Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 19, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF MAY 19, 2005 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Ellison, Lomas, Blockley, Gay, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish Absent: None Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Jennie Eng, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS - None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of April 7 &21, 2005. Motion made by Commissioner Lomas, 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 Continuance until June 2, 2005 for Tentative Tract 6485 (Monarch Affiliates #2 LLC) (Ward 3) 4.2b Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6463 (McIntosh & Associates) (Ward 3) 4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6328 (SmithTech USA) (Ward 5) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6464 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) 4.2e Approval of Zone Change No. 05-0221 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 4) Public portion of the hearing opened. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, requested that agenda item number 4.2c (Tract 6328) be removed from the Consent Calendar. Laura Pasco requested that item 4.2e be removed from the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Ted Blockley requested that item 4.2b be removed from the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Tragish requested that item 4.2d be removed from the Consent Calendar. There were no Commission comments. Public portion of the Minutes, PC, May 19, 2005 Page 2 hearing closed. Motion made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve the remaining public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar (item 4.2a). Motion carried by group vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS — Tentative Tract Maps 5.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6463 (McIntosh &Associates) (Ward 3) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. In addition, there is a memo from the Public Works Department and a memo from Planning responding to comments received from the public. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Roger McIntosh, representing the applicant, stated they have reviewed the staff report and concur with the exception of a few minor changes. They agree with the memorandum dated May 16 and he is available to answer any questions the Commission might have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Blockley asked if the site will meet all the city's criteria for public streets and slopes in the driveways? Commissioner Blockley asked if there should be a condition regarding erosion control and wanted to know how the project relates to the Hillside Ordinance and the amount of grading that may be necessary to develop the site. Mr. Movius said it is not within the Hillside Combining zone area. That area is completely north of 178. Mr. Burns, Assistant Building Direction, stated that our normal grading review process would require erosion control measures and also a review of the lot grading and drainage. Driveway slopes on a rough grading plan are not shown. That is something that gets caught in the field which at times, unfortunately, a house gets put closer to the street than was anticipated and there will be a steeper driveway than they like to see. But that is typically caught in the field. Commissioner Blockley asked if the inconsistency in the negative declaration, which stated that this is a flatly graded site in the northwest part of town, should be corrected? Mr. Movius said he would go ahead and point out that correction. Commissioner Blockley said that it is item 6b in the initial study on Page 4. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve and adopt the negative declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6463 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and to also include the revisions to conditions on Tract 6463 as set forth in the memorandum from Marian Shaw to the Planning Commission dated May 16, 2005. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison NOES: None ABSENT: None Minutes, PC, May 19, 2005 Page 3 5.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6328 (SmithTech, USA) (Ward 5) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Public portion of the hearing opened. Gordon Nipp, representing the Sierra Club, spoke in opposition to the project. He stated they have issues with the conversion of ag land in that thousands of acres are in the process of being converted. He said the general plan policy is to protect areas designated for agricultural use from the encroachment of residential and commercial subdivision development activities and it is not happening. He spoke about an agricultural land trust and how that would work. Mr. Nipp also stated their concerns regarding air quality. They feel there are a number of things the city could be doing to mitigate the air pollution that would be associated with this project. Mr. Nipp submitted a letter to the Planning Commission a few days prior to the meeting stating the Sierra Club's concerns. Page 4 of his letter lists the things that they feel can be done. Bob Smith, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the project. They are in agreement with the staff report and conditions of approval. Mr. Smith said this is orderly development and it is not taking ag land that shouldn't be taken. Fred Woody, with WZI, stated that with regard to the air quality impacts, the SJVAPC district has jurisdiction in this area and has reviewed the study and found it to be consistent and concur with the findings. In regard to ag conversion, the ag conversion study is consistent with the general plan. It did consider impacts to existing farm lands. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish said he agrees with Mr. Nipp's comments regarding cultivation, conservation and easements but he is not quite sure how to implement it. Whether assessing fees against developers or a private trust situation, he feels it is needed in Kern County. Commissioner Tragish also stated that the Commission will be hearing soon some changes regarding tree coverage. Mr. Nipp feels that it should be at 40 percent. Commissioner Tragish asked if the city's setback requirement applies along the entire tract? Mr. Movius said the northwest portion of the project will be zoned R-1 so there is no agricultural setback necessary. Commissioner Tragish asked if an application has been filed to change the zoning on the northwest portion? Mr. Movius said that there is an application for a general plan amendment and zone change to go to R-1. Commissioner Tragish asked if they are currently farming the property and if there is any problem of the applicant adhering to the setback requirements for ag land until such time as the northwest portion receives its' R-1 zoning or commences construction? Bob Smith said it is the same property owner and he has agreed to a non-farm setback on the portion that is adjacent to the existing project. Mr. Movius said that condition 31.1 handles it. It requires a non-farm easement adjacent to that piece of property that will provide that setback. Commissioner Gay said he has no problems with the development as stated. Minutes, PC, May 19, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Ellison said that Dr. Nipp's comments about converting ag land and conservation easements is an issue that needs to be brought forward. They are items that need to be discussed on a larger scale. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tkac, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6328 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison NOES: None ABSENT: None 5.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6464 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) Commissioner Gay declared a conflict of interest for this project. Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report and including a memorandum with the revised condition and motion. Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke in opposition to the project. Jeff Williams, the applicant, stated that he has read the conditions and is in agreement with them. He is available to answer any questions the Commission may have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Tragish said he remembered that there had been an issue in the past regarding traffic on North Shore and wondered if there is any way a stop sign could be put on the street before North Shore before it turns to the west to slow the traffic down? Ms. Shaw said she doesn't know if a stop sign can be put in on a knuckle but that she would find out. Commissioner Tragish asked if there is a stop sign on North Shore right before the gate so that people have to stop before they go running past it? Ms. Shaw said "no." Commissioner Tragish said he thinks Mr. Williams has done a lot to resolve all of the problems but he sees this as an unsafe condition. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like to continue this for two weeks until Mr. Walker or the applicant can state whether this is a safe or unsafe condition. Whether we should or should not put a stop sign or some safety bumps to slow traffic down. Commissioner Blockley asked if the traffic becomes a problem would it be possible to put a stop sign at the intersection of Lighthouse and North Shore? Ms. Shaw said that stop signs are put in as a result of meeting the 13 warrants that the State of California has set forth. If the intersection meets the warrants, a stop sign would be put in. Commissioner Blockley said he would support the project. Commissioner Ellison said that the fact that there is a potential to place a stop sign at Lighthouse and North Shore eases his concerns and will support the project. Minutes, PC, May 19, 2005 Page 5 There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Blockley, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6464 with findings set forth in the resolution Exhibit A and including conditions of approval dated May 16, 2005. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Ellison, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac NOES: Commissioner Tragish ABSTAINED: Commissioner Gay ABSENT: None Commissioner Tragish stated he voted no because he believes North Shore is a poorly designed street and that there should be devices utilized to slow the traffic down as it makes the turn onto North Shore. He believes that this tract does not adequately address the health, welfare and safety issues for the residents in the area. 6. PUBLIC HEARING —Zone Change No. 05-0221 (SmithTech USA, Inc.) (Ward 4) Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Public portion of the hearing opened. Laura Pasco spoke in opposition to the project. Ms Pasco stated that they are not opposed to development on the south side of Etchart Road, however, they feel there are many issues that need to be addressed before the zone change is made for this area. They feel that the 10,000 square foot lots that are proposed for this area are too small to fit in with the existing developments. There are no lots on Etchart Road that are smaller than one acre. They feel that any new lots on either side of Etchart Road should be at least that size. Ms. Pasco said that they had been informed by their developer (Curt Carter) that an agreement had been made with the county that any development on the south side of Etchart Road would have the same size lots that they have. Lots further south of Etchart could be smaller. She asked that the Planning Commission research this information as she feels it should be considered. Ms. Pasco asked where access will be on Etchart Road? She said they have not been allowed to see a map. Ms. Pasco also stated that