Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 7, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF April 7, 2 005 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Tragish, Ellison, Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Tkac Absent: Commissioner Spencer Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Jennie Eng, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Rocky Harris expressed a concern about Bakersfield's open space and Canyons LLC closing off access to open space that the public has used for over 40 years. He said that General Holdings does not appear to stand by the previous agreements for trails that were included in the Specific Parks and Trails Plan. He asked the Planning Commission to be vigilant with regards to the Specific Parks and Trails Plan when dealing with Canyons LLC. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of February 17, 2005. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, 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 Approve Extension of Time for Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 10587 (McIntosh and Associates) (Ward 2) 4.2b Approve continuance until April 21, 2005 of Vesting Tentative Tract 6410 (Delmarter& Deifel) (Ward 6) 4.2c Approve continuance until April 21, 2005 of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11220 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) 4.2d Approve continuance until April 21, 2005 of Planned Development Review 04-1716 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 7) Minutes, PC, April 7, 2005 Page 2 4.2e Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 11206 (Bruce Anderson/Patrick Henderson, Eng.) (Ward 2) 4.2f Approval of Tentative Tract 6183 (Civil Land Engineering) (Ward 4) 4.2g Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6454 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 7) 4.2h Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6464 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Public portion of the hearing opened. David Stanton, representing the Board of the RiverLakes Ranch Master Association, requested that item 4.2h be removed from the Consent Calendar. Debbie Stokes removed item 4.2g and Walter Owen removed item 4.2f from the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Ellison requested that item 4.2e be removed from the Consent Calendar leaving items 4.2.d, 4.2a, 4.2b and 4.2c. There were no other Commission comments. Public portion of the hearing closed except for items 4.2b, 4.2c & 4.2d which are continuances. Motion made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner Ellison, to approve the remaining items on the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS —Tentative Parcel Maps 5.1 Tentative Parcel Map 11206 (Bruce Anderson/Patrick Henderson, Eng.) (Ward 2) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke either for or against the project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Ellison said that condition number 12 states that the well needs to be re- abandoned and signed off by the Division of Oil and Gas and asked if it would be appropriate if the well be accurately plotted on the final map and a 10-foot no build radius deed restriction be placed on the final map? Mr. Movius said that would be fine. There were no other Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11206 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A adding the language to condition number 12 that the abandoned well shall be accurately plotted on the final map and that a 10-foot no build deed restriction be recorded with the final map. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer, Tkac 5.2a&b Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11220/Planned Development Review 04-1716 (Porter- Robertson) Minutes, PC, April 7, 2005 Page 3 See Consent Agenda 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS — Tentative Tract Maps 6.1 Vesting Tentative Tract 6410 (Delmarter& Deifel) See Consent Agenda 6.2 Tentative Tract 6183 (Civil Land Engineering) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Public portion of the hearing opened. Walter Owen asked if there is a request for alternate lot and street designs? Chairman Tragish said that the Commissioners would ask staff that question for him. Mr. Owen asked if that is true, what process do the people have to go through to change the map? His lot is number six on the west side and asked if he would be notified if that map is going to be changed? He would like to make a comment on it. Mr. Owen asked what process it would take to extend the restrictions to lot number seven? The owners of Lot 7 do not want a two story home looking down on their lot either. Miguel Soltero, representing the owner, said they are willing to work with any concerns the neighbors might have and will comply with the conditions and will be more than happy to work with the city to make sure their concerns are addressed. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Ellison asked Mr. Movius to answer Mr. Owen's question about alternate lot and street design. Mr. Movius said the applicant is requesting two deviations but that the map was designed with those deviations in place and as part of their application they have to ask for those. One is next to the RS zoning to the north. The city regulations require 140 foot lot depths and they are not quite there. They have 138.9 feet. They are a foot short on the northern boundary and they have already designed that in their lots. The maps that are available for public review and in the binder reflect that reduction. The other request for deviation was a 52 foot wide street right-of-way for the street that serves the project instead of the normal 60 foot. It is a deviation from the standard but if you meet certain criteria you can go down to 52 feet of street right-of-way. That is often seen in subdivisions with cul-de-sacs and the Public Works Department is recommending that be approved also. Those items are being considered tonight as part of this subdivision. Commissioner Ellison asked if the restriction against two story homes could be extended to lot seven? Mr. Movius said the applicant could be asked to see if they would be willing to that. Miguel Soltero said that the conceptual design for the homes are all one story. They have no problem with complying with the request for lot seven. Mr. Movius said that staff would like to add a condition that prior to recordation that the subdivider shall replace the existing gates at the end of Finsbury Court and construct the block wall in its place to match the existing wall. Minutes, PC, April 7, 2005 Page 4 There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve Tentative Tract Map 6183 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A with the incorporation that based on the subdividers approval that lot number seven shall be limited to a single story home and that prior to recordation of a final map subdivider shall replace the existing gates at the end of Finsbury Court and construct a block wall in its place to match the existing wall design. Access from Vesting Tentative Map 6183 is not permitted onto Finsbury Court. