. Mr. Kloepper said a deceleration lane should be added on Gosford north of the connection. Mr. McIntosh concurred. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Page 9 Responding to a question by Commissioner Andrew, Mr. KloePper said the connection of Laborough to Gosford Road does meet separation requirements between White Lane and-the extension and it will allow for a right-turn out only. Regarding Note #2, Page 5 of 8, Mr. McIntosh said the word "property" should be changed to "right-of-way" because it is not inside the property but across the street. Mr. Hardisty was agreeable to this change. He requested that Condition # 1, Page. 6 of 8 be deleted as recommended because they would like to treat the front .of Bellows architecturally rather than with wall and landscape. Regarding Page 8 of 8, Condition #5, calculations have been made by staff to show that the requirement has more than been fulfilled. Regarding Condition #7 Of the same page. he stated they are proposing to have a non-access strip up and down except for Lot 1 which is a side yard, therefore he asked that this condition be changed to read as follows:~r "Access shall be waived on Bellows Avenue, except Lot 1." Regarding Condition #11 he proposed that a landscaped hedge be placed along White Lane and_Kilterbury north of Lot 8 as well as landscaping the front yard setback on the north/south pole line easement along Laborough and Bellows. He suggested the following wording: "The area under the power line easements outside-of the lOts shall be a common lot owned and maintained by a homeowners associatiOn with all lots within the tract belonging to the association. Landscaped hedge consistent with that along White Lane will be provided along the -east side of Kilterbury north of Lot 8 to White Lane and will be maintained by the homeowner's association." He also asked that an additional condition #14 beadded.to read as follows: "A fence will be provided in line with the setbacks on Bellows and Laborough along the common lot frontage. Landscaping shall be provided from back of the sidewalk to the fence and will be maintained by the homeowner's association." Regarding the requested change of condition #11, Mr. -Hardisty was amenable to-the proposed change. He gave history of the hedgerow. He stated his agreement with the change to the additional condition #14. Regarding Condition #13, Mr. McIntosh stated he. would like the following wording added: "stibject to P.G.&E. approval." in order' to allow for flexibility. Mr. Hardisty stated his agreement with this. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Chairman Marino read staff's recommendation. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Page 10 Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she spoke with Mr. McIntosh regarding concerns raised at the pre-meeting. Her opinion of the hedgerow was that it was not installed for temporary purposes because it was installed on a developed church site. She felt the condition for landscaping should be placed' on the developer. Regarding the issues raised by Mrs. Rosales in her letter she stated for her that sufficient parking is required by ordinance, however there is no way to insure that people will not park on Bellows because they have the right to do so. She assured Mrs. Rosales that the applicant's proposal will allow for a pleasing architectural design. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Turk, Fire Department representative said he had no problem with the change to note as proposed by Mr. McIntosh. Mr. Mclntosh responded to questions by Commissioner Rosenlieb saying the fence to be provided along Bellows and' Laborough and lots on the north side closest to White Lane would be wooden. She expressed her COncern for safety regarding fencing of the easement areas. Mr. McIntosh said the hedge would run down White Lane to Kilterbury. Commissioner Messner concurred :with Commissioner Rosenlieb regarding the restriction of parking where it is legally allowed as was proposed by Mrs. Rosales on Bellows Avenue. Chairman Marino suggested the following wording for Public Works Condition #20: "Littleport Way will be deleted and replaced by a lot' to reduce traffic into the R' 1 area south of the tract. Laborough shall be extended to provide vehicular access to Gosford ROad. A deceleration lane north of said intersection on the west side of Gosford Road will be required." Mr. Kloepper was agreeable to this language. . Commissioner Powers stated his' concurrence with the changes at. this point. Regarding Condition #8, Page 8 of 8 he stated he would like the following wording included after the word "building" in the first sentence: "and part of this architectural consideration shall be that roofing material shall be either shake or' tile on all units keeping in continuity with the existing structures on the south side of the street." Mrl Hardisty said the city is trying to eliminate shake roofs from new construction, however Commissioner Powers asked, that it be changed so that roofing material shall not be composite shingle. Mr. Mclntosh said he did not want to get this restrictive, however would agree to it being left to the discretion of the Planning Director during the site plan review process. