Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 3, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 3, 2005 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Tragish, Ellison, Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer Absent: Commissioner Tkac Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James Movius, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Mel Minney stated he would like to speak on Consent Agenda Item 4.2d. Tammy Pinnell Winn stated she would like to speak on item 4.2b. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of December 2, 2004. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, 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 Tentative Parcel Map 11089 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 5) 4.2b Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6361 (SmithTech USA) (Ward 4) 4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6413 (Firm Foundation Ventures, LLC) (Ward 1) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6421 Optional Design (Phased) (Delmarter& Deifel) (Ward 3) Minutes, PC, February 3, 2005 Page 2 4.2e Approval of Zone Change 04-1621 (Brimhall Partners) (Ward 7) Commissioner Tragish stated that he would abstain from voting on item 4.2d. Public portion of the hearing opened. Mel Minney requested that 4.2d be removed from the Consent Calendar. Tammy Pinnell Winn stated that she would like to speak on Item 4.2b and requested that it be removed from the Consent Agenda. Public portion of the hearing closed. There were no Commission comments. Motion made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 5. REVISED WALL & LANDSCAPE MASTER CONCEPT PLAN — Seven Oaks West (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 5) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Mr. Movius stated that although this is not a public hearing, the applicant would like to speak on the issue. No one spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. Roger McIntosh, representing the applicant, stated they were initially going to oppose staff's recommendation regarding the trees but would request that the Chinese Pistache be approved for the revision. If that is approved, they won't oppose the recommendation. They feel this will give them a little more variety. There were no Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the revision to the Wall and Landscaping Master Concept Plan File No. 4-1465 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and incorporating into the plant list the Chinese Pistache. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac 6. PUBLIC HEARING —Tentative Parcel Map 11089 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 5) See Consent Agenda 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS —Tentative Tract Maps 7.1 Vesting Tentative Tract 6361 (SmithTech USA). (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Motion should include the memorandums from Jim Movius and Marian Shaw dated January 28, 2005. Public portion of the hearing opened. Tammy Pinnell Winn and Tom Pinnell spoke against the project. They said traffic is horrible right now. Traffic backs up almost a full 'h mile during the peak hours and they have a problem Minutes, PC, February 3, 2005 Page 3 backing out of their driveway. In addition, they keep various animals on their property which the neighbors would probably complain about. They stated they have not been approached by any developers regarding giving up their property. They also expressed a concern about the crime rate. They feel that with 200 more homes, there will be more crime. Ms. Winn said there should be a study made regarding the wildlife that is out there. She has personally seen kit foxes and coyotes. They would like to see the maps regarding the homes that will be put in on the west side and they have a concern about boundary lines. Bob Smith, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the project and agrees with the conditions of approval. He said they have not contacted the neighbors because the map has not been approved. The conditions require that they negotiate with the owner to purchase the property in order to put in Verdugo Lane which is a collector on the general plan. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Spencer said he has not been in favor of this whole project since it has been brought to the Planning Commission. Council went ahead and approved it. He feels this project will destroy many trees and orchards. He feels this is premature and will do whatever he can to disapprove this applicant. He would like Verdugo Lane put in during phase one if the project is approved. Commissioner Gay asked if Verdugo would go through the Pinnell's property? Ms. Shaw said that the way that Norris Road lines up with Verdugo, it would take quite a bit of their property to put the road through. Commissioner Gay asked if there will be a traffic signal at the arterial intersection? Ms. Shaw said yes. Commissioner Gay said he has concern for the Pinnells and their mother but if this tract is developed, Snow Road will be improved to the west of their house and will be setback at least 25 feet. If their mother's house were not incorporated into this project, he feels that children will not have a "safe route to school." He does not enjoy loosing the house but he strongly supports the city accelerating the process to improve that corner of Verdugo so that there is better circulation. He disagrees with the memo from Marian Shaw moving the condition on improving that corner back to the third phase instead of the first phase. Commissioner Lomas wanted the Pinnells to understand that the Planning Commission denied this project but that the Council overturned the decision. The Commission has to deal with this now. This is a horrible mess but the Commission only has so much latitude unless they can make findings