Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 6, 2003Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac, None Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Jack Leonard Staff: Jim Movius, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of February 6, 2003. 4.1 b Approval of correction to Planning Commission minutes of December 19, 2002. 4.1c Approval of General Plan Consistency finding for vacation of Camino Grande Drive in buffer area west of the Kern County China Grade Sanitary land fill site. (City of Bakersfield). (Exempt from CEQA) (Ward 3) Motion was made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the non-public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a) Approval of Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6152 (Porter-Robertson Eng) (Ward 6) Minutes, PC, March 6, 2003 Page 2 be 4.2b) 4.2c) 4.2d) 4.2e) Approval of Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6168 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Ward 2) Approval of Zone Chanqe 03-0016 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Ward 6) Approval of Vestinq Tentative Tract 6167 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Ward 6) Approval of Zone Chanqe 03-0017 (Dave Cross, Architect) (Ward 5) Public portion of the hearing opened. Commissioner Tragish requested that item 4.2d removed from the Consent Agenda. Public portion of the hearing closed. There were no further comments from the public or Commission. Motion was made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the remaining items on the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Tract Maps 5.1) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6152 (Ward 6) Staff stated that there is a request from the applicant to continue this item until April 3, 2003. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke either for or against the request for continuance. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to continue item 5.1 Tentative Parcel Map 10945 until April 3, 2003. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac None None 5.2) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6153 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Ward 4) Staff stated that there is a request from the applicant to continue this item until April 3, 2003. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke either for or against the request for continuance. Motion made by Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Tragish, to continue item 5.2 Tentative Parcel Map 10949 until April 3, 2003. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None Minutes, PC, March 6, 2003 Page 3 ABSENT: None PUBLIC HEARING - Tentative Tract Maps 6.1) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6152 See Consent Agenda. (Ward 6) 6.2) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6153 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Ward 4) Staff stated there were two memorandums they should have concerning this project. One from the Public Works Department dated February 27 and one from the Planning Department dated March 3 related to conditions of approval on the tract. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Bob Smith, representing the property owners, stated they are in agreement with the staff report and he is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Ellison asked where the unrecorded pipeline is located on the tract and whether or not it is active? Mr. Smith said the pipeline runs along the south side of Reina Road. It is a natural gas pipeline that is active. Southern Cai Gas owns it and it runs adjacent to other subdivisions to the east which have the same conditions regarding the pipeline. Commissioner Ellison also pointed out a typo in the memorandum on 32.3 which should say refined instead of redined. There were no further Commissioner comments. ] Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6153 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and including the memorandum from the Planning Department dated March 3, 2003 and a memo from Marian Shaw dated February 27, 2003 including the correction to 32.3. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None 6.3) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6168 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Ward 2) See Consent Agenda 6.4) Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6177 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 7) Commissioner Ellison declared a conflict of interest on this project. Minutes, PC, March 6, 2003 Page 4 Staff report given recommending approval with conditions including a memorandum from the Public Works Department dated March 3, 2003. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Bob Smith, representing the landowner, said they are in agreement to all the conditions and he is here to answer any questions. Public portion of the hearing was closed. There were no Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve Vesting Tentative Map 6177 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution and including the memorandum from Marian Shaw dated March 3, 2003. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Ellison PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Map/Zone Chanqe 7.1a) Zone Chanqe 03-0016 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Ward 6) See Consent Agenda. 7.1b) Vestinq Tentative Tract 6167 (SmithTech USA, Inc) (Ward 6) Staff had no additional comments from Monday's pre-meeting. Commissioner Tragish requested this item be removed from the Consent Agenda. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition. Bob Smith said they are in agreement with the conditions and he is available to answer any questions. Commissioner Tragish said he has a concern about putting residential houses next to agricultural property with no definitive data when the property will be developed as it is still being used for agricultural purposes. It is still being farmed and he has a concern about blowing dust and spraying being done right next to residential property. Staff is recommending the 140 foot setback required next to an agricultural use be waived and Commissioner Tragish feels that it should not be waived given the circumstances as it appears. Commissioner Tragish said he would like to keep the 140 setback in effect and asked Mr. Smith if he had an objection to that? Mr. Smith said they would like to leave the map the way it is. The staff report points out that the 50 foot dwelling setback is still in force and you really wouldn't have homes any closer than required with the 140 foot lot. You end up with the same thing. Commissioner Tragish asked where it is measured from? Mr. Smith said the 140 foot is the depth of the lot required. Their lots are 110 feet. Commissioner Tragish asked if you had a 100 foot depth lot wouldn't the property still be closer to the agricultural property than the 140 foot? Minutes, PC, March 6, 2003 Page 5 Mr. Smith said the property is adjacent in any case. They touch each other. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Grady if there is any difference, as to its closeness to agricultural property, if the property has a 100 foot depth setback or 140 foot depth setback? Mr. Grady said the house on that property would be closer to the ag land by virtue of the lot being smaller. Commissioner Tragish said he would like to keep the 140 foot lot standard but suggested that as an accommodation to Mr. Smith that a block wall rather than a wood fence be installed on any of the properties adjacent to the agricultural land. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission could place a condition on the project requiring a block wall on the south boundary adjacent to the agriculture property? Mr. Grady said that since the applicant is asking the Commission to modify a standard condition, the Commission can decide how they want to address the modification. Commissioner Tragish asked if they can put a condition on the project leaving the 140 foot setback in place but in the event the tract to the south is built, it could be reduced to a 100 foot depth? Mr. Grady said it is possible but he is not sure how practical from a design standpoint. Once they design a subdivision with 140 feet on that edge, it is not likely they will make them shorter as there is nothing they can do with the land that is leftover. Commissioner Tragish asked if there are any applications pending to develop the property to the south? Mr. Grady said he does not recall what is to the south but there are several tracts on the east and west side of it. This subdivision is in a developing area and it is not on the edge where ag is likely to be sustained for a long period of time. In this situation the ag piece is the odd piece. Commissioner Tragish said he would like to see the 140 foot setback remain or a block wall be put on the southern boundary of this tract. Commissioner Gay asked if we prohibit farming on R-1 zoned property? Mr. Grady said not if it is farming that is occurring prior to the land use and zone change. Commissioner Gay said he disagrees with Commissioner Tragish as he feels that the agricultural property will be residential before long and he hates to see them modify the maps at this time. He would like to see it stay the way it is. He does not see a need for a block wall. He feels that future prospective purchasers could choose to live there or not if the farming were a problem to them. Commissioner Blockley said he agrees with Commissioner Gay. The project analysis on Page 2 of the staff report discussed the conditions and indicated the applicant would have to go through the Board of Zoning Adjustment to build houses on the smaller lots in the event that they were ready to build houses at the time that that land was still zoned agricultural. That satisfies his concern about having the agricultural next to the residential. Commissioner Ellison said that the land use is LR and the property is zoned A. He feels that development is eminent and asked Mr. Smith if he knows of any future plans for tract maps and how eminent development might be on the property to the south? Mr. Smith said he is not aware of what is happening to the property to the south but he is working on a large number of projects in the area. Commissioner Ellison said he would not be in support of the 140 foot lot depths but would be open to the block wall. Minutes, PC, March 6, 2003 Page 6 Commissioner Gay said he is not sure what good the block wall will do. The zone change may happen before dirt is ever moved on this project. He thinks a block wall may be an unnecessary expense at this time. Commissioner Tragish said the problem he has with this is they are suppose to look at the projects as they come in and rule on them as they are today. This property is still being farmed and we have no idea if and when that will change. People sometimes do not look at these things and he feels it is the Commission's responsibility to look out for the health, safety and orderly development. He agrees that a block wall is not something he would want to do but given the circumstances of having someone farming the property and kicking up dust, he doesn't know what else to do for these people without any kind of date certain when the property would be developed. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Grady if a third phase could be established using lots 45 through $4 and make it a stipulation that if the property to the south is not rezoned by the time Phase 3 is built, a block wall would have to be built if they wanted to proceed? Mr. Grady said that if the Commission wants to coordinate the phases so that the areas closest to the ag is developed at the latest possible point, staff would be amenable to that. They would need to work out the phasing with the subdivider. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Smith if he would: 1) put a block wall to the south or 2) be willing to make a third phase. Mr. Smith said that would be acceptable to the client and stated that the 50 foot setback is the same whether the lots are 140 feet or 110 feet and the Board of Zoning Adjustment could make the requirement for the block wall at the time if the developer wanted to go in and build lots closer than what is required by ordinance. Commissioner Commissioner property to the McGinnis said that he tends to agree with Commissioner Tragish and that he likes Gay's solution to the problem. He feels that by the time Phase 3 is reached, the south will be R-1. Commissioner Tragish said he would support a motion to that from Commissioner Gay. There were no further Commissioner comments. ] Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6167 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and incorporating the memorandum dated February 25, 2003 from Marian Shaw and the applicant working with staff to create a third phase for lots 45 through 84 that if residential R-1 zoning is not in place at the time they develop lots 45 through $4, the applicant will place a six foot high block wall along the southerly boundary. Mr. Grady said they could make those changes to condition number 33 which currently addresses the number of phases. They would add the language to that condition so they will not need to create a new condition. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Blockley, Ellison, Gay, McGinnis, Tragish, Tkac NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, March 6, 2003 Page 7 7.2 Zone Chanqe 03-0017 (Dave Cross, Architect) (Ward 5) See Consent Agenda. 10. 11. WORKSHOP - NORTHEAST PARKS AND TRAILS PLAN This was presented by Jim Movius, Principal Planner. It is in response to the Commission asking to be brought up to date about what the city is doing in the northeast regarding trails. What has been done so far and where they intend to go and the Planning Commission's role in that process was discussed COMMUNICATIONS: None COMMISSION COMMENTS: None DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- 11. MEETING: It was decided there would be a pre-meeting on March 17, 2003. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary March 25, 2003 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director