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Page 11 Commissioner Andrew stated his concerns regarding the easements being that he felt they would become a playground for children saying he did not see the need for the gate and fencing to allow access and was concerned about possible safety hazards of the powerlines. Chairman Marino felt there is nothing that will keep children away from the powerlines. Commissioner Rosenlieb felt perhaps a chainlink fence with slats could be used around the easement. Mr. Hardisty advised the commission and applicant to pursue fencing along White Lane, suggesting the commission require it with an additional consideration that it may be waived upon approval of wall and landscape plans. -. Regarding the additional Item #20 propoSed by Mr. McIntosh, Commissioner Rosenlieb suggested that the wording be changed to ~state that Littleport Way be replaced with a minimum 10,000 square foot lot. Mr. McIntosh was agreeable to this. Commissioner Cohn was concerned about the time taken on this tract'saying the Commission has essentially redesigned and stated he would like to not have to go through this type of redesign in a public forum. He felt if these types of modifications are going to be made to the original proposal it should either be continued so that it comes before the commission in a more refined form or it be sent to committee.~ He did not feel the time taken is fair to those people who also have projects on the agenda. Mr. McIntosh said this must be done because questions cannot be answered at the pre-meeting and felt if they could be it would speed up the process. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. McIntosh stated he would like to see action taken on this item at this hearing, instead of continuing it. Motion was made by Commissioner Messner, seconded by Commissioner Powers to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5623 (Optional Design) subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff rePort, with the following changes: Exhibit "A", Item #1 delete the last sentence regarding grading of easement areas. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 page 13 Condition #11 changed to read as follows: The area under the 'power line easements outside of the lots shall be a common lot owned and maintained by a homeowners association with all lots within the tract belonging to the association. A landscape hedge cOnsistent with that along White Lane will be provided along the east side of Kilterbury, north of Lot 8, to White Lane and maintained by the homeowners association. Condition #12 deleted Condition-#13 - the-following wording shall be added to the end: Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Page 12 Condition #3, Public Works shall read as follows: Prior to approval of improvement plans, a grading plan for the subdivision shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Condition #7 deleted. Condition #16, Page 2 of 2 the word "submittal" shall be changed to "approval" the addition of condition #20 to read as follows: Littleport Way shall be deleted and replaced with a lot not less than i0,000 square feet in size to reduce traffic into the R-1 tract to the south. Laborough Way shall continue into Gosford With vehicular access. A deceleration lane shall be provided on Gosford on the maps as shown by the applicant. Page 5 of 8; clarification of note #1 as follows: PG&E operates a 10", 400 psi gas transmission line 15' W of the E right- of-way line along Gosford Road. Page 6 of 8, Condition #1 of Parks Department conditions shall be deleted. Page 8 of 8: deletion of condition #5, condition #6. to read as follows: Subdivider shall obtain Planning Commission approval of conceptual plans for landscaping and walls prior to recordation of a final map. Conceptual plans shall include a chainlink fence and/or chainlink fence with slats along White Lane. Condition #7 shall read as follows: Vehicular access shall be waived on Bellows Avenue except for Lot 1. Minutesg PC, 5/21/92 Page 12 Condition #3, Public Works shall read as follows: Prior to approval of_improvement plans, a grading plan for the subdivision shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Condition #7 deleted. Condition #16, Page 2 of 2 the word "submittal" shall be changed to "approval" the addition of condition #20 to read as follows: Littleport Way shall be deleted and replaced with a lot not less than 10,000 square feet in size to reduce traffic into the R-1 tract to the south. Laborough Way shall continue into Gosford with vehicular access. A deceleration lane shall be provided on Gosford on' the maps as shown by the applicant. ' Page 5 of 8; clarification of note #1 as follows: PG&E operates a 10", 400 psi gas transmission line 15' W of the E right- Of-way line along Gosford Road. page 6 of 8, Condition #1 of Parks Department conditions shall be deleted. . Page'8 of 8: deletiofl of condition #5, condition #6. to read as follows: Subdivider shall obtain Planning