Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 16, 2003Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tkac, Tragish Commissioner Sprague Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Jim Movius, Marc Gauthier, Jim Eggert, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of December 5, 2002. 4.1 b Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Tract 5527, Phase G (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) 4.1c Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Tract 5552, Phases 6A, 6B & 6C (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 5) 4.1d Approval of Extension of Time for G (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4.1e Approval of Extension of Time for C (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4.1f Approval of Extension of Time for D (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4.1g Approval of Extension of Time for C (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4.1h Vesting Rights on Tract 5940, Phases A through 5) Vesting Rights on Tract 6001 Phases A through 5) Vesting Rights on Tract 6055, Phases A through 5) Vesting Rights on Tract 6030, Phases A through 5) Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Tract 6043, Phases A through I (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 5) Minutes, PC, January 16, 2003 Page 2 4.1i Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on Parcel Map 10617 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 5) Motion was made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried. Group Vote 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a) Approval of Extension of Time for Vestinq Tentative Map No. 6033 (SmithTech, USA, Inc.) (Ward 4) 4.2b) Approval of Extension of Time for Vestinq Tentative Map No. 5923 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) 4.2c&d) Approval of GPA/ZC Amendment 02-0939 (Porter-Robertson Eng) (Ward 4) 4.2e&f) Approval of GPA/ZC Amendment 02-0959 (Rosedale Construction Co.) (Ward 4) 4.2g&h) Approval of GPNZC Amendment 02-0961 (Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency) (Ward 2) 4.2i&j) Approve Withdrawal of GPA/ZC Amendment 02-0962 (Mclntosh and Associates) (Ward 6) 4.2k&l) Approval of GPA/ZC Amendment 02-0976 (Towery Homes) (Ward 4) 4.2m) Approval of Revised Tentative Tract Map 6104 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 5) 4.2n) Approval of Vestinq Tentative Map 6146 (Quad Knopf) (Ward 4) 4.20) Vestinq Tentative Tract 6160 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) 4.2p) Approval of Vestinq Tentative Map 6164 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) 4.2q) Approval of Comprehensive Siqn Plan 02-1052 (Clarion Hotel) (Ward 4) Public portion of the hearings for the general plan amendments and concurrent zone changes were opened on December 19, 2002 and then continued until tonight. The public hearing for the remaining items on tonight's consent agenda were opened. Bill Bowers, 5500 Muirfield Drive, expressed his concerns regarding Item 4.20 and the additional traffic that will occur because of this subdivision. He asked at what point there is a saturation point and when will the point be reached when there is some additional road work done so that access in and out of the area is better? Mr. Bowers said that he is not voicing an objection to the development. Just the traffic flow. He thinks there needs to be something done prior to further development out there to alleviate some of the traffic situation. He did not request the item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Minutes, PC, January 16, 2003 Page 3 Mr. Bowers comments were noted for the record. Public portion of the hearing closed. There were no further comments from the public or Commission. Motion was made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar including the memorandums from staff and Mr. Bowers comments. Motion carried by group vote. PUBLIC HEARINGS - General Plan Amendments, Circulation Element Amendments and Associated Rezoninqs: 5.3a&b) 6) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-0837 (Frank Trippichio) (Ward Staff report given recommending approval. In response to a question at Monday's pre-meeting Mr. Grady said there were no plans in the future to install a public address system. Public portion of the hearing was opened on December 19, 2002. No one spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. However, Larry Woertz, a resident of Alum Avenue, said the people of Alum Avenue would like to see a block wall running the width of Alum Avenue. He also wanted some assurance that the public address system or tower would never be built and asked if the dwellings would be single story? Frank Trippichio, representing the owners of the project, said they are in favor of the project. They feel the change in use will benefit the neighborhood and not create any negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. They will be happy to consider the concerns of the neighborhood. He said he would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that he listened to a tape of the Monday pre-meeting. He asked the applicant if there is a pending request for a tower? Mr. Trippichio said he is not sure about a tower but there will not be a public PA system now or in the future. Staff said that if they wanted to put a public address system in they would have to get a Conditional Use Permit but a Church steeple would be permitted. Commissioner Tragish asked if the apartments would be one or two story? Mr. Trippichio stated they haven't gotten that far with the design but he can assure the residents of the neighborhood that the design would not be insensitive to the neighborhood. Commissioner Tragish asked where the block wall would be Mr. Woertz was talking about? Ms. Shaw demonstrated on the overhead where the existing fence is located which would be replaced with a block wall if Mr. Woertz's request was granted. However, one