Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/21/93 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE pLANNING COMMISSION OF ~HE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD" Held Thursday, January 21, 19~3, 5:30 p.m., City'Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California. i. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: DARREN POWERS, Chairperson STEVE MESSNER, Vice Chairperson JEFF ANDREW DAVID COHN KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO KATE ROSENLIEB C. ROBERT FRAPWELL, Alternate LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney FRED KLOEPPER, Assistant Public Works Director DENNIS FIDLER, Assistant Building Director STAFF:. PUBLIC. STATEMENTS .Present: JACK HARDISTY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MARC GAUTHIER, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary No one made any public itatements at this time. Chairman read the notice ~,of right to appeal as set forth on the agenda. Chairman Powers announced for those present that Agenda Item #5 was improperly noticed and .a Public hearing could not be held this evening, stating the issue would be readvei'tised and' rescheduled for the meeting of February 18, 1993. Minutes, PC, 1/21/93 · 3.1) PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5464 Page 2 Chairman Powers abstained from this issue, stating he did not have a legal conflict of interest, howe~er is a resident of Haggin Oaks. Commissioner Messner chaired this hearing. Staff repo.rt Was given. Public portion of the hea~ing was opened. Mr. Hardisty noted that two pieces of written correspondence were received. One was received from Mir. Howard Leventhal and another from Mr. Henry Ma~f°rth. Jill Kleiss-identified herself as a resident of Haggin Oaks. She was opposed to the tract,' because 1) the R-2 lots have double-frontage. Thirty in this tract are proposed. 2) Lots zoned R-2 are. required to be 6,000 square feet unless an exception is granted. -Forty of the 72 lots in this subdivision are proposed for lots of less than 6,000. square feet. 3) Sixty-foot wide roads are required under the zoning ordinance, the proposal in this subdivision is 32 feet. Staff recommendation was that ithis is acceptable because it is to be a gated community. She said it will be stipulated that no parking is permitted in order to meet fire. standards and other, safety, considerations, asking where residents would Park. Regarding roll-up doors b~ing required in order to allow cars enough room for parking due to the 18-foo~ setback she said off-sized vehicles do not fit into this equation. She Was concerned, about public safety and utility vehicles having a place to park' in- case of erhergency. She was also concerned about the single entrance'and felt this was h.safety hazard. She felt the homeowners would not be satisfied with the development and would not abide by the rules. She asked that this plan be rejected. -~ Glen Gregory, 5804-O'Meara Court spoke. He was concerned about the degradation of resale value of their homes and the possible o-/,ercrowding of the school in the area. He wals also concerned about the entrance to the development with respect to spacing between Ming Avenue and the driveway to this development. He feltithere would be an aesthetic impact on the neighborhood from the tw°-story homes. Steve Christovich, residenti of O'Meara Court, spoke saying this proposal is inconsistent with the rest Of the neighborhood. He also echoed the comments regarding property values in the area. He questioned the viability of this project based on the track record Of the applicant for selling homes in. the neighborhood. Minutes, PC, 1/21/93 Page 3 Robert Tafoya spoke saying he is a resident of Versailles Street, and that his lot abuts the open lot which Will be developed. He agreed with other comments made regarding the inconsistency of this development with the surrounding areas, and. the possibility of two-'story structures, and the insufficient parking. Chris Romanini, resident of Versailles stated her concern for lot size, in relation to the character of the surrounding neighborhood. She asked that a condition be added so that the minimum requirement of 6,000 square foot lot size be imposed. Mark Ashley spoke Stating his concerng as lessening of their property values and stated this development isi not needed in this location when the applicant has more land in other areas ~hichcan be developed. He stated his concern with.the applicant's past development in Haggin Oaks in which spec homes were built which are architecturally out of place and only minimally meet the C.C.