Commission approval .of conceptual plans for landscaping and walls prior to recordation of a final map. . Conceptual plans shall include a chainlink fence and/or chainlink fence with slats along White Lane. Condition #'7 shall read as follows: Vehicular. access shall be waived on Bellows Avenue except for Lot 1. Minutes, PC, :'5/21/92 Page 13 Condition #11 changed to read as follows: The area under the power line easements outside of the lots shall be a common lot owned and maintained by a homeowners association with all l°ts within the tract belonging to the association. A landscape hedge consistent with that along White Lane will be provided along the east side of Kilterbury, north of Lot 8, to White Lane and maintained by the homeowners association. Condition # 12 deleted Condition dP 13 - the' following wording subject to P.G.&E. approval. shall be added to the end: The addition of Condition dPl4 as follows: A fence will be provided in line with the setbacks on Bellows and Laborough along the common lot frontage. Landscaping shall be provided from back of sidewalk to fence and will be maintained by the homeowners association. Commissioner Rosenlieb was concerned regarding Condition dP6, Page 8 of 8 stating she felt it should only be made a condition if concurrence is obtained.from P.G.&E. She felt the requirement should also wrap around onto Kilterbury. Commissioner Messner amended the motion adding the following wording to the end: "wrapping around Kilterbuty where the easement is located, unless P.G.&E., prohibits this fence from being installed." Commissioner Powers seconded the amendment. Motion carried. Commissioner Anderson was absent. *5-minute break was taken at this time. 6.4 PUBLIC HEARING --TENTATIVE TRACT 5565 Staff report was given on agenda item numbers 6.4 through 6.7, Chairman Marino abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he is employed by the-applicant. Commissioner Anderson chaired this hearing. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in oppoSition. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 · ~. · Page 14 Steve DeBranch represented' the applicant. Responding to a question by Chairman Anderson he stated he concurred with revised conditions in the memo 'dated May 20, 1992. Page 5 of 8 of the staff report regarding 50 foot setback for gas mains he felt the intefit was for high pressure gas mains and wanted clarification. Mark Turk, Fire Department representative said the terminology ' . used. is from th'e DePartment of Transportation. Mr. Hardisty stated in the past the line is identified and whether or not setback is required with a reqUirement for noticing the adjacent property owners. Mr. Turk said the setback requirement was Placed on this item by the Fire Chief. Anything over 50 pounds is high pressure and could cause, a hazard. Discussion continued :regard 'the location of gas lines to habitable structures. Mr. DeBranch wanted it clarified that this does not apply to gas mains in front of residential lots. Public Portion of the hearing was closed. Regarding the propOsed sump, Commissioner Rosenlieb asked about landscaping requirements on sumps on local streets. Mr. Hardisty replied.an ordinance does not exist to provide for precise standards for sumps, however conditions were 'Placed on the maP. She felt possibly some of these issues need to be sent to a committee to look at] Responding to a question by Commissioner Anderson regarding traffic impact fee, Mr. Bidwell stated a notice has been sent out regarding time frames for submittal of plans for building permit to be exempt from the fees. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5565 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the replacement of the Exhibit "A" frOm Public Works revised May 20, 1992. Motion carried. Commissioner Marino was absent. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Page 15 6.5 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5566 Chairman Marino abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he is employed by the applicant, commissioner Anderson chaired this hearing. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition. iSteve DeBranch represented the applicant. He responded to a question by Chairman AndersOn stating he concurred with the memo dated May 20, 1992, Containing revised Public Works conditions. He had no further requests or comments. 6.6 PubliC portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to apprOVe and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5566 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the replacement of the Exhibit "A" from Public Works revised May 21, 1992. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5728 Chairman Marino abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he is employed by the applicant. Commissioner Anderson chaired this hearing. Public Portion of the hearing .was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Steve DeBranch was present representing the applicant. Responding to a question by Chairman Anderson, he stated he concurred with the revised conditions from Public Works dated May 20, 1992. Regarding proposed change by the applicant for condition #7, Page 8 of 8, Mr. Hardisty said the original condition requires the equestrian easement have continuity across the commercial property along the back of residential property and that a block wall be a part of the separation. The Commission has required block walls in other cases where it was felt a block wall was reasonable. Mr. DeBranch stated he concurred with the requirement for separation when and if the commercial development is installed. The.design of the possible commercial development, however is not taken into account. Without-a specific plan the development of commercial property cannot be taken into account as it relates to wall and landscaping. He felt with the additional condition a scenario had been laid out that will allow for it. A temporary fence would be proposed until commercial development goes in and the pedestrian access easement constructed to this area. He stated he had no problem with the memo of May 21, 1992 from the Planning Director. .Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Public portion of.th~ hearing was closed. Page 16 Commissioner Rosenlieb said the commission has consistently asked for a block wall in this type of situation. She proposed that prior to the last sentence of Condition #7, Page .8 of 8 the following language be added: "The pedestrian access and equestrian trail improvements shall be maintained by the maintenance assessment district." She also proposed that a condition be added to read as follows: "The pedestrian access easement included within Lot 16 shall be improved on both' sides with a 6-foot masonry wall and shall include the pedestrian access and equestrian trail improvements." She clarified wall height would be measured at highest grade. Responding to a question by Commissioner Messner, Mr. DeBranch said a ~complete continuous trail will not be available until the entire Polo Grounds Property develops. Regarding a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. DeBranch was agreeable to conditioning this tract so that the block wall for the commercial development Could be installed so as not to interfere with the residential properties' landscaped areas. Responding to a question by Commissioner Frapwell regarding equestrian easements, Mr. Hardisty said a block wall would separate residential from the equestrian easement with curb and rail fencing delineating the equestrian easement. It was determined that these trails would not run through commercial entryways because of conflict of traffic. Commissioner Powers stated he would not be opposed to the block wall being constructed at the time the commercial property is developed. Regarding the trail being placed on the site, he felt if it cannot be done at this time. The wood fence should be constructed with an easement to allow for construction of the block wall at a later time. Commissioner Rosenlieb said it cannot be required of the commercial property owner to take down the wooden fence erected at the time of residential development. She also stated for clarification that it would not be wise to leave the20-foot easement proposed undeveloped or leave it as vacant land. She outlined the problem of the block wall not being constructed at this time bringing about a double-fencing situation and tunnel effect. Dennis DeWalt spoke saying if the trail is placed on the property at this time it would be next to vacant Property with no lighting. Minutes, PC,.5/21/92 Page 17 ResPonding to a question bY Commissioner Powers, Mr. Hardisty said block walls could be constructed on the commercial property without requiring them to remove the wooden fence. He clarified they asked for the 5 foOt easement in order t° give the contractor room to build a block wall. Discussion continued regarding the requirement of the trail. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated for the.applicant that it is the policy of the Commission to require block walls when one owner owns both the commercial and residential:· MOtion was made_by Commissioner R°senlieb, seconded bY Commissioner Cohn to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and memo from the Planning Department dated May. 21, 1992, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5728, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, with the following changes and additions: The addition of the revised Exhibit "A" from the' Public Works Department revised May 20, 1992. Condition #7, Page 8 of 8, the following addition: - The pedestrian access and equestrian trail improvements shall be maintained by the maintenance assessment district. The addition of Condition #8, Page 8 of 8: The. pedestrian access easement included within Lot 16 shall be improved on both sides with a 6-foot masonry, wall and shall include pedestrian access and equestrian trail improvements which will be maintained by the maintenance assessment district. Wall height .shall be measured to the. highest grade. Motion carried. Commissioners Frapwell and Powers voted no. Commissioner .Marino was absent. *A 30-minute break was taken at this time.. MinUtes, PC, 5/21/92 6.7 PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5729 Page 18 Chairman Marino abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he is employed by the applicant. Commissioner Anderson chaired this hearing. -pUbliC.P0rtion_ Of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in Opposition. Steve DeBranch represented the applicant. He said regarding Item #16 of Public Works revised conditions that it should be struck out rather than italicized. Mr. Kloepper was agreeable with this. Public Portion of the hearing was closed. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Powers .to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration, to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5729, subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report; with the inclusion of the revised Exhibit "A" from the Public Works Department revised May 20, 1992, and deletion of Item #16 of this Exhibit "A". Motion carried. Commissioner Marino was absent. 7. FILE 5334 -- APPLICATION BY DEWALT GROUP, INC. TO AMEND THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM AN R-1 (ONE FAMII.Y DWELLING) ZONE TO AN R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMII.Y DWELLING), OR. MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE ON 2.14 +/- ACRES AND FROM AN R-?. (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) ZONE TO AN R-1 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING), OR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE ON 3.46 +/- ACRES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED NORTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF JEWETTA AVENUE AND HAGEMAN ROAD. Chairman Marino abstained due to a conflict of interest in that he is employed by the applicant. Commissioner Anderson chaired this hearing. Staff report was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened.; no one spoke in opposition. Steve-DeBranch rePresented the applicant, stating he concurred with the staff repOrt. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 ' ~M0tion'Was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Frapwell to make findings set forth in the staff report and approve the zone change as proposed and advertiSed and recommend adoption of the same to the City Council.· Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES.'-~ Commissioners Andrew, Cohn, Frapwell, Messner, Powers, Rosenlieb, Anderson Page 19 NOES:i None ABSENT: Commissioner Marino FILE 5300 -- APPLICATION BY TELSTAR ENGINEERING TO PREZONE TO E 18,000 (ONE FAMILY DWELLING-MINIMUM LOT SIZE 18,000 SQUARE FEET), fOR MORE RESTRICTIVE ZONE OF SAID PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF JEWETTA AVENUE APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET NORTH: OF BRIMHALL ROAD KNOWN AS THE BRIMHALL NO. 3 ANNEXATION. Staff report-was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Barbara Don Carlos represented the Building Industry Association. She said they are not opposing this action but are concerned about the conditions outlined. She asked that the Commission eliminate the mitigation measure being requested by the Fire Department since she felt it is an impact fee being imposed with no 'authority. There has been no AB 1600 study or. ordinance drafted or approved by the Commission or Council and she felt it is inappropriate. She also stated her concern with the school impact fee designated. She asked that the Commission eliminate the mitigation required by the Fire Department and reconsider specifying an amount the developer is obligated to pay for school funding over and above the square footage fee mandated by State law. Roy Weygand~ Executive Director, Kern Tax spoke saying he. had met with the Fire Chief regarding the mitigation in which there was no discussion about the imposition of this fee. It has not been a subject of discussion of the Council,' there is no ordinance and no authority for it. Regarding the school impact fee he felt it was unfair. He asked that the mitigation measures be rejected. Public portion 'of-the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Page 20 Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, Chief McCarthy'said at this time under the joint powers agreement any new stations built north of the river will be under the jurisdiction of Kern County, however the City feels the next station in the area will be south of the river and will be built by the city and within the 2 mile limit of the particular location. Chairman Marino stated he was not comfortable with continuing to proceed with this project since the applicant has left word that he does not agree with either mitigation measure. Discussion continued regarding 2-1/2 acre lot sizes. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty stated the developer's objection is to the specified amount of school district fees. The applicant's representative has discussed this with the-School district and agreed to work out mitigation through use of Mello Roos or another alternative. She asked if the previous language for this mitigation measure would work. Discussion .continued regarding the possible impact to the area. Commissioner Messner felt it would be a stretch for the commission to find that 38 additional dwelling units would create a significant impact on the fire department's building plans. Regarding school impacts he felt significant impact may be debatable. Commissioner Powers stated his hesitation to make a decision on this item at this hearing. He stated his concern for creating 2-1/2 acre lots in the middle of an area that is much more dense and felt the points made by those speaking in opposition to the proposed mitigation were valid. Commissioner Powers stated he Would like to see this item continued to June 4, 1992 and hold a committee meeting. Commissioner Andrew said he did not know if he could agree with the fire mitigation without an ordinance and because it is in the county. Commissioner Anderson agreed with the need for additional scrUtiny before imposing an impact fee.. The school task force will have a report available for a meeting on the 4th of June. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 Page 21 Mr. Hardisty explained his support for the wording of the condition that is less specific than what he put in his memo being that a letter is on file from Rosedale School District which states they have solved the problem with the property representative. The representative of the applicant stated he did not agree with a specified dollar amount to be paid to the school district, feeling that using the other approach could result in paying less or shifting some of the burden to others. Chairman Marino stated his support for Commissioner Powers' feeling that this be sent to committee. Mr. Pritikin, property owner of a 9-acre parcel within this proposed annexation, responded to a question by Commissioner Powers, saying he would like to use this property for farm uses such as planting an orchard. He said his intention is to retire on this property. Mr.-Hardisty said he did not feel the planting of an orchard on this property would cause any Problems, stating the R-S zoning would be most appropriate. Commissioner Cohn felt regardless of what action is taken with respect to school fees or fire department fees, Mr. Pritikin's property should be zoned so that he may use it .for the purpose he wishes. Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hardisty recommended against zoning this property agriculture. COmmissioner RoSenlieb stated his opposition to 2-1/2 acre lots because this is an urban area. Mr. Hardisty suggested R-S-10 zoning. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated she would be in favor of continuing this item for a 2-week period, however not sending it to committee. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Anderson to continue this item to the regular meeting of June 4, 1992, with the intention that the 9-acre parcel be prezoned RS-10. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 . - 9. ~ 1992- 1997 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM 'Page 22 Report was given by Melanie Dunwoodie, representative of City of Bakersfield. ResPonding to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Kloepper stated the order in which signals appear is based Upon a signal prioritization list that the traffic section diligently keeps up to date. Some of the projects will not move up the line because of other priorities and lack of funding. Responding to a comment by Commissioner Messner, Ms. Dunwoodie stated ' those changes made after the preparation of this document are the pistol range for the police department being placed on the unfunded list and moving of the corporatiOn yard. Motion was made by Commissioner Powers, seconded by Commissioner Messner to find the City of Bakersfield Proposed 1992-1997 Capital Impiovements Program consistent with the City's general plan and refer this item to the City Council. Motion carried. 10, COMMITFEE ASSIGNMENTS BY CHAIRMAN "Commissioner Cohn commented that in the past the new Commissioner has simply taken over the assignments of the resigned commissioner. He stated he was taken aback by the fact that the chairman is moving people around instead of replacing Commissioner Andrew on those committees that Commissioner Bjorn was'previously on. He stated he did not like the appearance of it. Discussion continued regarding the changes in committees. Chairman Marino stated 'only Commissioners Rosenlieb and Cohn changed committees. He also cited the commission's policy of not placing the same people on the general plan and .zoning committees: DiSCussion continued regarding committee assignments and 'on-going issues. 