Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 12, 2003Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue ROLL CALL Present: Absent: Commissioners Gay, Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Commissioner Tkac Advisory Members: Ginny Gennaro, Stanley Grady, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Jennie Eng, Pam Townsend PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a 4.1b Approval of Capital Improvements Program Budget FY 2003-2008 determination by the Planning Commission of consistency with the general and specific plans. (City of Bakersfield - Public Works Department) (City-wide) Approval of Extension of Time for Vesting Rights on 3rd Revised Tract 5882, Phases 3A, 3B, and 3C (Mclntosh & Associates) (Ward 4) Items will be voted on Thursday night. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Zone Change 03-0360 (City of Bakersfield) (Ward 3) Item will be voted on Thursday night. PUBLIC HEARING -Tentative Parcel Map 10929 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions as shown in the attached resolution and memorandum from Public Works. Applicant has agreed with all of the conditions and requested this be put on the consent agenda for Thursday night. Minutes, PC, May 12, 2003 Page 2 Commissioner Blockley asked how this affects development and the city's role and what happens on the property as opposed to keeping separate phases? Mr. Grady said that the way the conditions are written it wouldn't change the way the city interfaces with the implementation of this map. The parcel map just allows them to sell off sections in whole and then subdivide that section individually as opposed to having one subdivider do the entire map and then just record phases as they are completed. This will allow more than one builder to potentially build out this subdivision and have ownership to individual parcels as they finish out the tract map. Commissioner Ellison said the staff report says that the conditions carry over from Tract 6149 to this parcel but he did not see anything about the timing for the signalization of 178 and Miramonte and wondered if it does not have to be specifically stated in this parcel map to still be enforced? Ms. Shaw said that condition number 2 states that development of a parcel within this parcel map is also subject to those conditions required for the approval of 6149. It is their intent that that condition would carry forward the timing as well as the phasing of the improvements. Commissioner Ellison asked if it is still the case that the developer will fund the signal? Ms. Shaw said that has not changed. Commissioner Tragish asked at what point will Highway 178 be widened? Ms. Shaw said she would answer that on Thursday. Commissioner Gay asked if the phasing goes in order? Mr. Grady said that the phases that were identified in the underlying tract map are still applicable. Commissioner Blockley asked if the conditions would remain even if the tract map expires? Mr. Grady said if the map expires, they would have to file a new map. At that time, all of the conditions would be reapplied to the new map. Item was continued until Thursday night. PUBLIC HEARINGS - Tentative Tract Maps 6.1 Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6182 (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 3) Staff report given recommending approval. Staff will give a further report on Thursday night after a meeting with the applicant. Commissioner Tragish asked what parks are existing in the area? Mr. Grady said the parks are west of Alfred Harrell Highway and one site south of 178. There is no park planned for this subdivision. The parks will be linked with trails. There is a trail that is accessed at 178 and Miramonte that runs in the subdivision north of the site and comes out on Alfred Harrell Highway. Commissioner Tragish said he had a concern whether or not there are enough parks but said it does appear there is a lot of recreation in the area. Commissioner Gay asked if all of the parks would show up on the trails plan that was presented to the Commission last week? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Lomas had a question about condition 46. The last line states: "...this could be collected as a supplemental fee to the transportation impact fee collected when building permits are issued." Commissioner Lomas wanted to know what determines could be (or couldn't be)? Ms. Shaw said she would get with the Traffic Engineer for an answer. Minutes, PC, May 12, 2003 Page 3 Commissioner Gay asked if Building Department standards have tightened up since the 70s regarding soils testing? Mr. Burns said the standards haven't changed its just that we have a known problem so that when a tract comes in the expansion index is something they carefully look at. Commissioner Ellison asked if it is correct that Caltrans will not approve a signal at Park Palisaides and 178 unless warranted? Ms. Shaw said that a letter from Caltrans stated that as long as it is a State route, there would not be a signal at Park Palisaides and 178. Commissioner Ellison asked if the city needs to get clarification from Caltrans or will the city just be limiting the turns to right in and right out? Ms. Shaw said that they would be looking at the medians that would restrict turning movements. She does not expect there to be a traffic signal there until 178 gets turned over to the city. Commissioner Ellison asked if this tract will have to pay a proportionate share for the signal at 178 and Miramonte? Ms. Shaw said yes. Commissioner Ellison said that a condition was placed on Tract 