&R.'s. He asked that this be studied!carefully in consideration of the neighborhood values. Teresa Romanini, resident of Versailles Drive, stated her disagreement with the two-story buildings being built on the south wall. The two-story structures and the density of this project ,are in direct conflict with the homes on Versailles Drive. She asked as a condition of approval, that structures along the south wall be' designated as single-story only. Jack Kleiss,-resident of Versailles ~Drive was concerned about the 32-foot wide streets, saying he felt there would be problems'with repair of utilities which are placed under streets. He Was also concerned about those people who may need to park on the street not having a place to park and situations which may arise with emergency vehicles arid the possibility of cars being parked on the street '.because of lack of space being provided. He felt this development is allowing the maximum density on the lot, thus putting the responsibility for success on the homeowner's association. Raj G0Pal, 'stated he and his wife's strong opposition to this plan. He said their property directly faces _subject lot. If this project proceeds they will be facing a wall. He was also concerned about this development exceeding the traffic denSity for the neighborhood. Gary Ek spoke saying he r.epresented the Southwest Community Action Group stating their, concerns' being the narrow streets and possible safety concerns. He suggested and requested this item be sent to committee so that the neighbors and developers ~could have a chance to resolve some of the issues brought up at this hearing. - I Minutes, PC, 1/21/93 ~ .Page 4 Rabbi Patel, resident of V~rsailles Drive said he felt when- he purchased property in this'area that the quali~ and character of the neighborhood would be maintained. He felt this area should have the same minimum lot requirement as that of Haggin Oaks. Mr. Jim Meadows addresged the commission responding to concerns previously -made. He said this wili'be a gated community and outlined the entries and exits to the proposed' development and setbacks from neighboring properties. He said they are resp0n ding to a market for down-sized homes for people with grown children, looking to movg out of a large home and wanting less maintenance. -'The plans range from 1,800 to 2,800 square feet. Regarding. overlook, he said the bulk of the lots on Versailles are facing Versailles. The density is 60 percent less than what is legally allowed on the site. He said they are trying to bring a different kind of market into the city. He said they had a successful meeting with the residents in the area and would continue to meet With them. Regarding the 18-foot setbacks he said they will require roll-up doors, saying 1993 full size cars are less than 16.2 feet in ilength. He said the density has been reduced approximately 60 percent:. Roger McIntosh represented the applicant. He said regarding Public Works memo dated January 19, ~1993 regarding Condition #4 they would like to design the streets with cross gutters rather than inverted siphons. -Regarding Condition #31 the words "or approved" were added because the private streets will be ~approved.by the city. H~ requested a change in Condition # 15 of Public Works conditions to read as fol[bws: "A waiver of direct access rights to lots fronting or backing onto-Haggin Oaks Boulevard' and to Ming Avenue shall be required." -The purpose is to keep t.he entry point open on Haggin Oaks Boulevard. Mr. Kloepper was agreeable to this proposed change. Regarding Condition #5 of Planning Department he ~asked for deletion because staff recalculated the amount of park land already dedlcated in the Haggin Oaks area and 8 acres beyond the normal requirement has been dedicated, Mr. Hardisty was agreeable to this. Regarding Condition #6~of Planning Department he stated his agreement. He stated his acceptan.ce of Condition #11 of the January 21, 1993 memo from the Planning Director. He asked that the following be added to Condition #17 of the Planning Department conditions: "unless waived by the buyer of Lot 1." Mr. Mclntosh said the new SUbdivision standards allow for this type of optional design under these standards ahd because of recreational amenities. The 6,000 square foot minimum lot size and the 55-foot wide lot widths fall under the criteria of the optional'design subdivision. Regarding the street widths he clarified a 60-foot wide right-of-Way on a local street is about 40 feet flow-line to flow-line. They are proposing 32 feet-flow-line to flow-line; a reduction of 8 feet with no parking on either side. This willlresult in a better situation for emergency vehicles. The plan was prepared in consultation with city staff including sanitation and it was proVen that these cul-de,sacs would work. Minutes, PC,. 