Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFeb 2, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 1- 1, 0' ` Meeting - Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas Absent: None Advisory Members: Robert Sherfy, James D. Movius, Marian Shaw, Phil Burns Staff: Jim Eggert, Jennie Eng, Dana Cornelius 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: None 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of December 12 & 15, 2005. Commissioner Spencer moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the non-public hearing items. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6505 (Hendricks Engineering) located on the northeast corner of East White Lane and Cottonwood Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 7.2) 4.2b Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6514 (Hendricks Engineering) located on the northwest corner of Cottonwood Road and Pacheco Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 7.3) 4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6615 (Quad Knopf) located on the northeast corner of Panama Lane and old River Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 7.4) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6639 (Porter- Robertson) located in the general area of the northeast corner of Stine Road and Hosking Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 7.5) 4.2e Approval of Zone Change 05-1686 (Quad Knopf) located on the east side of Progress Road (extended), approximately '/4 mile south of Panama Lane. (EIR on file) (Continued from January 19, 2006) (Agenda Item 8.1) Planning Commission - Thursday, February 2, 2006 Page 2 4.2f Approval of Zone Change 05-0493 (Moreland Consulting, Inc) located north of State Highway 119 and west State Highway 99. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 8.2) 4.2g Approval of ZUA 05-1685 (SmithTech) located at the northeast corner of Snow Road and Jenkins Road. (Negative Declaration on file) (Agenda Item 8.3) The public hearing is opened. Commissioner Tragish stated that with regard to 4.2(f), he represents the owner of the property on a related matter, and any vote that he makes for the public hearing items he will conflict out. He further stated that he would like to remove consent agenda item 4.2(e); (regular agenda item 8.1). The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Johnson, moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve the consent Calendar Public Hearing Items, minus 4.2(e). Motion carried by group vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARING — Site Plan Review No. 05-1641 (Andrew Fuller) located at 14801 Casa Club Drive (Rio Bravo Country Club) The public hearing is opened. Commissioner Johnson conflicted out of this item because his employer has a business relationship with A & E Union. Staff report given. Cliff Wagoner, 5111 Denaldo Street, and president of the Casa Club Fairway's Development, submitted a letter. Mr. Wagoner stated that the Planning Commission should find that per Municipal Code section 16.16.070, findings by advisory agency subsection a2d that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development. He further read his submitted letter into the record. Justin Vanmullen, an architect, hired by the owner and developer, discussed Los Verdes at Rio Bravo Country Club which is an in-fill project with approximately 185 homes. Mr. Vanmullen gave a presentation, and requested denial of the appeal, stating that they have worked hard with the neighbors, and they have incorporated the neighbors' input. He indicated that they have gone from apartments to town homes that are completely detached. Mr. Vanmullen stated that the design is compatible with the neighborhood, pointing out that the traffic was planned for in the master plan, and has even been reduced based on the 1995 LMR overlay. He further pointed out that the third entrance is typical and is seen right next door in the development. He stated that the perceived impacts can be mitigated, and the third entrance is necessary because of life and safety issues. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Vanmullen if he knows how many off-street parking spaces the project provides, to which Mr. Vanmullen stated they are 60 over the required two-car garages and required off-street parking. Mr. Movius stated that the plan shows 470 parking spaces and they are required to have 370 for the units and 10% for additional guest parking, which is 37 spaces. Therefore they are required by ordinance to have 407 spaces, but are providing 470 parking spaces. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of the fire department if the narrowed streets will pose a problem, to which Mr. Weirather responded that they considered additional parking areas. He indicated that the fire department needs unimpaired 20' widths to get their equipment through. Mr. Weirather stated that he does see parking in this development as a problem. Commissioner Tragish stated that today's events have to be considered, even though there were perceived plans in the past. He inquired about the accesses to this project, to which staff responded that as of today there is only one access. Commissioner Tragish inquired if when staff approves a project such as this and it only has one access at the time of approval, if there is a condition that indicates a permit can be pulled when the secondary access comes into play. Staff stated yes there would be a condition if the secondary access is necessary to the support the development. He inquired of staff if a Planning Commission - Thursday, February 2, 2006 Page 3 secondary access is not necessary to approve this project. Staff responded that this project does not need more than one access from a traffic point of view. Mr. Walker further explained that the residents in this area desire multiple access points, which has been planned and implemented with requirements of tract development with there ultimately being three access points for egress and ingress. Mr. Walker stated that based on that condition, and the fact that those will be developed in the future as the other tracts are developing; there should be more than adequate access for this development to satisfy both general capacity, and fire and safety requirements. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Weirather if there needs to be a secondary access for the purpose of fire access and safety upon build out. Mr. Weirather responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the property had a secondary access if that would satisfy the fire and safety issues, to which Mr. Weirather responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Tragish inquired if the conditions contain a condition that before the project can go forward it has to wait until the secondary access is available. Staff responded that that condition is not included currently. Staff showed where there is a secondary access. Commissioner Tragish inquired of Mr. Weirather whether Staff's presentation of a secondary access is sufficient, to which Mr. Weirather stated that it is not sufficient with respect to an emergency vehicle entering into that portion of the community. Mr. Weirather further stated that this is a wild land interface area, which is a flash-type fire danger. He stated that currently the bottleneck for emergency evacuation would be at Merimonte and 178. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they can add a condition of approval stating that the project could proceed subsequent to the secondary access opening to the south. Staff stated that this condition could be added. Commissioner Lomas asked for clarification on page 2 of the staff report, which states, "Furthermore, the traffic engineer notes that multi-family developments generate 30% less vehicle trips per day than single family developments." She inquired if this project is single family or multi-family and what numbers were used to generate the traffic numbers. Staff responded that multi-family area developments, which this project is considered multi-family, so it would be under that category of trip generation that would be considered multi-family. Staff indicated that the density determines if it is multi-family, and the fact that these are on private drive-way type streets. Commissioner Lomas inquired about the street width, and if it would be covered by a Homeowner's Association to which Mr. Vanmullen responded in the affirmative. Mr. Vanmullen stated that by design you cannot park on the street because the driveways are so close together. He stated that they intend to red curb the project. He further indicated that there will not be parking on the driveways, and that is why they have the extra 63 public spaces. He further indicated that they will require that all garages be maintained as accessible for their vehicles. Mr. Vanmullen further pointed out that there is an access that is being paved currently that is to the south of this project. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Staff about the street width and the problems with the fire department, pointing out that the only solution she can see is that the homeowner's association paint the curbs red, and if the Planning Commission can make this type of condition. Staff responded that painting the curbs red is a fine condition, and agrees with that because of the design and backing out of the garages, there will not be too much of a problem. Commissioner Blockley stated that there were five items identified in the staff report regarding the appeal, and the city has followed up the five items by the appellants with countering information that seems to indicate that the original approval was done correctly. He stated that Mr. Wagoner's additional five items are somewhat different than the first, and inquired if the testimony and questioning should address these five particular items. Staff responded that under project scale it was addressed when discussing density, and also the reference to Title 16 is regarding subdivision approval, and not site plan review approval. Staff indicated that they have addressed the fire department concerns, the Denaldo entrances, and two access routes were addressed, as well as the traffic information. Staff stated that there has been testimony in response to address all the issues raised. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of Mr. Weirather if the proposed secondary access with the red curbing, satisfies the fire issues. Mr. Weirather stated that they would like to see more enforcement and Planning Commission - Thursday, February 2, 2006 Page 4 controlling factor, and would like to see as a condition that the homeowner's association would be subject to fine for illegal parking. Commissioner McGinnis asked the City Attorney to respond to Mr. Weirather's request for a condition. The City Attorney responded that the best way to resolve this issue is to require the homeowner's association to enforce the illegal parking against the individual homeowners, and include it in the CC&R's. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of the applicant's opinion as to this type of CC&R parking violations, to which Mr. Vanmullen stated that they would like to request the option of having either red curbs or signs that meet the fire department standards for aesthetics, and believes that self-policing is the absolute best way to control something, as well as through good design. He indicated that they intend to have CC&R's that fines residents not only for parking on the street, but also for not being able to park in their garages. Mr. Vanmullen stated that it is important to stress that the design requires that you do not park on the street, and that he could live with the CC&R's. Mr. Vanmullen stated that there will be an active homeowner's association, and because it is a source of revenue it will be something that will ignite the managers to police. Commissioner Lomas inquired of Mr. Weirather about Mr. Vanmullen's comments, and the fact that the fire department cannot go into these private communities and give citations. Mr. Weirather stated that the mechanism for enforcement is to require the CC&R's to require it, and have the homeowner's association enforce it against the individual residents. He further stated that the discussions going on with the City Attorney about enforcement is questionable as to its legal standing. He further stated that they question if there are other examples in the community and if the CC&R's and policing activities effective. Mr. Weirather stated that if it is a revenue source then there are enough violations that it doesn't work, because if there is such a demand of vehicles for that community to park on the streets that they can cite and have a reliable revenue source it is a big problem. Commissioner Lomas stated that the applicant assured that they would police themselves because it was viewed as a possible revenue source in that it was good for the health of the financial solvency of the homeowner's association. Commissioner Lomas commented that if the mechanisms are in place to police themselves, and it is not acceptable to the fire department, then what option is left. Staff proposed the following policing condition: "A program for enforcement of illegal parking by the homeowner's association shall be provided to the satisfaction of the fire department and City Attorney. The CC&R's shall include provisions for enforcement." If the city comes up with a policy to cite the HOA then it could be included at that time. Commissioner Tragish inquired if there is any violation regarding the depth of the driveway, to which Staff responded that it does not, as it is a common technique used so that people will not clutter their garages, and will actually use their garage to park in. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they deny the appeal if they can add conditions, and if it is denied if it goes to the City Council. Staff responded that if the appeal is denied which would approve the project, conditions could be added because they are related to health and safety impacts. Staff indicated that it would not go on to Council unless it is appealed again, and if there is no appeal then it would go directly to staff to prepare the Resolution subject to the conditions. Commissioner Blockley inquired of the applicant about the width of the garage door, the width of the sidewalks and setbacks and garage doors. Mr. Vanmullen responded that the width of the garage door is a typical 16' width, and that there are no sidewalks on the 28' wide streets. He further indicated that the setback between buildings is approximately 10'. Commissioner Blockley inquired what the distance is between the street to the face of the garage door. Mr. Vanmullen stated that it various but there is maybe 5', which is not enough to park a car in front of the garage the way it is designed. Commissioner Blockley stated that there is room on a temporary basis to park the vehicle, get out, remove the delivery package while parked in front of someone's door, make the delivery and leave, but beyond that it would be a huge problem. He indicated that he agrees that the design precludes on-street parking. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there is another example in town, to which Staff responded that there is usually a minimum of 25', so this project has 3' extra. He further inquired if with the number of units being put on this acreage if it is on the borderline of being R-2. Staff responded that the R-2 limitation is up to 17 units per acre, and this project is a 10-unit per acre project. Commissioner Tkac stated that he thinks Planning Commission - Thursday, February 2, 2006 Page 5 this project is good use. He further inquired if the curbs will be rolling or square, to which Staff responded that the applicant is indicating the roll type. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt the attached Resolution with all the findings denying the appeal and adding the condition that a program for enforcement of illegal parking by the homeowner's association shall be, and must be, provided to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and City Attorney, and that the CC&R's shall include provisions for enforcement, with a second condition that prior to the issuance of a building permit, the southern access road to Merimonte shall be completed, and curbs adjacent to private streets within the development shall be painted, stained red, to prohibit illegal parking. Commissioner Tkac stated that he came in late, but he has briefed himself on Mr. Waggoner's comments as well as Staff's. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None Five minute recess taken. 6. PUBLIC HEARING — Proposed Street Re-naming (Don Jaeger) portion of "S" Street south of Truxtun Avenue, terminating at the Amtrak Train Station. Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Bill Murray, Chairman of the Greater Bakersfield Convention and Visitor's Bureau, gave a background of Mr. Haggard. Ann Gallan stated that she does support the name change, and thinks that Merle Haggard should be recognized. Public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac stated he has no objections. Commissioner Blockley stated that he supports the name change, and pointed out that he thinks it further extends the Bakersfield tradition of having continuous straight streets where the name changes from one intersection to another. Commissioner McGinnis inquired of the applicant if Mr. Haggard has any reaction to this proposal; Mr. Murray stated that Mr. Jaeger indicated that Mr. Haggard is in favor of this. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the issues raised by the 911 coordinator. Staff indicated that police and fire did not respond, and that the concern with 911 was regarding streets changing names. Commissioner Johnson stated he is in favor of this proposal. Commissioner Lomas inquired as to the signage, to which Staff responded they do not know. Commissioner Lomas stated that she will vote no because she does not like the changing of street names at intersections. Commissioner McGinnis moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the proposed street name change for a portion of S Street to Merle Haggard Way to become effective on May 31, 2006, tentatively, with findings set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit"A". Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish NOES: Commissioner Lomas Planning Commission - Thursday, February 2, 2006 Page 6 7. NON-PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS—Tentative Tract Maps 7.1 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 6202 (San Joaquin Engineering) located south of Paladino Drive, between Fairfax Road and Morning Drive alignment. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued from November 28, 2005 & January 5, 2006) (Note: The public hearing for this project was closed on January 5, 2006) Commissioner Tragish conflicted out of this item. Staff report given, stating that the applicant has requested a continuance to the March 2, 2006 meeting, as they want to do a presentation. Staff indicated that they would like it continued to a date uncertain as they want to make sure that staff and the public has an opportunity to review the information prior to the meeting. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to continue agenda item 7.1, regarding Vesting Tentative Tract 6202 from this date so the matter can be re-advertised for a second public hearing on the matter. Motion carried by group vote. 7.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6505 (Hendricks Engineering) located on the northeast corner of East White Lane and Cottonwood Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Heard on Consent Calendar. 7.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6514 (Hendricks Engineering) located on the northwest corner of Cottonwood Road and Pacheco Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Heard on Consent Calendar. 7.4 Vesting Tentative Tract 6615 (Quad Knopf) located on the northeast corner of Panama Lane and old River Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Heard on Consent Calendar. 7.5 Vesting Tentative Tract 6639 (Porter - Robertson) located in the general area of the northeast corner of Stine Road and Hosking Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Heard on Consent Calendar. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS —Zone Change 8.1 Zone Change 05-1686 (Quad Knopf) located on the east side of Progress Road (extended), approximately '/4 mile south of Panama Lane.(EIR on file) (Continued from January 19, 2006) Public hearing is opened. Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to staff's recommendation. Mike Phillips, Quad Knopf, stated they concur with staff's assessment. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish stated that during the break he conferred with staff and will now withdraw any questions he had. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve zone change 05- 1686 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, Exhibit "A", and recommend the same to City Council. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: Planning Commission - Thursday, February 2, 2006 Page 7 AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish, Lomas NOES: None. 8.2 Zone Change 05-0493 (Moreland Consulting, Inc) located north of State Highway 119 and west State Highway 99. (Negative Declaration on file) Heard on Consent Calendar. 8.3 ZUA 05-1685 (SmithTech) located at the northeast corner of Snow Road and Jenkins Road. (Negative Declaration on file) Heard on Consent Calendar. 9. COMMUNICATIONS: Mr. Movius updated the Planning Commission on the sidewalk design issue with the trees. The Planning Commission Committee will re-address this issue. Mr. Movius further reminded the Planning Commission of the Planner's Institute in Monterey. 10. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commissioner Lomas stated that she received something from CEWAER and provided to Staff. 11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:49 p.m. Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director February 22,2006