Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/95MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD Held Thursday, April 6, 1995, 5:30 p.m., City Council Chamber, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun / Avenue, Bakersfield, California. 1. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: Present: JEFF ANDREW, Chairperson DOUG DELGADO, Vice-Chairperson STEPHEN BOYLE MATHEW BRADY KENNETH HERSH JIM MARINO ROBERT ORTIZ Absent: DARREN POWERS, Alternate ADVISORY MEMBERS: Present: LAURA MARINO, Assistant City Attorney JACK LaROCHELLE, Engineer IV DENNIS FIDLER, Building Director STAFF: Present: STANLEY GRADY, Planning Director JIM MOVIUS, Principal Planner MIKE LEE, Associate Planner LAURIE DAVIS, Recording Secretary 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. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 1) Agenda Item #4 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10182 (Rickett, Delmarter and Deifel) 2) Agenda Item #5.1 Vesting Tentative Tract 5292 (REVISED) (Martin-McIntosh) 3). Agenda Item #5.3 Tentative Tract 5679 (Martin-McIntosh) Minutes, PC, 4/6/95 o Page 2 Presentation of staff reports for these items was waived. Commissioner Hersh said he would prefer to be made aware of consent items prior to the pre-meeting. Public portions of the hearings for these items was opened. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Brady to approve consent agenda. Motion carried. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 10182 5.1 '5.2 5.3 6.1 Approved as consent agenda item. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5292 (REVISED) Approved as consent agenda item. PUBLIC HEARING - VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 5418, UNITS 2, 3 AND 4 (REVISED) Letter was received from the applicant withdrawing this application. Responding to a question by Jeff Martin, Mr. Grady clarified this application is being withdrawn in its entirety at this time. PUBLIC HEARING - TENTATIVE TRACT 5679 Approved as consent agenda item. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE 5604 -- AMENDING THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM ESTATE TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ON 7.2 ACRES FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CALLOWAY DRIVE, 1/4 MILE NORTH OF ROSEDALE HIGHWAY. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened; no one spoke in opposition or favor. Public portion of the hearing was closed. MinUtes, PC, 4/6/95 Page 3 Motion was made by Commissioner Delgado, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution making findings, as set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zoning to C-2 (Regional Commercial) zone on 7.2 +/- acres, as shown on Exhibit "A," and recommend same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Boyle, Brady, Delgado, Hersh, Marino, Ortiz, Andrew NOES: None 6.2 PUBLIC HEARING - ZONE CHANGE 5622 -- AMENDING THE ZONING BOUNDARIES FROM A (AGRICULTURE) TO R-2 (LIMITED MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLING) ON 18.57 +/- ACRES FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF WHITE LANE, WEST OF SADDLE DRIVE AND EAST OF MOUNTAIN VISTA DRIVE. Staff report recommending approval was given. Public portion of the hearing was opened. Robert Vincent, resident of Tevis Ranch said their home is adjacent to subject property. He stated their one consistent objection being allowance of density inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. The densities of existing and this proposed development are inconsistent. He asked that the commission consider whether the concerns of surrounding neighborhoods would be mitigated by this proposal. Russ Petrone said he is a resident of Tevis Ranch and submitted a letter to the commission outlining their concerns. He felt if changes were to be made they probably should have been addressed at the time of change to the general plan. He felt this size of complex would affect property values and traffic. He asked the Commission to consider denying this request, however if they are inclined to approve it he asked that the density be held at 8 or 9 dwellings per acre. He said they had held meetings and the issues contained in the letter were a consensus of the entire group. Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, he said the applicant had been notified verbally of some of the concerns. Discussion continued regarding lot sizes and block walls. Mr. Petrone said their proposal is that the integrity of the entire entrance of Tevis Ranch be maintained. He asked that the west and east sides look the same. He said the same owner owns both parcels. Minutes, PC, 4/6/95 Page 4 Jerry Marquis said he lives on Sunset Canyon Drive. He gave history on their group - Citizens for Intelligent Development. He said he and two others had met with Mr. McIntosh to discuss their concerns. Regarding the wall height being six feet, he said at many points it is five feet or less. Regarding density he said the average density is approximately 5.23 units per acre and the neighbors are opposed to higher density. He was concerned about the adequacy of studies prepared for this project and felt habitat concerns should also be taken into consideration. He felt the best and most compatible use for this property is R-1. He requested this application be denied, however if the commission is inclined to approve it he asked that the protections suggested by Mr. Petrone be included. Dan Rhoten, resident of Sunset Canyon Drive, stated he had submitted a letter which was given to the Commission. Regarding lot sizes, he gave previously used formulas saying the commission is not comparing apples to apples. Roger Mclntosh represented the applicant. He said they had requested changes to some conditions such as Condition #1 which refers to a general plan amendment thfit does not exist; asking that this reference be deleted. Condition #3 contains wording which addresses an increase in density of more than 5 percent in which he said no increase in dwelling units is being requested. Mr. LaRochelle stated agreement with deletion of this portion. Mr. McIntosh said he had met with some representatives of the neighborhood discussing the density cap and setbacks, heights of units along the southern boundary and disposition of the landscaping and walls along Saddle Drive. Regarding increase in traffic, he said their traffic study addresses this issue, with mitigation. Regarding the request for allowance of 8 dwelling units per acre he did not feel