1/21/93 Page 5 Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said the city allows double-frontage 10ts when mitigated by walls. Responding to other ~ statements she s~/id R-2 lot size is not 6,000 minimum square feet, saying this is the requirement for R-1 lots. Density for R-2 lots is 1 unit for every 2,500 square feet. She said this property has been zoned R-2 prior to any building permits being issued in Haggin Oaks. Mr. Hardisty said the R-2 lot size is 6,000 square feet, however one unit per 2,500 square feet can be placed on this lot. Responding to a question by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. Hardisty said this developer could c0nstruc~ 175, two-story apartments on this property without any discretionary-permits being issued. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she would like to see this issue go to the subdivision committee, saying she would like to have representation from-fire find sanitation and would like to know if there have been any problems in other similar subdivisions. Responding to a.question by Commissioner Rosenlieb regarding there being only one'-exit and entrance,' Mi'. Mclntosh said they were sensitive to the local street condition of Versailles Dhve and decided not to filter a lot of traffic down Versailles. She stated hey concern about the cul-de-sac areas not having at least one side for sidewalks. Regarding resale values of homes, she said they were impacted when this. prope~rty was first zoned R-2. Regarding the comment about cars stacking on Haggin Oaks to turn into this development, Mr. Kloeppe? said the center lane would be !two-way left turn, with a short left turn lane into the project and when traffic iR very heavy there would be a problem. Commissioner Rosenlieb stated her desire that this be sent to the subdivision committee. She said the itraffic issue is a very legitimate concern, saying she would like to hear more about this.- Regarding the comment that the project is - inconsistent she stated hey disagreement with this saying this property has been zoned this way since bef6re a single building permit was issued for surrounding properties. Regarding substantiation for demand of the product she stated this is not within the CommissiOn's purview. She said she has a project similar to this next to her home and it has not hurt the neighborhood or property values. She said she-would like more }information on street widths for the committee meeting, potential for stacking' in the left turn lane, setbacks, sidewalk issue and stated her objection to Mr. McIntosh's request for change to Condition # 17. Commissioner ' ' Cohn staterd he shared many of the same concerns with Commissioner'Rosenlieb and felt this item should probably be sent to committee. He. addressed the audience saying he thought they would rather have this type of project .rather than the mimber of.apartments which would be allowed under the ' current-zoning. He said he was comfortable approving the overall concept of this project, however felt concerns should be looked at in greater detail. Commissioner Messner stated his desire that this item be sent to committee. Minutes, PC, 1/21/93 Page 6 Commissioner Marino-agreed that this should be sent to the Subdivision Committee and possibly .:invite representatives from the neighborhood. Responding toa question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Hardisty stated his recommendation is that condition #17 be maintained as it stands. Commissioner Andrew suggested this item be sent to committee with no more than .4-5 representatives from the neighborhood and asked for representation from the Fire and Sanitation Departments. Roger McIntosh stated theydo not wish to have this item sent to committee because he felt issues have been resolved. Responding to qUestions.by Commissioner Messner, Mr. Hardisty said the Commission is not running against any statutory deadlines because the negative declaration has not been ~ certified. COmmissioner RoSenliebi reiterated 'that she would like representatives from both Sanitation and Fire Departments at the committee meeting. 3.2) Motion was made ~by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to send this item to the Subdivision Committee and to bring it back at the next regularly scheduled meeting of February 4, 1993, to consider the issues raised at this hearing. She said no more than 5 representatives from the public should be invited and she encouraged the representatives to contact the Planning Department. Motion cayried. Commissioner Frapwell voted no. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5734 Staff report was given. Public portion of the hea:ring was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger McIntosh represented the owner of subject property. He stated his - agreement with conditions of approval and revisions to conditions. 'Public portion of the hearing was closed. 