Etchart Road is a privately maintained road. Their homeowners association developed and maintains this road. No county or city agencies have made any improvements or repairs to the road. They would like Etchart Road to remain a two lane road that will primarily serve the residents of the area. Any road widening should be done on the south side of the road. No front yards should be used for road widening. Bob Smith, representing the applicant, spoke in favor of the project. He said they are in agreement with the staff report. Mr. Smith said they are compatible with the existing general plan and compatible with the properties to the south that are existing recorded maps with the E 1/ zoning. Etchart is shown as a collector on the circulation element and will be widened to 35 feet south of centerline. Block wall and landscaping along those roads are typical. It makes more sense if you are going to have large animals to have street and back yard separation. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Minutes, PC, May 19, 2005 Page 6 Commissioner Lomas asked how an agreement would be handled with the county? How would we know that? Mr. Movius said that staff would not know that unless the county told us there was some kind of agreement in place when this project was sent to them for review. Commissioner Lomas asked what the odds are we would miss it and should we ask for it? Mr. Movius said that there is a possibility that it was missed. If it was a handshake agreement, then there is nothing we can do about it and the county is not usually responsive when it comes to inquiries especially since this is an annexation and they will lose their authority over it. Commissioner Lomas said that she thinks it is our obligation to answer questions. Mr. Movius said he would ask the engineer to go to the county and get the resolution. Commissioner Lomas asked if access to the new development will be on Etchart? Mr. Movius said that we do have a recently submitted map, which has not been deemed complete, which shows two points of access on Etchart. It also shows a walled subdivision. Mr. Movius showed the map to the Commission and said that Ms. Pasco could have it when the Commission was finished with it. Commissioner Lomas asked what the applicant would be obligated to do to improve Etchart Road? Ms. Shaw said that when the applicant comes in with his map, he will be obligated to construct the south half of Etchart. Commissioner Lomas asked staff to explain what landscaping requirements will have to be met? Mr. Movius said that on a collector street it would be a 6-foot wall textured and the landscape strip would be eight foot behind sidewalk. Commissioner Lomas said she would like the project to be continued until research is done to see if there was any deal with the county. Commissioner Gay said he would like to have seen a letter from Curt Carter. Mr. Carter was known to oppose smaller lots— not that there was any set agreement that he seemed to have on that. Mr. Gay said he concurs with the city's requirement to build collectors. He is disappointed that the county did not require the developer to finish Calloway Drive. He feels that the county has not implemented, on the corner, development standards that should have been implemented years ago. He doesn't feel this will be a functioning collector as it should be. Today's standards do not allow houses to face busy streets. Commissioner Gay asked Mr. Movius if they typically get a map for the development at this stage? Mr. Movius said "no." Commissioner Gay said he is not inclined to continue this item for two weeks. Commissioner Tragish asked Mr. Movius to remind him what the standard for review is for a zone change request? What is the Commission suppose to look at? Mr. Movius said the Commission has more discretion than on a subdivision because they are not looking at specific standards. However, before the Commission puts on a condition that is outside the policies of the general plan they should have a clear nexus or connection between what you want them to do and some impact for instance that is being considered. For example, there has been some talk that one acre lots are the smallest ones out there along that road and 10,000 square feet is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. But there has been no specific evidence as to why a 10,000 square foot lot across a collector from a 2-1/2 acre lot is incompatible. Just because they won't have animals is not necessarily good evidence in the record. A clear nexus is needed between conditions or things you want the developer to do that are over and above the policies of the general plan and typical zoning ordinance requirements. Minutes, PC, May 19, 2005 Page 7 Commissioner Tragish asked Ms. Pasco if she has any type of recorded documentation to prove an agreement between the homeowners and Mr. Carter? Ms. Pasco said they are in the process of trying to get Mr. Carter's records. The only evidence they have is the bills they have to have Etchart repaved. The county has never maintained the road. Ms. Shaw said this particular development has public access easements on Etchart Road. The county does not accept major roadways into maintenance until they feel like it (she is not exactly sure how they do it). But what they have here is a public access easement that the county will not maintain until they accept it into their system. The part of Etchart to Riverton is in the county system but the remainder of it is simply a public access easement. Commissioner Tragish asked Ms. Pasco if she had anything in writing that the project to the south would not have lots smaller than their existing lots? Ms. Pasco said they are in the process of trying to get Mr. Carter's records. They were told that the lots on the immediate south side of Etchart would be the same size as their lots. Any lots to the south of that could be smaller. Commissioner