of the conditions on the property is to provide right-of-way to either have Alum Avenue connect to Akers Road or to provide a portion necessary to put in a cul-de-sac on Alum. The reason for a cul-de-sac is because Alum Avenue is a long street and it is difficult for the City's trash trucks to turn around in a street like that. When the adjacent R-1 property develops, a cul-de-sac will be put in and so staff's recommendation is that the Commission does not require a block wall across Alum Avenue. Commissioner Blockley asked what height is allowed for a spire? Mr. Grady said the maximum height in an R-2 zone is 35 feet. Commissioner Blockley asked if it would be the same if a Minutes, PC, January 16, 2003 Page 4 platform were placed on the spire? Mr. Grady said it would be the same. Commissioner Gay asked when the multi-story issue would be brought up to which Mr. Grady responded that it would be during the site plan review process. Commissioner McGinnis asked if it would be possible to put a crash gate across Alum which would not be so permanent but still benefit the neighbors? Mr. Trippichio said he thinks the owners would implement that in the final development of the project. Commissioner McGinnis asked Mr. Woertz if that would solve the problem? Mr. Woertz said yes. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt the resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to change the land use designation from P (Public Facilities) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential) on 3.18 acres and LR (Low Density Residential) to HMR (High Medium Density Residential) on 1.8 acres as shown in Exhibit A and pursuant to the suggestion put forth by Commissioner McGinnis that there be a crash gate at the corner of the property on Alum Avenue and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sprague Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt the resolution approving the Negative Declaration and approving the requested zone change from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to R-2 CH (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling-Church) on 3.18 acres and R-1 CH (One Family Dwelling-Church) to R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) on 1.4 acres and R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Dwelling) on .4 acres as shown on Exhibit B with the same requirement concerning the crash gate on the corner of Alum Avenue and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sprague 5.4a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-0853 (G.W. Wilson) (Ward 3) Staff report given recommending approval including a memorandum answering some of the questions brought up at Monday's pre-meeting. Public portion of the hearing was opened on December 19, 2002. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Robert Rodriguez, representing the development group, stated they concur with staff's recommendations and he is available to answer questions. Minutes, PC, January 16, 2003 Page 5 Public 3ortion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner McGinnis asked staff to explain what will take place at the intersection. Ms. Shaw said there are still two options. Height Street can remain a one-way street westbound to Sunny Lane. Accesses would be right turn in, right turn out (from Mt. Vernon, west of Sunny Lane). An option has been given the applicant to convert it to a two-way street that would go to the easternmost drive access. Commissioner McGinnis asked what the affect, if any, it would have on the onramp to 178 to which Steve Walker, Traffic Engineer, answered that the configuration would remain the same. There is no change at that location. The changes are to the west. There would be no eastbound direction. There is no pedestrian traffic expected to the east. Most of the attraction for pedestrian traffic will be to the north. The change in traffic is very minimal. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Walker if the freeway onramp is controlled by Caltrans to which Mr. Walker said yes. In regards to a letter the Commission received from David Lyman regarding pedestrian traffic concerns, Mr. Walker said they do not want pedestrians crossing at that location. Commissioner Gay asked if this project will connect to Mr. Vernon with sidewalks? Ms. Shaw said one of the conditions on this project for orderly development is the completion of some curb, gutter and sidewalk to connect to where it ends now at the return on Mt. Vernon Avenue because of the concern of the high density residential development and their desire to access the rather extensive commercial area along Mt. Vernon. Commissioner Ellison said he is in favor of a PUD overlay on the site because of the odd shape of the property and proximity to College Heights school and it being unique with three stories and underground parking. He would like to see the site plan come back before the Commission. Commissioner Tragish asked staff under what circumstances should a PUD requirement be made? Mr. Grady said the intended use of the PUD is for developers to have the option to blend different standards and come up with a unique design. That evolved into a revision to the ordinance that would allow the Commission to require designs that they thought were in a particular location where there are some sensitive land uses around it that would suggest they may need to watch the project more closely. If the Commission thinks that exists on this site, they can apply the PUD overlay. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is a reason staff did not recommend the overlay for this project? Mr. Grady said that the project that was submitted did not exhibit any characteristics that would suggest that a PUD was needed on it. But that is the purpose of the hearing, for the Commission to decide if one is warranted. Commissioner Blockley asked staff if the underground parking would affect the implementation of the landscape ordinance? Mr. Grady said the landscape requirements as far as set back and tree coverage would still apply to the open space that is not covered by buildings. Commissioner Blockley said he is not sure if a PUD is advisable. He originally thought so but now he is not sure the Commission will be able to be any better than city staff would be implementing the rules that already exist. Commissioner Tkac asked what the R-3 density would be? Mr. Grady said that for this project, the density is at 30.34 units per acre based on what is being proposed. The proposal is for 54 units. Commissioner Tkac asked if there are any height restrictions to which Mr. Grady said height restrictions are the same for a standard R-3 zone (35 foot height or 2-1/2 stories). Commissioner Tkac asked if there is any significant difference in elevation from the project site Minutes, PC, January 16, 2003 Page 6 to the school? Mr. Grady said he believes there is some elevation difference but the applicant can address that better. Commissioner Tkac said he thinks it is a creative use for this piece of property and he is a little "on the fence" about the PUD. Commissioner Ellison said the conceptual plan in the staff report shows nine, six-plexes that will be multi-story. This is adjacent to State Route 175 which being so close to the freeway, makes it an architectural concern. Nine, six-plexes is quite an extensive development on the odd shaped property and the Commission has a lot of expertise that can evaluate the project. That is the reason he has suggested the PUD. He is in favor of the project whether or not there is a PUD. Commissioner McGinnis said he thinks because of the nature of their being 54 units, it might create more problems getting off 178 and asked if there will be any changes made to the signaling at the intersection on Mt. Vernon? Mr. Walker said that Caltrans is taking care of that right now and it should be completed in 2004. Commissioner Gay asked if the Director might require some screening in the way of trees between the project and the school? Mr. Grady said that if it is not required by ordinance, they would not be requiring it. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission can request that trees be added as a buffer to College Heights School on the west side of the project? Mr. Grady said no they can't. They have the discretion to approve or deny the general plan amendment or approve and deny the zone change. If there is something particular about the project where the Commission would need to apply some kind of mitigation, then you would be able to address that as mitigation. If the Commission is trying to add conditions that should otherwise be contained in an ordinance, then it needs to be taken to another level. Like a PUD. Without knowing what the design of the project is going to be, it may preclude a row of trees being placed along that property line. Commissioner Tkac asked what the zoning is on the property to the east? Mr. Grady said C-2. Commissioner Ellison asked if the applicant had to agree to a PUD before the Commission could place it on the project? Mr. Grady said that if they are going to use the overlay, they do not need to make the findings and they do not need the applicant's concurrence. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the requested general plan amendment to change the land use designation from GC to HR on 1.7 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 and recommend the same to City Council and incorporating Marian Shaw's January 15, 2003 memo and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Sprague Mr. Grady said that for clarification he wanted the Commission to understand that the motion, if it is to put a PUD on, is for the PUD overlay to make a distinction between that and the zone change. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to adopt a resolution Minutes, PC, January 16, 2003 Page 7 making findings approving the negative declaration and approving the requested zone change from C-2 to R-3 PUD overlay on 1.7 acres as shown on Exhibit 2 incorporating Marian Shaw's January 15, 2003 memo and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac None Sprague 5.Sa&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-0939 (Porter-Robertson Eng) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda. 5.6) General Plan Amendment 02-0958 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) Public portion of the hearing was opened on December 19, 2002. Staff report given stating that staff's original recommendation was to deny the project but there have been subsequent meetings between Public Works and the applicant. They have now agreed to a deletion as proposed by the applicant subject to the distribution of traffic as shown on the map as part of the memorandum that was supplied to the Commission from Public Works. Staff is now recommending approval. No one spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. Mr. Roger Mclntosh, representing the applicant, stated that they are in support of staff's recommendation as witnessed by Marian Shaw's memo of January 16, 2003 and he is available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay said he has no preference to delete a collectodarterial when it is on the map. He asked if the applicant comes in later with their maps can they address this at a later date providing it remains Iow density? He wouldn't want to delete this and then have the applicant come back for higher density which would increase the traffic on a street they have deleted. Mr. Mclntosh said there are two reasons they are asking for this to be deleted: 1) the west beltway is proposed to go through which will effectively cut off traffic from the west, coming to the east to Renfro, and 2) the Cross Valley Canal is directly adjacent to the collector that they are asking to be deleted. There is also the river and 2600 acres of recharge area that the