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer, Tkac 6.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6454 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 7) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Public portion of the hearing opened. Anthony Jquez, representing SmithTech USA, stated they are in agreement with staff recommendations, Debbie Stokes asked about the lot sizes and requested that the lots sizes be comparable to what are currently in the area which is roughly 10,000 sq. ft. and above. Ms. Stokes also stated a concern about the location of the sump. It is currently located behind her house and wondered if it could be moved. They also have an issue with the block wall that borders the property. They would like the applicant to be aware that the block wall is three feet west of the property line and it was moved because the current owner of the property did not want the wall on his property. Three feet east of the wall is private property and that wall is privately owned. They would like single story homes placed on the property. No one else spoke either for or against the project. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Gay asked what the lot sizes are? Mr. Movius said the lots along the west side of the property are approximately 6,900 square feet. Commissioner Gay said he is satisfied with a residential use and is not going to tell them to increase the lot sizes. The sump is usually engineered to make the water flow down hill. The property owner will have to put his fence on his property which will leave a 3-foot gap where trash and other debris will build up along the fence. Commissioner Tragish asked if Mr. Movius would address the other issues that Ms. Stokes had. Mr. Movius said the Commission cannot limit the size of the homes and he hasn't heard of any impact identified as significant regarding two story homes. We typically do not limit one to two story homes. The previous tract did because it was Minutes, PC, April 7, 2005 Page 5 carried through from a general plan amendment conditions of approval. This has had R-1 zoning for some time. Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Movius to explain "by right" what the applicant is entitled to. Mr. Movius said that with the R-1 zoning they are entitled to build up to 35 feet in height with a home. They can have one, two or three stories depending on how they can fit it in the area. The minimum lot size is 6,000 sq. ft. There is no prohibition of overlooks. This map under the Subdivision Map Act has to be judged by the rules that we have in effect right now—our policies and ordinances. Commissioner Lomas asked what the Building Department does about fences? Mr. Burns said a typical fence between a development that is less than six feet high does not require a permit and they do not inspect it. Commissioner Lomas asked what the Commission can do so that there won't be a problem with the gap between the two fences? Mr. Movius said nothing - the fencing issue is between all of the property owners and they are civil disputes. Commissioner Tragish added a condition that states "Prior to recordation the western boundary property line shall be clearly and properly marked and staked for future reference." Mr. Movius said that would possibly help with regard for measuring setbacks on the structures and also make sure that as contractors go along and build various fences that they are clearly aware that the property line is three feet away from the wall. Commissioner Lomas asked if there is a block wall requirement on Hosking as there is on Wible? Mr. Movius said there is a block wall required by ordinance along all double frontage lots. There would not, by ordinance, be one required on lot 27 along the sump. Commissioner Gay asked if he could add some language to Chairman Tragish's condition stating: "and fences along said westerly tract boundary shall be within the property line" eliminating the potential for good neighbor fences? Mr. Movius said that would be acceptable. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Gay, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6454 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A incorporating a condition that all lots along the westerly property line of the tract shall be surveyed and staked to define that property line and the fences along the westerly boundary of the tract shall be within the property line and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Gay, Lomas, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer, Tkac 6.4 Vesting Tentative Tract 6464 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Minutes, PC, April 7, 2005 Page 6 Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Commissioner Gay declared a conflict of interest on this project. Public portion of the hearing opened. David Stanton spoke in opposition to the project. He stated that the Commission does not have the jurisdiction to hear this project. The association he represents did not receive a notice for the hearing for a piece of property they own within 300 feet of the project. The association has requested in the past to receive a notice on any project that is to be heard in the area. He also feels the notice is in error because it states there is no significant change in the project. He feels this project is a significant change than what came before the Commission previously which was for 109 apartment units. He does not believe that the City has given fair notice to the association nor to those who live within the legal radius who are entitled to a notice. It is his opinion that they have been misled and they are entitled to a fair opportunity to be heard on the merits of this matter. Without waiving his rights to appeal the notice either to the City Council or to court, he then talked about the substance. Mr. Stanton feels the hearing is premature. This area is subject to the RiverLakes Specific Plan. On Page 22, Paragraph 11, .4.3 Standards, subparagraph 