that this can't be mitigated. She is sorry that the Pinnell's mother has to leave her house. Commissioner Lomas said that Verdugo has to be put in during phase one and will not vote in favor of the project unless it is. Commissioner Ted Blockley said it appears that Mason Street is really close to Verdugo and asked Ms. Shaw if that is normally allowed at a collector intersection? Ms. Shaw said that as she recalls from the conditions, Mason is allowed to be right-in and right-out and left-in only. We do have some restrictions for intersections close to collectors. They have restrictions on full access. Commissioner Ted Blockley asked how the connection will work between Seventh Standard and this project? Ms. Shaw said the connection of Verdugo Lane to the north would have to be done with adjacent development unless the county would push it through. Commissioner Ted Blockley asked if the Pinnells had any say in the annexation of their property? Ms. Shaw said that what she would foresee happening, if this precedes forward, once Minutes, PC, February 3, 2005 Page 4 the property is purchased the property would go through annexation. Commissioner Ellison asked if the city can put a condition of approval on a project for a piece of property the developer doesn't have control of (condition 25.1) at this time? Mr. Sherfy said that type of condition is not unusual or illegal. Commissioner Ellison asked where the cell tower lot is located? Mr. Movius showed the location on the map. Commissioner Ellison asked 1) if the setbacks are adequate if the cell tower were to fall and 2) does the cell tower lot meet the changes in the new ordinance that the Commission reviewed? Mr. Movius said the new ordinance was used as a guide and the towers are designed to collapse within their selves. Commissioner Ellison asked if there was proper notification to outstanding mineral rights owners who have not signed? Mr. Movius said yes. Commissioner Tragish said he doesn't understand the logic of having the Pinnell home purchased last to make the road connection instead of first with the first phase. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is a reason that we need to do that? Ms. Shaw said that the reason they went with Phase 3 is that our standard policy requires secondary access when you have an excess of 200 lots. You don't hit that until you get to Phase 3. Commissioner Tragish asked if the Commission could add a condition for a deceleration lane in front of the tract? Ms. Shaw said there is a right turn lane required at Mason. Verdugo will be expanded with a right turn deceleration lane. Commissioner Tragish asked if a wildlife study is required in this situation? Mr. Movius said no. The Habitat Conservation Plan covers this issue. Sometimes unique natural environments (such as in the northeast) require habitat studies. Commissioner Tragish said that the traffic situation on Snow Road is because of all of the developing going on. Hopefully, that will be addressed as Snow Road is widened into an arterial. Commissioner Lomas said that she would like to change condition 24.3 to add a covenant to run with the land. Mr. Movius said staff has no problem with that. Commissioner Lomas suggested the language to read, "provide continued maintenance for the landscaping and fences in the form of a covenant that would run with the land." Mr. Sherfy said yes that would work. Commissioner Lomas stated that the Commission seems to be in agreement that the road should be put in during Phase One and asked how the memo from Public Works should be amended? Mr. Movius said the Commission would accept the memorandum from the Planning Department with the exception that Condition 25 would not change. Bob Smith said that it looks like they will be putting the road in with Phase One and if that is the case they would like the alternative of providing Etchart access so that they could start at the third phase. Commissioner Spencer said that the memos from the Planning Department and the Public Works Department should be revised and he cannot support either memo at this time. Mr. Movius said that it is no more comfortable for staff than it is for the Commission to deal with these types of issues. A house that has been there since 1957 is a terrible thing to lose. Since 1957, we have been mandated by the state to plan. One of the things we do is put collectors and mid-sections and arterials on section lines. This house was placed right on the mid-section line where Verdugo should go through. It is not a pleasant choice. Whether it is the Planning Commission or the County, someone has to make it. If somebody does not make that choice to Minutes, PC, February 3, 2005 Page 5 put that street through because of the inconvenience to these people, you will have a bigger traffic mess. The County is developing out there and the City will continue to develop out there. How long do you leave Verdugo go without making that connection. If you offset it, you really have a screwed up mess. It is unfortunate but someone will have to bite the bullet. If you avoid it now, it will just prolong what is occurring out there now. Commissioner Gay said he would like a modification to 24.3 saying the subdivider should execute a covenant that will run with the land acceptable to the City Attorney to provide continued maintenance and landscaping and fencing. Also, incorporating the memorandum of January 28, we would accept that memo deleting condition number 25 (which shall remain as originally drafted). Commissioner Gay asked for a clarification of Mr. Smith's comment requesting that Etchart connect with Calloway? Ms. Shaw said that her understanding is that he is requesting that he had the option to proceed with Phase Three first and with the construction of Phase Three, they would connect Etchart from Verdugo all the way over to Calloway. The minimum standard that