city and other agencies own and you really don't get to residential for a mile to the south. Typically, a collector would be through the mid-section and pick up traffic from north and south of that collector. Its not just the lower density, they are at 50 percent of Minutes, PC, January 16, 2003 Page 8 the actual densities that would normally use that collector. They have devised a way to get in and out of that area and circulate up to Stockdale Highway over to Renfro and they do not think a collector is warranted there. Ms. Shaw said that the main concern they had was not so much that the volumes were there to put on the collector but that people who don't have a collector to go to pick their own and they have had some difficulty in the neighborhood to the east because no collector was provided. That formed the basis of their original denial. What the applicant has proposed is a method of directing the traffic through having it conform to a specific circulation plan for that area that should eliminate the city's concern with regards to not having a collector there and having people pick one. They believe with the conditions they have placed on this that their concern regarding the collector is addressed. Commissioner Gay asked Ms. Shaw if the City has policing power to require larger streets if they feel it is necessary so that the same situation does not occur that happened to the east of this project? Ms. Shaw said that what this condition is doing is requiring that any subsequent map that comes in conform to that plan, which basically places that local collector on the quarter section line. They do through policies and ordinances have the ability to require a slightly wider local street when they feel there is a heavier amount of traffic on it. Commissioner Blockley said he is not in favor of this and if it would be typical of the beltway to have an underpass there? Ms. Shaw said that in staff' discussions with county staff, that yes there would be a plan to have some sort of intersection or grade separation at both the arterials and the collectors so there would be a street crossing the west beltway in that location if it remained as a collector. Commissioner Blockley asked if you will be able to get to the west beltway from the collector? Ms. Shaw said there will be a connection either at Stockdale or the collector but not both. There will be an interchange with the west side freeway which is immediately north of Stockdale Highway. They are generally speaking about intersections at arterials and grade separations at collectors. Commissioner Blockley said if that is so he doesn't see the benefit, other than building more houses on a particular piece of land, to deleting the collector. It seems like a short-sighted thing to do when you consider further development to the west. Commissioner Ellison said that his sentiments echo Commissioner Blockley. He thinks it is premature to delete that section as a collector. It can be done at a future date if necessary. There is still a lot of open land out there and he thinks it is a bit premature to delete it at this time. He would be in favor of denying the deletion. There were no other Commission comments. Motion was made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to adopt a resolution making findings approving the negative declaration, denying the requested general plan amendment to amend the Circulation Element of the Metropolitan Bakersfield 2010 General Plan to delete the east/west collector Minutes, PC, January 16, 2003 Page 9 segment located south of Stockdale Highway, west of Renfro Road along the north side of the Cross Valley Canal, as delineated in Exhibit 2 of the draft resolution and recommend the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac None Commissioner Sprague 5.7a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-0959 (Rosedale Construction Co.) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda. 5.Sa&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-0961 (Bakersfield Redevelopment Agency) (Ward 2) See Consent Agenda. 5.ga&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-0962 (Mclntosh and Associates) (Ward 6) See Consent Agenda. 5.10a&b) General Plan Amendment/Zone Chanqe 02-0976 (Towery Homes) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda. PUBLIC HEARINGS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 6.1 Revised Tentative Tract Map 6104 (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 5) See Consent Agenda. 6.2 Vestinq Tentative Map 6146 (Quad Knopf) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda. 6.3 Vestinq Tentative Tract 6160 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) See Consent Agenda. 6.4 Vestinq Tentative Map 6164 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda. Minutes, PC, January 16, 2003 Page 10 PUBLIC HEARING - Comprehensive Siqn Plan 02-1052 (Clarion Hotel) See Consent Agenda. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Grady stated that Commissioner Sprague has resigned to take a position with the Kern County Planning Commission and thanked him for his service to the City of Bakersfield as a Planning Commissioner and as Chairperson during his last term. He wished him well in his new capacity as a County Planning Commissioner. ~COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioners Tkac, Tragish, Ellison, Gay, Blockley and McGinnis also thanked Mr. Sprague for being on the Commission and wished him success. Commissioner Gay asked if there is a limit of time for temporary signs such as the one that has been floating on California Avenue for a long time? Mr. Leonard said yes there is a limitation of 45 days and he would check on it. 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: It was decided there would not be a pre-meeting on February 3, 2003. 11. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary January23,2003 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director