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, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5734 subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report with the inclusion of the .memorandum from the Public Works Department dated January 21, 1993. Motion carried. . Minutes,.PC, 1/21/93 Page 7 3.3) PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5386 PHASE C (REVISED) Staff report was given'. Public portion of the he~iring was opened; no one spoke in opposition. Roger McIntosh represented the owner and subdivider. He stated his agreement withltheJanuaryl9th memo from Public Works and stated 'he was not in _.-agreement with the additional conditions from the Water Department. He stated his disagreement with tho January 19th memo from the Planning Department. Regarding Building Department Condition #4 he said it requires an acoustical study, saying he did not lmow of any major arterial that Phase C fronts on since Call0way is now a local street, therefore he asked that this condition be deleted. Mr. Hardisty said this concerns the freeway exposure as well. Mr. McIntosh said there is no existing freew~ay. The alignment and noise issue will be addressed by CalTrans when it is constructed. 'Mr. Hardisty stated he would support deletion of this condition. Mr. M¢Intosh addressed Fire Safety Control Condition #2, submitting a map-of the area-. He said they plan on realigning the oil transmission line and lowbr it. He asked that the following wording be added to the condition: "unless approved by the fire chief," saying he had already spoken with the fire chief and'thiS was acceptable. Mr. Turk stated their agreement with thisadditional wording. Mr. McIntosh addressed Planning Department Condition #11 of the memo from the Planning Director dated January 19, 1993, saying they could not agree to this coi~difion. It is proposed as a taking of seven lots along the freeway. He said there are no other tracts along this freeway alignment in which this condition has been imposed and they do not agree to it for their proposed tract. Mr.' Hardisty said this condition has been used along Highway 99 to ensure a separation between the sound wall and proposed homes. He recommended this remaix~ as-mitigation to this design concern. Mr. Hardisty said the' staff report-contains general plan policies which provide for this type of mitigation.- Regarding the comment that the freeway does not exist, he said when a precise plan line ig adopted development is required to respect this precise plan line as though it were constructed. He said they have the option of building out the original'-tract and asked that this condition be deleted. He asked for revision to the memo daied January 21, 1993, relating to additional conditions from the Water Department, asking for the deletion of Condition #3, saying they consider it to be a "taking," .of a right and they would expect compensation for it. He said they have worked;with the Water Department in order to help draft an ordinance relating to this. He felt until such ordinance is in place it was inappropriate to ask for a property right without due compensation. Mr. Hardisty recommended deletion of :the condition because of the ordinance not being in place at the time application was made for this map. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, 1/21/93 Page 8 Chairman Powers agreed with Mr. McIntosh's Comments regarding not including the 30-foot setback; however felt a possible standard for this should be evaluated for future use. Mr. Hardisty said-this was referred to committee by Commissioner Rosenlieb, one of her concerns being the Wall creating a tunnel effect and relationship of the wall to homes. Regarding Building Department condition in which Mr. Hardisty agreed to deletion, Commissioner Rosenlieb stated her concern with this asking why he would agree to'deletion if this is a condition that appears on every map. Mr. Fidler said mitigation is in place for existing freeways, however mitigation has not been approved through the State for this freeway although it is a proposed line. When-it is adopted} the State will take action to see that necessary mitigation is p~ovided. He said it is difficult to mitigate the freeway when it is unknown what- the required mitigation will be at the time of development of it. Responding to a question!,by Commissioner Rosenlieb, Mr. McIntosh said he was made aware of this:cOndition less than a week ago. Commissioner Rosenlieb said she did not feel this was the appropriate way in which to require this mitigation _ after the map has been designed. She said she wants this requirement, however in the-form of an ordinance. Chairman Powers stated POssibly this issue could be referred to the Subdivision Committee. ' Discussion continued regarding Condition #11, Mr. Hardisty said the 30-foot setback is not an adopted Standard. Commissioner Marino said he did not feel the applicant would be losing as much lot area as he suggested. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to make all findings set forth in the staff report, and to approve Proposed Tentative Tract 5386 Phase C (Revised) subject to the conditions outlined in the Exhibit "A" attached to the staff report, and the inclusion of the memorandum outlining conditions from the Water Department with the deletion of Condition #3, the deletion of Building Department Condition #4 and with the change to Fire Safety Control Condition #2.adding the following wording to the end: "unless approved by the Fire Chief." The intent being that the Fire Chief have jurisdiction over his conditions. He clarified he was not including the January 19, 1993 memorandum from the~Planning Department adding a Condition #11. Mr. Kloepper recommended this approval include the memo of January 19, 1993. Regarding Condition #2 of Fire Safety Control Conditions, Chief Pacheco'said he Minutes, PC, 1/21/93 Page 9 did not feel .the fire chief has the authority unless it is specified to be 48 inches in depth. The extra 12 inches allows him the authority' to allow the extra 10 feet. Commissioner Marino stated this is why he left the authority with the fire chief. Commissioner Marino amended his motion to include the revision to Condition # 16.1._as outlined in-the Sanuary 19, 1993 memo from the Public Works Department and recognizing the revision to Calloway Drive as being acceptable as per the drawings submitted by the applicant at this hearing. Motion carried. Commissioner Cohn voted no. PUBI~IC HEARING - GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT.4-92, SEGMENT IV: TELSTAR ENGINEERING, AGENT FOR JOHN GUIMARRA, JR. HAS REQUESTED AN AMENDMENT TO THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT AMENDMENT ELIMINATING THE "COLLECTOR" DESIGNATION OF APPROXIMATELY A ONE MILE LENGTH OF BERKSHIRE ROAD BETWEEN SOUTH "H" STREET AND WIBLE ROAD. Since this was a continued hearing, public portion remained open. Request for Continuance from the applicant was received. No one was present wishing to speak on this item. Commissioner Andrew asked staff if there were any way to stop continuing this item and possibly bring this issue back only when the applicant is ready to be present. Responding to-questions, Mr.' Hardisty said it must be continued to a time certain and if not. it must be renOticed, which he expected the applicant to pay for or the commission can make a decision on this item. Motion was made by Commissioner Rosenlieb, seconded by Commissioner Andrew to continue this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting of February 4, 1993 asking staff to contact the applicant and tell him the Commission is growing weary of this. Commissioner Andrew a~ked that the motion be amended to say that the meeting will be held whether the applicant is here or not. Commissioner Rosenlieb was not agreeable to thi~ amendment, stating she was not prepared to be this harsh. MotiOn carried. Minutes, PC, 1/21/93 5. PUBLIC HEARING, ~KERN RIVER BIKE PATH-EXTENSION Page 10 Due to an error in advertising February 18, 1993. COMMUNICATIONS this item will be readvertised for the meeting of 7 A) B) Written ~ . ~ -. Mr. Hardisty brought the commission's attention .to two written communications bbing a memo from staff regarding research on other jurisdictions handling of freeway walls. He also cited a listing of general plan amendment hearings for March provided to the commission in order to keep them info~med. Verbal Mr: Hardisty apologized to the commission for the .error in noticing on the Kern River Bike Path extension hearing. Commissioner Ma/'ino said regarding the bike path extension he had been contacted by all fi~e sides of the issue and looked at the property, saying he would like t° have a committee meeting on this item. Since Commissioner Messner would declare a conflict on this issue, Commissioners Powers and Hersh would be the two regular committee members. He said! he would like the three options and poSsibly a fourth considered. Mr. I~ardisty said he would have the staff report expanded to include a third option that was mapped and stated the Public Works Department performed a cost analysis comparison of the various routes. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Rosenlieb asked that when committees meet at the following meeting the chair of that Committee inform the commission that they met, what they met on and .what, if anything, was resolved. She asked for an update on the previous meeting of the ~ign ordinance committee and subdivision committee and asked that in the future this be done at each meeting. Commissioner Powers agreed with these comments, however felt possibly sub- headings should be addedlto the agenda. Mr. Hardisty said this has been done on other agendas where there are standing committees. Mr. Hardisty said this could be added to the agenda under Commission Comments. Minutes, PC, 1/21/93- 8. ADJOURNMENT Page 12 There being no further b~usiness to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 7:57 p.m. mnl.21 Laurie Davis Recording Secretary ing Direct_~