the additional 2 dwelling units per acre over 18 acres would make a big difference. Regarding item #2 of Mr. Petrone's letter concerning raising the wall he said this was an ordinance requirement and therefore would be complied with. Regarding #3 concerning the setback along the wall of the south boundary being 25 feet with single level construction and screening requirements he said two-story screening is an ordinance requirement, with the R-2 zone setbacks are more significant than with R-1 construction. Regarding item #4 requesting that the entire site be enclosed with a slump stone wall consistent with those in Tevis Ranch, he felt the City would have a problem because it is in contrast with the city ordinance in causing a double frontage situation on a local street. Regarding request #5 concerning walls having setback and landscaping requirements consistent with surrounding neighborhood all developments in the area must comply with city minimum standards. Item #6 concerning replacement of Tevis Ranch monument should the installation of perimeter wall disturb it, he said some landscaping would require removal and would be retrofitted to city standards and they would have no problem replacing monuments with like kind or better. Regarding Item #7 requiring consistency of walls he said the portion of property referred to is a portion which is not a part of this project and he did not feel off-site Minutes, PC, 4/6/95 Page 5 improvement should be placed as a restriction on this project. He was in objection to request #8 which asked that all requests of Mr. Petrone's letter be made deed restriction or C.C.&R.'s. He stated the owner's intent to sell the property and that it be developed in accordance with the 2010 Plan. Regarding the previous comment concerning habitat of the area, he said this property will comply with the City's ordinance which requires mitigation in compliance with the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Program. Responding to questions by Commissioner Hersh, Mr. McIntosh said it has always been the intent of the owner to obtain R-2 zoning and sell the property. He also said he had received Mr. Petrone's letter 30 minutes prior to the hearing and had not discussed the issues of it with him. Jerry Marquis submitted a picture of the wall saying it is far from being six feet. Commissioner Andrew said the wall would have to be raised to the six-foot height. He felt the developer should take some responsibility for not destroying the appearance of the frontage street. Mr. Abureyaleh said he had met with Mr. McIntosh. Responding to question by him, Commissioner Hersh outlined the proposed changes to come before the commission at a future hearing. Chairman Andrew clarified this is something that is not final at this time. At the present hearing the commission must review this project based on current ordinances in effect. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Responding to questions by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Grady said the only situation in which the wall along the south property line would be addressed is if it would be adjacent to parking. In this situation the prior property owner constructed a block wall. Responding to question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. Mclntosh said the property owner does not have a problem with the 6-foot height of the block wall. Their intent is to add to the block wall to bring it to this height and suggested it be added as a condition of approval. Responding to questions concerning endangered species, Mr. Movius said the burrow owls are not on the endangered species list, however are protected under the Raptor Act. Commissioner Marino was concerned about the construction of apartments, however a condition to increase the southern wall height could be added and a condition requiring only single story apartments along the south property line. Minutes, PC, 4/6/95 Page 6 Commissioner Brady said the agricultural zone is inconsistent, however the general plan designation which allows a maximum of 10 dwelling units per acre has been in place for some time. He stated he would support this change in zoning. Commissioner Hersh said zoning for this area has come up a number of times. He asked Mr. Hardisty if he recalled a situation in which zoning'for this property was approved for R-1 by the Planning Commission, however it was pulled before reaching the Council. Mr. Hardisty stated he did not recall this, however at one time spoke to someone interested in purchasing the property for this purpose. Mr. Hersh felt the integrity of this community is R-! and anything else would not be appropriate. He stated he would support R-1. Chairman Andrew said it was his understanding that the purchaser of this property intends to develop it with single family lots, however there is no guarantee. Different types of development must be integrated into a community. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. McIntosh said if this property is constructed as an R-1 small lot subdivision it is almost impossible to develop 10 dwelling units per acre. It would average 7-8 dwelling units per acre and the owner is not willing to agree to a cap less than what is allowed by the general plan. .Commissioner Boyle felt given the character of the neighborhood and the fact there is no guarantee the owner will build a small lot R-1 subdivision, apartment buildings are not appropriate for this neighborhood. He saw no other way to address concerns of the neighborhood other than denial of this zone change. Commissioner Marino felt 10 units per acre for apartments is extremely low density. Miriam Raub Vivian asked a question which Chairman Andrew responded to by saying it is possible for the property owner to ask for a change in general plan designation at a future time, however it would require a public hearing. She felt, step by step, the consistency of the neighborhood is being eroded. Responding to question by Commissioner Marino, Mr. McIntosh said the property owner stated his agreement with what is allowed in the ordinance; not wanting to be further restricted. Minutes, PC, 4/6/95 Page 7 Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Brady to adopt resolution making findings as. set forth in staff report, approving the Negative Declaration, and approving Zone Change No. 5622, subject to the conditions of approval on Exhibit "A" and recommend same to City Council with the additional conditions as follows: At the time of development the developer shall