6149 that timed the placing of the traffic signal on Miramonte and 178 after the construction of 100 homes and wondered if a condition similar to that should be placed on this map so that whichever one got built first it would trigger the installation of the signal? Ms. Shaw said it was the Planning Commission's decision to place that condition on the tract with approval of the developer and if the Commission wanted to do the same with this one they could. Commissioner Blockley said the applicant is given two choices of mitigation under condition 38 for air quality. Condition 38.2.1 is the crushing of older model cars and Commissioner Blockley wondered if there is some kind of control on this so that old cars in a junk yard are not just taken and crushed? Mr. Grady said that this program has been implemented by the district for several years and they are not currently implementing it but that it required that it be a registered car that had been licensed for at least one year and was driven to the crushing yard. Commissioner Tragish asked if the emissions would be over the ROG level without the mitigation measures that start at condition number 35? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Tragish said that it seems to him condition 38.1 would be a better mitigation and asked if it was a relatively new type of mitigation? Mr. Grady said that the whole program is new. The idea is to reduce the emissions below the threshold. Either one will do that. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is a list of areas in the city where they would construct a new warranted signal or a modification of a signalized intersection? Ms. Shaw said yes there is and she would have it on Thursday night. Commissioner Gay asked if reference to a signal can be deleted from all discussion for Park Palisaides since there will be no signal there and that if condition number five that refers to Park Palisaides also be deleted? Ms. Shaw said she believes that that portion of the condition could be removed and remove references to the signal. Commissioner Gay asked if there is an overall comprehensive plan to keep Highway 178 at a freeway speed not allowing traffic signals such as on Truxtun Avenue? Ms. Shaw said that the circulation element shows this part of 178 to be a standard arterial. Our general plan and our standards show that we should have no more than 1/3 mile intervals between signals unless there is a synchronization study to show that the signal will work at a closer spacing. Something would have to change in the designation before a guarantee could be made that signals would not some day be put every 1/3 mile. Minutes, PC, May 12, 2003 Page 4 Commissioner Gay asked if that means that Caltrans doesn't care how many traffic signals are placed there? Ms. Shaw said that she was speaking strictly as it being an arterial. Currently it is under Caltrans jurisdiction. She is not aware of what their requirements are for their standards of placement of signals on State highways. She will try to get some information by Thursday. Commissioner Gay said this would become an arterial if the new 178 alignment goes through and his theory is that they keep the signals at the mile increment until such time it comes under city control. He feels they should go forward with growth in the area as long as they keep traffic flowing. Commissioner Gay asked if the city has the right to determine the order of phasing to expedite the improvement of 178 in-lieu of some future assessment district? Mr. Grady said no. If the Commission wants to have the road built sooner rather than later, they need to come up with a reason for requiring it sooner rather than later so that it can be conditioned on this map. Ms. Shaw said that the city does not have Mello Rouse districts. Commissioner Gay asked if we have the ability for forming assessment districts? Ms. Shaw said the city usually does it at the request of a subdivider who wants to finance some improvements. Sometimes on rare occasions, the city will initiate the proceedings. Commissioner Lomas asked what the timeline would be if the city wanted to establish an assessment district? Ms. Shaw said the fastest an assessment district can be formed with property owner support is 9 to 12 months. Commissioner Lomas asked how many acres of open space does the city foresee having control over? Mr. Grady said they would like to provide an answer but that it does not pertain to this map. Commissioner Lomas asked if there was an assessment district in place that encompasses the east side would it pertain to this map? Mr. Grady said that is not known because boundaries would have to be drawn to determine what properties would need to be in some kind of maintenance district to take care of some open space. Commissioner Lomas said that they need to look at how the city will pay for the maintenance of the open space. Commissioner Tragish asked if it is correct that the way condition 19 reads is that as the phases come on they have to pay their proportionate fees for frontage improvement? Ms. Shaw said yes that is the intent. That each lot in each phase pay its proportionate share of its major improvements. Commissioner Tragish asked that if the money is put in escrow if the city will have control in doing the frontage for this project as it goes along? Ms. Shaw said that usually the engineer in concert with the Public Works Department puts together an estimate that shows what the cost is going to be of those major improvements then makes a proposal as how his phasing is going to work and then Public Works checks the improvement cost estimate and checks to make sure the phase is being built and the improvements being built with each phase is greater than or equal to their fair share. There were no other Commissioner comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. Minutes, PC, May 12, 2003 Page 5 6.2 Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 6184 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 3) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions as shown in the attached resolution and as amended by attached memorandums. Commissioner Tragish asked if the conditions as proposed state that there would be a block wall along Snow Road where the canal is or would it be adjacent to the project? Mr. Grady said there would be a block wall along Snow Road. Commissioner Tragish asked if the rest of it would be chainlink? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission required a block wall along the relocated Calloway Canal if the findings would have to show that there is a concern about safety, health or welfare? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Tragish asked what type of findings do they have to make in order to require one condition over another such as the one stated in condition 4 that one option is to either construct warranted signals or crush old cars? Mr. Grady said that a convincing argument would have to be made that one should be selected over the other and then get the Commission to agree with you. Commissioner Gay asked if the developer has to put in the curb and gutter before they leave this tract? Ms. Shaw said yes with Phase 3. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. 6.3 Vestin.q Tentative Tract Map 6186 (Phased) (Pinnacle Engineering) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions and with additional information on some changes in Public Works conditions that staff will provide on Thursday evening. Commissioner Blockley asked how Johnson Road will be improved? Ms. Shaw said that since half the road is in the county, the city does not have jurisdiction. Ms. Shaw said that if there are some additional improvements that need to be made to make a proper tie-in, it is taken care of at the improvement plan stage. Sometimes the improvements do cross over the centerline just so the cross slopes meet our standards. Ms. Shaw said she hasn't seen an improvement plan for this and does not know if there will be anything on the county side of the roadway that will be required. Commissioner Blockley asked if the Commission needs to place a covenant on the property so that future buyers will be aware that a freeway will be on the south and an overpass to the west? Mr. Grady said that there is no requirement for that. Commissioner Tragish talked to a Mr. Eaton who said he did not receive notice of Thursday night's meeting and wondered if that would give him cause to ask for a continuance of the proceeding on Thursday night? Ms. Gennaro said that he would have the ability to come in and ask the Commission to continue the project and if it is something the Commission would like to do it is in their jurisdiction. Commissioner Tragish asked if the well will have a 16 foot setback instead of the usual 20 foot Minutes, PC, May 12, 2003 Page 6 setback because of the landscaping and block wall? Mr. Grady said he would have an answer by Thursday night. Commissioner Gay said he would like to see a covenant regarding the freeway and overcrossing. He also would like to know if the applicant has made an effort to contact Mr. Eaton. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW - 2100 HEIGHT STREET (PROJECT NUMBER 03-0252) (G. W. Wilson) (Ward 3) Staff report given recommending approval with conditions as shown in the staff report. Commissioner Tragish asked if this project comes under the revised ordinance regarding the design of tri-plexes and four-plexes? Mr. Grady said the ordinance was designed for a special type of apartment project where they have common access off of a drive aisle. This is an apartment project so the traditional requirements for landscaping would apply. Commissioner Tragish asked if this project meets the requirement of 40 percent coverage as far as landscaping? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission has the ability to require a four foot block wall and/or a new chainlink fence between this property and the school? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Ellison asked for a copy of sheet 2 - the exterior elevations. He would like to get an idea of what the buildings look like. He is ready to support this project. Commissioner Blockley asked if this meets all the conditions and requirements for open space and amenities for an apartment building? Mr. Grady said yes. Commissioner Gay asked if on Thursday night staff could verify whether or not they required shrubs or trees as a screening mechanism between the school to the west and to make sure there would be no pylon or freeway type signs allowed in the R-3 zone. Commissioner Tragish asked if under a PUD they are allowed to review the elevation of a project? Mr. Grady said yes. There were no other Commission comments. Item was continued until Thursday night. 10. COMMUNICATIONS: None ~COMMISSION COMMENTS: None DISCUSSION AND ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE CANCELLATION OF THE NEXT PRE- MEETING: Minutes, PC, May 12, 2003 Page 7 This will be discussed on Thursday night. 11. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 1:55 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary Ju~y 7, 2003 STANLEY GRADY, Secretary Planning Director