Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOct 3, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1- 1, 0' ` Pre-Meeting - Monday, October 3, 2005 - 12:15 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Lomas Absent: Commissioners Tkac, Tragish Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Steve Ewing Staff: Marc Gauthier, Pam Townsend 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS - None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of July 21, 2005, August 4 & 18, 2005. 4.2 Public Hearing Items -None 5. WALL AND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 6347 (Phillip Gaskill) Staff report given. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the surplus of earth that looks like a hill. Staff responded that it is a stock pile of earth that was removed as part of the grading process and that it will not be permanent. Commissioner Lomas inquired on conditions of approval number two and what an earth tone is. Staff responded that it is a color. 6. PUBLIC HEARING—Vesting Tentative Tract 6543 (L. Alberto Lopez) Staff report given. Commissioner Johnson asked if lots 7 & 8 front Crescent, to which Staff responded yes. Staff has required that one of the lots under 6,000 sq. ft. that did not meet frontage requirements and will be merged into one larger lot in that area. Commissioner Johnson further inquired that if it does front Crescent if it shouldn't be subjected to the same conditions as 1-6 of leaving them out of the homeowner's association because they will not have access to that Andalousa. Staff responded that although those lots will not have access to that road, it will have a side property line along the road that could possibly benefit from the landscaping and pavement. Commissioner Lomas inquired about combining lots 7 & 8 and not allowing access on Crescent, and have access from within the tract. Staff responded that with the gate in the area it would not function properly if the driveway was in another location. Planning Commission - Monday, October 3, 2005 Page 2 Commissioner Spencer inquired if the requirement for the block walls adjacent to the alley is due to vandalism in the area. Staff responded that the apartments have free access and Staff felt it would be more appropriate for them to take their access off the interior. Commissioner Spencer further inquired about the area adjacent to 17 on the south, to which Staff responded that it is an emergency access between the alley and the private street for fire department use, and is not an actual lot. The area east of the alley is an area that is basically unused alley space, and is a remnant because there is a wall between the apartments and the alley in this area. Commissioner Spencer stated those areas are his concern. Commissioner Johnson inquired if lots 9-15 could have a standard wood fence, to which Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Lomas inquired what is east of lot 1, and why there is not a block wall requirement at this point. Staff responded that it is an apartment unit, and that there may already be a wall there. Staff indicated they will check on this. Commissioner Lomas further inquired about the entrance north of lot 8 and if it is all landscaped and maintained by the HOA. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Blockley inquired about sidewalks on one side only. Staff responded that they are not aware of any special circumstances regarding this and that they will check on this for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Spencer inquired about the abandonment of the alley, to which Staff responded that they are checking parts of the alley and the turnarounds. Staff responded they will provide more information at Thursday's meeting. Staff further commented that they had to balance whether or not it would be preferable to extend the alley through, or to leave it with turnarounds and have lots extend all the way into the areas. Staff decided that it was advantageous for safety reasons and for actually cars to be able to use the alley to make the alley go all the way through, even though it does end up with the two areas that are unpreferable. Staff further indicated that condition 4.1.4 looks at the abandonment of the alley issue. Commissioner Lomas inquired if the alley is covered by the HOA, to which Staff responded that the alley will be city maintained. Staff responded that they will make it a condition that the alley be paved and not just dirt. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT / GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT / Land Use Element Amendment/Zone Change: 7.1a,b,&c) Certification Of Final Environmental Impact Report (Feir), GPA/ZC 04-1012 (McCutchen 110) (Haroon Rivani) (Adjacent to Wards 5 &6) Staff report given. Commissioner Johnson inquired if Staff could point out the second cement facility, Commissioner Lomas inquired about the applicant's request for a dedicated road that the City would be responsible to maintain. Staff stated that it might be a portion that is off site, but that they would have to look at this closer for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Lomas further inquired about mitigation measures for construction of a 10' wall and "only homes should be constructed to the wall." Staff responded that the applicant is only proposing to build homes. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS — ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT / GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT / Land Use Element Amendment/Zone Change/Williamson Act Contract Cancellation: 8.1a,bc,&d) Certification Of Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), GPA/ZC 03-1528 (Old River Ranch) (PB Ventures LLC) (Adjacent to Wards 5 & 6) Staff report given. Commissioner Spencer inquired where the R-3 zoning is located. Staff responded he has not seen it. Staff responded that there may have been some more than a year ago, but there is not anymore. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the beltways timeline with this development. Staff responded they will submit a memo on Thursday with the beltway timelines. He further inquired about designated areas for apartments, and if the 454 multi-family units in phase two would be the apartment units, or the condo units. Staff Planning Commission - Monday, October 3, 2005 Page 3 responded that they would be multifamily residential, and whether they would be rented or owned is not determined. Staff indicated that the Commission determines density and the developer determines ownership. Commissioner Lomas further inquired about the south beltway alignment to which Staff responded that the supervisors have modified and granted a south beltway but it needs to come back before the Commission with the modifications in the year 2006. Commissioner Lomas asked if they will see the Development Agreement? Staff stated that it is attached to the zoning ordinance resolution. Staff stated that it seems to be an ongoing negotiation between the city manager and the applicant themselves. They are talking about having every single unit out there pay $500/year towards the development and ongoing maintenance of the fire station out in the area. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the commercial at the corner and what they could do to ensure that that takes place. Staff responded that if something comes in commercial the whole frontage is built. Commissioner Lomas pointed out that commercial may not come in for 10 years and would like to get the corners improved in the beginning. Staff further stated that when the parcel map comes in they require a phasing plan for improvements at that time, and an actual planning document is submitted, and is therefore looked at at the subdivision map time. Staff indicated that a general condition could be applied that when a parcel map is submitted, a phasing plan be part of the submittal. Staff further indicated that the parcel map would split off the large chunks as opposed to a tentative tract that would take each of the parcels created by the parcel map and split it off. Staff gets to determine if the commercial is shown not a part because they may very well want it as a parcel and require improvements along the frontage. Commissioner Lomas inquired what latitude the Commission has on this issue. Staff indicated that they will come up with some general condition to be added so that it gets looked at at a later date and gives the Commission authority. Commissioner Lomas further inquired about the wording in mineral resources and the determination that the impacts would be less then specific. She inquired why it doesn't say less then significant with mitigation as it is in an oil ranch. Staff responded that there was no defined level of significance. Staff indicated that this project's less than significance is a lot less than the issue in the previous Paladino matter. Staff responded that it is not mitigation and that an adopted policy or an ordinance does not have to be mentioned as mitigation because it's going to be carried through regardless. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the Statement of Fact, Findings and Mitigation Measures, about page 37, MMAGR 3.1, and why there is an option of use of a disclosure form regarding adjacent agricultural uses, rather than requiring a covenant that runs with the land. Staff responded that they should be able to see what gets put on there, and a covenant may be a more appropriate way to handle this issue. Staff indicated they will provide more information at Thursday's meeting. Commissioner McGinnis inquired about bus stops, and the budget for GET to serve this area, and any provisions within this to provide for this service. Staff responded that the provisions are not directly tied to the approval of this project. Staff indicated that normal review standards for the city are that all tracts and all site plan review for commercial and apartments go to GET and they make determinations as to where the sites go, and whether there are turnouts, and then it becomes a condition of that particular project. Staff indicated that funding sources are not identified with individual projects. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if Staff could contact GET for their input before Thursday's meeting. Staff responded that they would contact GET. Commissioner Lomas commented that there is a comment letter from GET in the environmental document, which indicates that the current draft EIR does not include a discussion of public transportation, and since the area is a non-attainment area for air quality they recommend that the following be included in the EIR as a mitigation measure: 1)specific bus turnouts and shelter shall be located as necessary at appropriate locations to serve residential, commercial and school sites within the project area in consultation with GET District. 2) The bus turnouts and shelters should be planned by developers in the project area and local transportation coordinating entities to encourage the efficient and practical use of public transit entity servicing the project area. Planning Commission - Monday, October 3, 2005 Page 4 Commissioner Lomas further read from the GET letter stating, "The city does not intend to include the suggested mitigation measure in the EIR because there are no specific impacts that would require mitigation." She further read, "However the applicant has agreed to provide for these facilities during preparation of future tenant tract maps." Commissioner Lomas inquired if they could readdress her concern about development of the corners with the wording that GET is using. Staff responded that they will work on this for Thursday's meeting. Commissioner Spencer inquired if there is a building design criteria to assure people that will be living adjacent to these commercial sites are protected. Staff indicated that they would not typically recommend and put as part of a motion to the Commission that the R2 zones be PUD overlay zones. Staff indicated that the Commission could put a PCD on the zones that are believed to be potential problem area, however cautioned that it is not appropriate at this stage to address the actual design criteria because it's a GPA, but the PCD would allow the Commission to regulate what they want to look at. 9. General Plan Amendment 05-1135 (City of Bakersfield) located city-wide. Commissioners are ready to be appointed to this committee. 10. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff indicated the PC should have received a memorandum dated September 27, 2005 regarding Air Quality Trans General Information, which is excerpt from the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality of the 2005 edition, published by the California air Resources Board, indicating positive trends for air quality. Staff indicated that a news release, dated September 14, 2005, form the SJVAPCD was sent out regarding positive trends and particulate matter issues. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Lomas stated that they are talking more about walkable communities, and indicated that she was up in the Silicon Valley area looking at a walkable community, and commented that it looked great, but also looked like they cut back on parking requirements, and it did not work. Staff commented that one of the underlying themes, and one of the components of formed based zoning and walkable communities is that you do cut back on parking. Staff indicated that a lot of it is based on shared parking issues where people can park between uses. Form based zoning and walkable communities don't work if you do it half-way. Staff indicated that you have to put all of the necessary ingredients into it you can't reduce parking because you're not doing the job. Staff indicated that the City has standards on the size of a parking space, which is now 9-/2X 18. 12. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at p.m. Pam Townsend, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director November 23, 2005