Tragish said there are no recorded documents and he is not sure the developer would be bound by any other documents. Ms. Pasco said they are asking for some kind of compromise of 10,000 sq. ft. and one acre which is the smallest lot on Etchart. Commissioner Tragish said that since there is nothing recorded to support any restrictions on development, he doesn't feel the developer should be forced to address those issues on a zone change at this point. That should be worked out between the homeowners and the developer if they should so desire. Mr. Movius said that when the subdivision comes back to the Commission, staff will go to the county to see if there is a general plan condition that says there should be a certain lot size. If so, that can be addressed at the tract stage. Commissioner Lomas asked if a condition could be written to clarify the questions? Mr. Movius said that he would rather not write a condition as staff will have to verify it and the project is what the condition would be assigned to. Commissioner Lomas said she wanted to make sure it would be done and if it is not in writing she would be afraid it wouldn't be done. Mr. Movius said that directing staff to do that is as powerful as writing a condition and that Ms. Eng will make sure it gets done. Commissioner Blockley asked what the total width is of a half collector plus the public access easement should the money come along to improve the width? Ms. Shaw said there would be 45 feet on the south and 30 feet on the north for a total of 75 feet. Commissioner Blockley asked if that allows the wall, landscape, sidewalk, several lanes of traffic and the improvements on the north side? Ms. Shaw said wall and landscape would fall in the landscape easement eight foot behind the sidewalk. It would not fall within the 75 feet of right-of-way and access easement that would be available. Ms. Shaw said you can barely get four lanes of traffic in a 75 foot right-of- way that would include curb, gutter, sidewalk and the standard 10-foot distance between the right-of-way line and the curb face. There would be about 7 feet left over from having four, 12 foot traffic lanes. Commissioner Gay said that he feels the collector is an adequate buffer between changes in lot designation. To him, the issue is the street. Commissioner Gay asked Ms. Shaw if there is a standard that Etchart could curve south in front of the 2-1/2 acre lots? Ms. Shaw said there are standards for the design of collectors. The length of the radius, the length of the tangent between curves. Information like that. She stated she initially broached this to the county, Minutes, PC, May 19, 2005 Page 8 because Etchart would remain a county road even after the annexation, about moving Etchart to the south in this vicinity. The county gave a negative response. They would not look in favor upon doing a wiggle in that area. Commissioner Spencer said he would go along with a proposed zone change on this property. The streets should be considered at a later date. He supports the project. Commissioner Lomas asked if someone brought in a recorded document, referring to lot size, at the map stage if it could be considered at that time? Mr. Movius said yes. Commissioner Tragish said he is bothered by this street. He would not like to put this off but he thinks Ms. Pasco should have the opportunity to come up with any letters. He would like a two week continuance. Commissioner Ellison said he agrees with Commissioner Tragish. A two week continuance may be what they need to flush out the issues. He feels the Commission is settled on the lot size and now it is a road issue. He would support a continuance. Commissioner Tkac agreed. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Gay, to continue this item until June 2, 2005. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Gay, Lomas, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Ellison NOES: None ABSENT: None Mr. Movius asked what information staff needs to provide to the Commission regarding the street. Commissioner Gay said they would like a cross section of the 2-1/2 acres of just how what Ms. Shaw explained is going to work? 7. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Movius said that at the June 2 meeting there will be input on the Hillside Ordinance. The ordinance will be delivered in the packet. It is just to take input. No action will be taken that night. The input will be referred to staff who will then meet with interest groups and then come back to the Commission with revisions to the ordinance. The committee report regarding sidewalk design standards and trees within subdivisions will also be available. It will not be a public hearing, but an item the Commission might want to send to the City Council. Mr. Movius said that a map which shows all that is going on regarding tracts and annexations is available to take home tonight. It should help them see the big picture when they are hearing the general plan amendments and environmental impact reports in June and July. They will be adding county information and the Shafter General Plan, which is a huge number of units north of Seventh Standard Road. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Minutes, PC, May 19, 2005 Page 9 Commissioner Tragish asked how many tracts will be on the next meeting? Mr. Movius said seven including the one that was continued tonight. Also, a PUD and the Hillside Ordinance. Some of the tracts will be on consent. Commissioner Tragish asked if they are allowed to ask questions and make comments on the Hillside Ordinance? Mr. Movius said they can ask questions. Staff will be able to answer some— not all. They are working with consultants on this. The consultants will be here to write down questions. The ordinance will come back in a revised form and action may be taken at that time. 9. ADJOURNMEMT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director July 13, 2005