1 and 2 of the plan says that "all residential development plans are to be reviewed by a `Development Standards Review Committee' prior to the approval by the city." The Specific Plan also states on Page 37, Paragraph 12.3, subparagraph 1 states that "the site plan, architectural design and landscaping is to be referred to the Development Standards Review Committee or a similar committee established by a project homeowners association in the area where the proposed development is located." Mr. Stanton said that the only association in the area is the RiverLakes Ranch Master Association. There has been no reference of any sort at any time relating to this particular plan. Accordingly, hearing this at this point is a violation of the very specific plan that this is suppose to adhere to. Moreover, city ordinance says that a condition of approval of the specific plan is that "the RiverLakes Design Standards Review Committee shall approve all building plans for consistency with the specific plan standards prior to submission for the City of Bakersfield review and approval. The city has consistently recognized that the association is the party that has the right of approval. By holding this hearing prior to the time that this plan has been submitted to the association, the city has violated the specific plan and the City of Bakersfield ordinance. Mr. Stanton went on to state that in 2002 there was an amendment to the specific plan which provided that this parcel and the parcel further south was to have access to Coffee Road. The purpose was to alleviate traffic problems. The developers agreed to provide that access. There is no such access provided in this proposal. They believe that prior decisions make it clear that that access must be provided. Mr. Stanton then pointed out that the RiverLakes Specific Plan Section 4.3d relating to local streets requires a minimum width flow line to flow line of 40 feet. These streets are 30 feet wide. He does not understand how the Commission can approve this as a private street with this street width when the specific plan states 40 feet. Segregating a piece of property and labeling it private so that they can do whatever they want is wrong. Moreover, a 30 foot street with 47 homes on it in a single loop seems to be absolutely dangerous from a fire and emergency vehicle basis. This plan has one access point. If one vehicle stalls on that street or a bunch of vehicles attempt to leave that street at the same time, you will never get an emergency vehicle in. Access to Coffee Road would at least give two points of Minutes, PC, April 7, 2005 Page 7 escape. There is only a 1-foot buffer from the street to resident's backyard wooden fence. That is also inconsistent with the RiverLakes Ranch Specific Plan guidelines. Mr. Stanton said that as originally proposed the 109 apartments would have had their own recreational amenities. As proposed, there are no recreational amenities for these residents whatsoever. The lake is privately owned, privately funded and privately paid for by property owners. The association maintains parks, swimming pools, bar-be-que areas, clubhouse, etc. It will be left to the association to police these residents out of the amenities the association provides for their members. Mr. Stanton feels that this design is poor and it needs to be redone and the hearing is improperly held and should be disbanded. The association is certainly willing to work with the developer. Jeff Williams, developer of the project, spoke in favor of the project. They agree with the conditions as submitted. Mr. Williams said there was a prohibition for access to Coffee Road during the general plan hearings. They stopped their project for 8 months while the city went through the process of removing that prohibition. That project and the traffic study did not require access to Coffee Road. They just agreed to do it. They feel that the difference between 47 single family homes and 109 apartments is a much less traffic burden and does not necessitate the need. It also takes away the security of the neighborhood. They have agreed to install block walls anywhere there are common areas or roads to back up to the existing residences. They have the right but not the obligation to join the RiverLakes Ranch Master Homeowners Association. It is their intention to do that. These homeowners would all become part of the association that maintains the lake and all the common areas. Mr. Movius stated that it is his opinion that the notice was done correctly using the assessor's maps with the addresses that are apparent on the assessor's records. That is what we use. The public hearing notice which references the use of the previous project clearly referenced the date of the environmental document we were using. It did not reference the date of anything having to do with the apartment project. It clearly referenced the date of the environmental document that we were using that anyone could check on if they wish to check on that. He does have an issue with the review of the design committee in that area. He cannot find where that has taken place. The ability for the design review committee to look at the project before the Commission can consider it is an appropriate comment. We would recommend a continuance of this item until May 5 and at the time we would respond to all of the other comments. Chairman Tragish asked Mr. Williams if he would have a problem with the continuance. He said no. He does not have a problem with a continuance. Public portion of the hearing remained open. Chairman Tragish agreed that the project should be continued. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Ellison, seconded by Commissioner Lomas, to continue Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6464 to May 5, 2005. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Tragish Minutes, PC, April 7, 2005 Page 8 NOES: None ABSTAINED: Commissioner Gay ABSENT: Commissioner Spencer, Tkac 7. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Movius told the Commission they should have received an EIR tonight. There are about five EIR's in the works. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chairman Tragish asked when the Commission will vote on the next Chairman and Vice Chairman? Mr. Sherfy said the first meeting in May. Commissioner Gay said he does not see our sign kiosk program going into effect in the northeast and wanted to know if we are going to implement it? 9. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:04 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director May 10, 2005