Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 1, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 1 2005 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Spencer, Tragish Absent: Commissioner Tkac Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, Jennie Eng, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Louise Palmer, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS - None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items - None 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 6364 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) 4.2b Vesting Tentative Tract 6383 (San Joaquin Engineering) (Ward 3) 4.2c Vesting Tentative Tract 6500 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 6) 4.2d Vesting Tentative Tract 6520 (Delmarter& Deifel) (Ward 1) 4.2e Vesting Tentative Tract 6539 (The Keith Companies) (Ward 3) Public portion of the hearing opened. No one spoke either for or against the projects. Public portion of the hearing closed. There were no Commission comments. Motion made by Commissioner Spencer, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the public hearing portion of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARING —Tentative Tract Maps 5.1 Vesting Tentative Tract 6499 (Cornerstone Engineering) (Ward 3) Public portion of the hearing opened. Minutes, PC, September 1, 2005 Page 2 Staff report given recommending approval subject to conditions contained in the staff report. Paul Jolley, from Cornerstone Engineering, representing the applicant, stated they support the conditions and are ready to answer any questions the Commission may have. Public portion of the hearing was closed. Commissioner Blockley asked who would ensure that the fire sprinkler system is put in in the future? Phil Burns stated the permit staff would be required to look at the conditions of approval. It would also get noted on the permit system by physical address. There would be a notification when the permit is requested. Commissioner Tragish asked if the west and east boundary of the tract will have six foot block walls? Ms. Eng said the east and west boundaries are only required to have chainlink fence adjacent to tower lines. The applicant has indicated they are considering constructing block walls along the east and west boundaries. Commissioner Tragish said he doesn't understand why block walls are not required around the residential neighborhood? Ms. Eng said that the concept of the chainlink fence is to separate the residences from the PG&E tower. It could be a block wall if the developer chooses to put in a block wall. The current ordinance says that only a chainlink fence is required. A five-minute recess was called so that Commissioner Tragish could have the fencing explained to him by Ms. Eng with the display map. Commissioner Tragish thanked Ms. Eng for explaining the issue to him. Commissioner Tragish said it seems odd to him to have the residences rear fencing be a chainlink fence. It does nothing to ensure the property owner privacy. Commissioner Tragish said his concern is that Highway 178 will be expanded to four lanes and wondered if an 8 foot block wall should be put in instead of a 6 foot block wall along that boundary? Ms. Eng said the Eagle Meadows EIR noise study did project out future noise with the construction of Highway 178. It concluded that a 6 foot high wall adjacent to the Eagle Meadows project would be satisfactory. The site along the Eagle Meadows site is relatively flat so a 6 foot high wall was adequate. In this project area, the topography is higher and since noise travels downslope, staff concluded that a 6 foot high wall would be adequate. The applicant has indicated that, on their own, they will voluntarily build a second masonry wall south of the water line easement. There will be a wall along the freeway right-of-way and then there will be a water line easement and then another wall on the south side of the water line easement. A 6 foot high wall is adequate at this time. When Caltrans goes in to construct the interchange they will be required to mitigate noise as a result of that project. Commissioner Tragish said he feels an 8 foot wall would be more appropriate. Commissioner Tragish said that an 8 foot chainlink fence does not address the sound questions. He asked the applicant to agree to put a 6 foot high block wall instead of a chainlink fence. Mr. Jolley said because the property rises from 178 and they are placing a block wall on the "red line" (south boundary of the Caltrans right-of-way) and then another type of fence, it should be sufficient. He feels that all sound would be directed up and above. Minutes, PC, September 1, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Tragish said he has a problem from a safety point of view with the chainlink fence division between the homes on the west and east side of the tract. He would like to see an 8 foot block wall on the north boundary. Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Jolley if an 8-foot block will be a problem? Mr. Jolley said no. Commissioner Blockley asked if the public and residents would be better served by just having a block wall along the west edge of the easement, rather than at the property line? Ms. Eng said she believes the intent of the block wall is for noise mitigation as opposed to separation of the residents from the easement. The way it is written, she thinks staff's recommendation would be to cordon off the easement separately from the residential lots and another wall on the tract boundary. There were no more Commissioner comments. Motion made by Commissioner Tragish, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to adopt the negative declaration and to approve Vesting Tentative Tract 6499 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached resolution Exhibit A and with Planning Department memorandum dated October 30, 2005 only being modified as to condition 24 where it refers to "prior to recordation of any phase, subdivider shall construct a 8 foot high block wall along the Caltrans right-of-way (instead of 6 foot)." Motion should also include memorandum to the Planning Commission from Marian Shaw dated August 15, 2005 and recommend the same to the City Council. AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Lomas, Spencer, Tragish NOES: None ABSENT: Commissioner Tkac 5.2 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 6364 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 4) See Consent Agenda 5.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6383 (San Joaquin Engineering) (Ward 3) See Consent Agenda 5.4 Vesting Tentative Tract 6500 (Porter-Robertson) (Ward 6) See Consent Agenda 5.5 Vesting Tentative Tract 6520 (Delmarter& Deifel) (Ward 1) See Consent Agenda Minutes, PC, September 1, 2005 Page 4 5.6 Vesting Tentative Tract 6539 (The Keith Companies) (Ward 3) See Consent Agenda 6. ELECTION OF CHAIRMAN AND VICE-CHAIRMAN /SEAT SELECTION: Commissioner Tragish nominated Barbara Lomas for Chairman. Commissioner Spencer seconded the motion. Motion carried by group vote. Commissioner Spencer nominated Murray Tragish as Vice-Chair. Commissioner Blockley seconded the motion. Motion carried by group vote. 7. COMMUNICATIONS: Ms. Eng said the binders for the next general plan hearings were being passed out tonight and there would be a pre-meeting on September 13. If the Commission has any questions to please not hesitate to call staff between now and the meeting dates. 8. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Lomas asked that all the pertinent maps be given to the Commission in a large map. Ms. Eng said that large tract maps will be provided to the Commission in a month, after the general plan hearing. 9. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 6:14 p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary JENNIE ENG, Secretary Principal Planner October 24, 2005