raise the height of the wall at the south line to 6 feet as measured from the highest side. Commissioner Delgado felt it was not wise to leave this property zoned agricultural, however is not in favor of R-2 zoning. In reviewing the map he was of the opinion there is a sufficient amount of R-2 properties. He stated his willingness to support R-1 zoning. Commissioner Brady asked that the following amendments be made to the motion. Commissioner Marino amended his motion to include them. Change to Public Works Condition #1 by replacing the words "GPA" with "zone change" Public Works Condition #3 to be changed to read as follows: The traffic study and resulting impacts identified in Item 2. above are based on 186 R-2 residential units (as stated in the traffic study), while the zoning proposed could allow more or less residential units. The fee per R- 2 unit is $99.95. The fee of $99.95 per R-2 unit will be maintained even if the number of residential units that are finally created is less than that proposed so that proportionate local traffic mitigation will be achieved. Commissioner Brady said he would support this motion because the property owner has been told he can use this property in a certain way and now he should be entitled to do so. He felt the property owner's rights are being taken away. Commissioner Hersh clarified the options for zoning on this property are R-! and R-2. Given the property's history and concern of the neighborhood he did not feel any rights are being taken away. There is an option. Commissioner Boyle agreed with comments from Commissioner Brady concerning taking away property owners' rights, however the integrity of the neighborhood is single family residential. Chairman Andrew recalled a previous approval in which commercial zoning was changed to that which wbuld allow apartment construction. Minutes, PC, 4/6/95 Motion failed to carry by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Brady, Marino, Andrew NOES: Commissioners Boyle, Delgado, Hersh, Ortiz o Page 8 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM BUDGET - DETERMINATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL o AND SPECIFIC PLANS Staff report was given on this item. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. LaRochelle said information would be sent to property owners regarding the park site to be provided in relation to the Destec project. The park cannot be installed without first establishing a maintenance district. A site has been determined, however is subject to change. Responding to questions by Commissioner Marino, Mr. LaRochelle said the Calloway Bridge construction will soon be underway. Mohawk Bridge is being looked at with regard to date for commencement of construction. Responding to question by Chairman Andrew, Mr. LaRochelle anticipated construction of the Calloway Bridge taking approximately 10 months. He said most traffic signals are funded from gas tax, regional transportation fee or developer contribution through mitigation of the planning process. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Hersh to find the Capital Improvements Program Budget consistent with the 2010 General Plan and Specific Plan, as required by Section 56103, including the landfill control final gas system as outlined in the March 31, 1995 memo from the City Manager. Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS A) Written None B) Verbal Responding to question by Commissioner Brady, Mr. Grady said 7 applications were received for the soon to be vacant commission seats. Minutes, PC, 4/6/95 Page 9 9. sPECIAL COMMITTEE AND STAFF REPORTS Trails and Ways Committee Report - Focus is on the Western Rosedale Multi-use Trail System, "staging" areas along the Kern River and analysis of trail standards necessary to implement. Planning Commission direction to staff to process at the earliest date a Circulati°n Element Amendment and those standards necessary to implement regional trail system in the Rosedale area. Mr. Grady stated the committee report outlined the history of trails committee and motion to direct staff to initiate a general plan amendment in order to bring the multi-trails system of the Western Rosedale Specific Plan into the General Plan so that upon annexation the trails system would become part of the city. The committee also discussed the design standard of which the full commission has been provided a copy. He brought attention to the recent memo from the Parks Department regarding maintenance and construction of the trail. Commissioner Marino said the committee will meet the following Wednesday and is looking very closely at the cost to maintain the trails. He said staff would be asked to bring the alignments back to the commission at the June General Plan Amendment cycle hearing for adoption, for amendment of the Kern River Plan and extension of equestrian trail on the north side of the river to Enos Lane. Responding to question by Commissioner Boyle, Mr. Grady said there was no provision in the by-laws for allowing a commissioner to be appointed to this committee when they are no longer a Commissioner. Commissioner Marino would be free to participate due to changes to the Brown Act which make these meetings public. Commissioner Marino recalled a previous commissioner being retained on a committee after she was no longer a commissioner. Mr. Grady said he would check on this issue. Motion was made by Commissioner Marino, seconded by Commissioner Boyle to direct staff to prepare the necessary general plan amendment, multi-use trail standard and appropriate environmental document for the earliest possible Commission meeting. Mr. Grady gave the date of April 12th as the next committee meeting. Motion carried. Minutes, PC, 4/6/95 Page 10 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Boyle asked about resolving the issue of items being placed on consent calendar after the pre-meeting. Mr. Grady said these items are supposed to be submitted by the applicant for consent agenda by the Friday before the pre- meeting, however since the agenda is posted again for the Thursday meeting it can be placed on consent at the Monday meeting. He said if the commission no longer wants to handle these items at this late a date the procedure can be changed. Mr. Grady said this issue would be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. A. Committees 11. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission, meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Laurie Davis Recording Secretary Planning Director