we would apply in those circumstances would be a minimum of 32' of pavement with graded shoulders. Commissioner Lomas asked if the phasing could be reversed so that the last thing to develop is the Snow Road property and to require that it be dealt with in the first phase. Ms. Shaw said yes. Commissioner Spencer said he would like this item to be continued to allow the time for Planning and Public Works to reorganize their thoughts and then present to the Commission what is being done. Commissioner Ellison asked if a continuance on this item is possible? Mr. Movius said that it is an easy fix regarding Etchart. They would just change it to read "Prior to recordation of the first final south of Etchart (extended)..." Yes, it can be continued two weeks but the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Ellison said he would support a continuance. A 10 minute intermission was called. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to continue this item for two weeks to allow staff to revise and incorporate the memorandums that were discussed tonight Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish, Gay NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac 7.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6413 (Firm Foundation Ventures, LLC). (Ward 1) See Consent Agenda Minutes, PC, February 3, 2005 Page 6 7.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6421 Optional Design (Phased) (Delmarter& Deifel) (Ward 3) Commissioner Tragish declared a conflict of interest on this item. Commissioner Ellison chaired this portion of the hearing. Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Public portion of the hearing opened. Mel Minney, a resident of Juniper Ridge Court, stated that he doesn't mind the property being developed but that there are only four houses on his cul-de-sac that back up to the property being developed and because they have pie shaped lots, a minimum of three house will back up to each of the four houses. He also stated a concern that his property is four feet lower than the property that will be built on. He would like them to reconfigure the lots at the north end so they don't have multiple families backing up to their property or have the developer put a block wall up as a noise barrier. Jim Delmarter, representing the applicant, stated he would like to clarify that there are no apartments going in, they are all single family residences. He was told that condition number 5 from the Public Works Department would be deleted as it was just a matter of restriping Auburn Street and wanted a clarification on that matter. He said they would comply with whatever requirements the traffic department has. Mr. Movius showed Mr. Delmarter a memo deleting the condition. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay asked if there is a requirement for a block wall when you back up single family to single family? Mr. Movius said there is no requirement. Commissioner Ellison asked if we are looking at non-radial lot lines and whether it requires a design modification? Mr. Movius said they are non-radial but it is very common and he doesn't know if they have required the applicant to ask for non-radial but they can make a finding that non-radial is appropriate. Commissioner Ellison asked if it was acceptable if the findings were made that non-radial were not acceptable because there are too many lots up against existing homes? Mr. Movius said he did not think so. The Commission would want some other type of evidence to show that they were creating some problem the way it is shown. Commissioner Lomas asked if there should be a retaining wall between Mr. Minney's property and the new development since there is a four foot difference in elevation? Mr. Burns said the building code has requirements as far as the setback from the top of the slope to a fence or property line and they would be required to build per those requirements. There would be at least a two foot bench (an area that would be flat) prior to the fence. Mr. Burns said they may grade it out. Commissioner Lomas recognized Mr. Minney. Mr. Minney said his fence sets four feet higher and then slopes but his concern is the noise. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and approve the Vested Tentative Map 6421 with findings and Minutes, PC, February 3, 2005 Page 7 conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A incorporating the memo from Marian Shaw dated January 28, 2005 and make the recommendation the same to the City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Spencer NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac ABSTAINED: Commissioner Tragish 8. PUBLIC HEARING —Zone Change 04-1621 (Brimhall Partners) (Ward 7) See Consent Agenda 9. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Movius told the Commission they had two memos from him. One of them is a response on the presentation last week regarding big picture alignment and the other is an update on the Walmart case and where we are going as far as a systemic approach to it. This is not specific to the Walmart projects but is explaining differences in the process as EIRs come to them in the future and what we are looking for in establishing thresholds for urban decay studies. Mr. Movius asked the Commission about holding a special meeting on February 24 at 5:30 pm so that Dr. Moore, of the Reason Foundation, could give the Commission a presentation regarding land use and air quality issues and also Jacques LaRochelle, of the Public Works Department, could give a presentation on the sewer treatment plant expansion project that copes with the development boom we are having. The Commissioners were polled and it was decided the 24th would be a good time. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None 11. ADJOURNMEMT There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director March 8, 2005