'CommiSsioner ROsenlieb concurred with Commissioner Cohn's comments stating she felt it did not appear well. She requested that the committees not be changed for the remainder of his term. Minutes, PC, 5/21/92 ~ ~ .. Page 23 Commissioner Anderson stated he sPoke with the chairman regarding committee assignments and was concerned that someone new would be put in the position of chairing an extremely important committee and may not be ready for the task, hOWever has' since changed his view on this to an extent. He stated, he felt Commissioner Marino had good intentions, however in order to avoid this type of concern in the future posSibly committee assignments could be made by the chair on: an annual ·basis and then no changes to the assignments. He felt changes made in mid-stream Would cause confusion. He felt some resolution should be made on a permanent basis. Commissioner Messner agreed with Commissioner Anderson's comments that no slight was meant.' He agreed that it may be difficult for a new commissioner to take 'on the chair of a committee with on-going issues. Commissioner Powers did not feel this was an issue since new committee assignments would be made in six weeks. He was concerned about the respOnsibility placed on a new commissioner when they are placed as chair of a difficult committee. Chairman Marino agreed with Commissioner Anderson's comment that possibly the commission's rules should be changed so that a new commissioner assumes the outgoing commissioner's place on committees. 11. COmmittee assignments were changed as submitted by the chair. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written '~ Referral from City Council regarding restaurant drive-through services. In respOnse to a question by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. Hardisty stated this inquiry is applicable city-wide, therefore Commissioners' Anderson and Powers would not have to declare a conflict of interest as it relates to a specific project. Mr. Hardisty cited a memo submitted to ·the Commission regarding this issue. The issue was raised of why a fast-food restaurant would be permitted without drive-up windows and it was felt by the Council that the commission should consider this issue. Mr. Hardisty recommended it be referred to the joint City Council/Planning committee to allow more of an ability to work out the rationale with the commission first then discuss it with the council. Minutes, PC,-5/21/92 Page 24 Chairman Manno referred 'this issue to the Joint CitY Council/Planning Commission committee. B) Verbal None 12. COMMISSION COMMENTS Responding 'to a queStion by Commissioner Anderson, Mr. HardistY said the commission could continue an item to a later time on the agenda, in order to change wording for a motion so that it can be done more efficiently. Commissioner Anderson offered this as a SUggestion when this situation occurs in the future. Commissioner Powers asked-if those people attending committee meetings could be notified prior to meetings. Mr. Hardisty stated this could be done. Regarding the portion of multi-family portion of Castle & Cooke's development, Commissioner Rosenlieb stated for Mr. HardiStY her desire that he not allow composition roof. Commissioner Rosenlieb asked that during the subdivision ordinance committee meeting, staff look at expanding the meeting to allow 'for the review of an ordinance to deal with walls and landscaping around sumps. Commissioner Cohn echoed Commissioner Anderson's comments about the possible reformulation of a motion by staff in the situation which occurred at this hearing regarding major changes being made on a tract. Commissioner Messner stated he would be inclined to want to try Commissioner Anderson's suggestion of deferring.an item to a later time on the agenda and having staff work up a new motion. Chairman Marino Commented on the landscaping situation on Old River Road. Mr. Kloeppei- said on the west side of centerline to White Lane the city does not have easements on the propertY which is still owned by Castle and Cooke. It is probably appropriate that they improve the landscaping along the canal as was asked within the tract proper limits. Through this process legitimate rights-of-way will be obtained. . Minutes~ PC, 5/21/92 Page 25 Chairman Marino Offered a follow-up to the trails committee saying one of things to happen is that the residents in the Rosedale area have set a meeting with the county in which the trails committee is invited to be part of a technical 'advisory committee for the Rosedale general plan update. Mr. Hardisty said the proposed trails have been drafted'onto a map. Commissioner Rosenlieb commented on requirements of oil wells within a tract located on Stockdale Highway, east of Renfro, stating Commissioner Anderson's alternative to house the pump jack in chain link fence with barbed wire six feet high so that the barbed wire would not show. She stated because they had an alternative theY did not place the barbed wire within the block Wall. Mr. Hardisty said this would be researched in order to make sure they are not in violation of a condition. Responding to a question by Chairman Marino, Mr. Hardisty said the drive approach issue on the southeast corner of White Lane and' Gosford Road has been resolved through an agreement between the applicant and Mr. Saunders which was approved by the Council. The basis being the driveway would have to be reconfigured to work as was planned which would be subject to Public Works Director approval. He stated he could have the minutes of this reproduced for the Commission. 13. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 11:27 p.m. Laurie Davis